1951. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #101707 by Bonzai on December 20, 2007 at 7:42 pm

who created your GOD. If nothing comes from nothing your GOD must have had a creator?

He created his God. People create God whenever they are stumped by a question that they can't answer. They use God as a all purpose stand in for "I don't know".

Imagine writing an exam and you can't answer a question. If you just make up an answer, give it a fancy name and postulate a list of properties which amongs to restating the question, you would get a big fat zero. I don't see why any invocation of "God" in cosmology (or any area in the frontier of science) should be taken any more seriously.

1952. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #101700 by Bonzai on December 20, 2007 at 7:20 pm

So what is the conclusion now? God created the universe through quantum fluctuations??!! So God is a compulsive gambler who created the universe by placing bets on quantum events??!! In some circle that might be considered blasphemy.

1953. Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

Comment #101601 by Bonzai on December 20, 2007 at 2:55 pm

An even better point. I agree 100%. It feeds off itself. I think religion is an evolutionary outcome of something. I wonder what it serves to then feed off an evolutionary mistake? Maybe it doesn't serve at all.

There are several theories.

The best one IMO is the so called "by-product" theory. According to the proponents religion itself is not selected by evolution, but it is an off shoot of other things that are selected. For examples, abstract thinking, tendency to ascribe agency to natural events and so on. Scott Atran is a proponent of this line of thinking.

Another theory is group selection. David Slone Wilson is the representative of this school. Group selection, however, is not mainstream in evolutionary biology.

Finally there is Dawkins' mematics. But IMO this is not really evolutionary science, it is just an analogy of sort. I think it is quite off base when applied to religion because religion is not transmitted with high fidelity like genes, it is not a stable entity that some selective mechanisms can act on.

1954. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101594 by Bonzai on December 20, 2007 at 2:42 pm

I certainly have, in some Christian weddings.

Yes, but as long as it is not in all weddings, or at least the majority of them, it is not an integral part of a heterosexual wedding.

So going back to the original argument. How do you avoid creating the impression that you are secretly wanting a heterosexual lifestyle by copying their marriage institution? I don't know what your wedding was like, but I know of some Lesbians who actually dressed up as brides and grooms with all the trappings of a heterosexual wedding.

Fair enough, but these are the exceptions. The major Christian denominations have very different views.

In Canada the United Church is one of the biggest, if not the biggest Christian Church. There are four of them within walking distance from where I live and there are five, if I count the Metropolitan Community Church, which is mostly gay.

1955. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101577 by Bonzai on December 20, 2007 at 2:25 pm

Steve,

There was no talk of "being fruitful"

Maybe I am naive, but I can't recall hearing talks of "being fruitful" in heterosexual weddings either.

There is such a thing as support by association. For example, if there is a club that is racially segreggated, then if you use that club you are giving support to the views even if you don't utter a single racist word.

Yes, so with that in mind I probably won't go to a Catholic Church. But there are many gay friendly churches in Toronto where I live, even though they are not "gay Churches" (there is one). Many United Churches have rainbow signs outside and they do gay marriage. I can't see any guilt by association.

1956. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101561 by Bonzai on December 20, 2007 at 2:08 pm

Steve,

By getting married (as I have), it was a symbol of equality with heterosexuals. The ceremony was written to as to celebrate love independent of gender. It was equivalent to keeping the tune of a hymn, but changing the words to something more appropriate.

I am sure you have good reasons to support SSM, but it is a separate issue altogether. The homophobe would still say, look, the gay guys are thinking that they are husbands and wives!

I am specifically addressing your argument about actions that may give "the enemies" a superficial excuse to misrepresent your intent,--that has little to do with what you truly think, it is their perceptions,--this is certainly an apt analogy.

And, can I ask you - do you truly feel comfortable singing or saying words that celebrate religions which currently are actively oppressing gay people? Is thinking to yourself "these words really don't mean anything to me" really enough?

Well except perhaps in the Westboro Baptist Church I can't say I have heard any Christmas hymn with an anti-homosexual theme.

1957. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101551 by Bonzai on December 20, 2007 at 1:53 pm

Good post Brian, as usual.

I will sing along with you when the beardy swordsmen show up. :)

1958. Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

Comment #101540 by Bonzai on December 20, 2007 at 1:46 pm

But you still don't get it. It's not about subs or planes -- you assumed that Nazis were atheists!

So they were nominal Christians. Where did Jesus say suicide attack is OK?

You are changing the argument here. First it was that Muslims perpetrate suicide bombings because of the inducement of the 72 virgins etc. Then somehow you generalize it to cover all theists. Even you can see that is illogical.

1959. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101536 by Bonzai on December 20, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Comment #101507 by Frankus1122

Can't put it better myself.

1960. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101532 by Bonzai on December 20, 2007 at 1:35 pm

Steve

There is a real issue with those who attack atheism as leading to nihilism seeing atheists in church or carol services and claiming that this makes their case - atheists need the ritual and ceremony and meaning of such rituals and ceremonies. No amount of protesting from us will counter such attacks.

So would you object to same sex marriage on the ground that gay people, by adopting the trappings and ceremonies of heterosexual marriage would allow the homophobes to argue that even homosexuals know in their hearts that their lifestyle is unnatural and secretly wanting to be heteros?

Same logic.

I have the feeling that you will comment on this even though you said you would stop posting on this thread. :)

1961. Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

Comment #101449 by Bonzai on December 20, 2007 at 11:25 am

No, can't do. By definition a Buddha is someone who has already transcended the cycle of reincarnation, so you can't reincarnate as a Buddha, he is out of circulation. :-)

1962. Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

Comment #101438 by Bonzai on December 20, 2007 at 11:11 am

So, if you O.D. on morphine to kill yourself, that wouldn't be a bad way to spend eternity. Stupid God, can't even close the loopholes.

:)

Reminds me of a joke about a loop hole in Buddhism. A monk told this little boy that it was wrong to kill living things and whatever one killed in this life, he would turn into that in his next reincarnation. The little boy thought for a while, and said, ah, now I know I will want to grow up to be a murderer.

1963. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101432 by Bonzai on December 20, 2007 at 11:05 am

DR. Benway,

Wise words!

1964. Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

Comment #101427 by Bonzai on December 20, 2007 at 10:57 am

black wolf

It is actually irrelevant if Islam prohibits suicide. When someone redefines his or others' suicide as defense of a supreme ideal that is not to be questioned, moderate theology is impotent. That's the crux with moderate religion: it is powerless to prevent violence and disaster while selling hope to those who survive by chance.

The injunction against suicide is not from "moderate Islam". It is in the Quran and is a mainstream belief of adulterer stoning, limb chopping Islam. Vinelectric can correct me if I am wrong, the punishment for suicide in the afterlife is the eternal re-enactment of the suicide act, there is no 72 virgins or rivers of wine.

I have heard very conservative Muslim scholars arguing that suicide bombing doesn't qualify as martyrdom because the martyr must die by the enemies' hands while the suicide bombers die by their own hands.

1965. Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

Comment #101419 by Bonzai on December 20, 2007 at 10:46 am

Vinelectric,

It seems that you have changed your view quite a bit recently, or is it just my impression? :)

Actually I find al-rawandi makes a lot of sense.

1966. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101409 by Bonzai on December 20, 2007 at 10:18 am

Steve,

Are you really saying that feeling uncomfortable singing "Praise the Lord!" if you don't believe it and, that to avoid doing so where it is reasonable is is very peculiar?

If I understand you correctly, you weren't just saying you feel uncomfortable doing it, but with analogies like a man on diet shouldn't be caught eating a Mars bar you suggested that you find there is something fundamentally inconsistent and irrational for atheists to sing carols or otherwise participate in Christmas celebrations that may involve religious themes. I have to respond since you are making statements that go beyond your own personal taste.

Edit I think you can appreciate the difference in saying "I am not gay because I just have no sexual feeling for men" and "I am not gay because I think homosexuality is unnatural for reasons X Y Z"

Would I find it odd to recite "Praise the Lord" even if I don't believe? That would depend on the context. If you can turn "praise the Lord" into an art form I have no problem in reciting it. I listen to a lot of Latino and African music, sometimes even mouth along. I have no clue what they are singing, but the music is good, it makes you want to dance and the human voice itself is an exquisite instrument. You can appreciate the passion and pathos even though you don't know the words or don't really care. Art is multi-level, you can't reduce it to just the "message".

1967. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101403 by Bonzai on December 20, 2007 at 10:11 am

Paula,

Mozart's Requiem would be my "must have" piece of music on a desert island. But there again, that has completed the transition from being a purely religious work to being a purely secular one - with maybe just the very VERY occasional exception. Carols haven't.

That is what I don't get. Why must a religious work be translated into a "purely secular one" in order that we, as atheists can appreciate?

How would the St. Peter's Cathedral, the Greek temples or a vast repository of sacred music ever make that transition? I certainly can't see it.

1968. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101395 by Bonzai on December 20, 2007 at 9:57 am

Steve,

I am afraid I just can't see where you are coming from. I think you are confusing not wanting to partipate in something youself, and dictating that no-one else should.

Actually I don't know where you're coming from. No one started a thread asking how you, or I for that matter like to spend our Christmas holidays. It is about RD's "confession" that he is a cultural Christian and participates in traditional Christmas celebrations.

Then the question of inconsistency arises and one poster here was so indignant that he actually made a point of changing the "four horsemen" to "three horsemen" (I think that is a silly reference anyway). Others join in arguing that it is unprincipled for atheists to part take in religious celebrations etc.

So now you are telling me you are just expressing your own preference? Maybe you are,-and in a very peculiar way I should add,-- but others certainly aren't and I don't see why there would be a thread for our personal holiday plans.

Anyway,

Happy holidays to you too.

1969. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101376 by Bonzai on December 20, 2007 at 9:32 am

Steve,

I see no fuss over decorations, the giving of presents, the installation of trees, the eating of turkey, watching the Dr Who Christmas Day special...

Yes, and shop til you drop and send Hall Mark cards.. I didn't mean a "secular" shopping mall Christmas. I meant real Christmas celebrations with nativity plays, carol singing and mid night masses, dripping with religious references. Those are parts of culture, just like St. Peter's Cathedral is a part of culture.

Atheists confirm the stereotype of being humourless killjoys by insisting on going out of their ways to expunge any religious theme and myth in folk festivities and traditions, turning everything sterile and barren like a hospital room.

That is even a bigger PR disaster if you must think in those terms.

1970. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101372 by Bonzai on December 20, 2007 at 9:27 am

Paula,

My concern is purely connected to whether it is wise or not, whether it is helpful or not, for atheists to take part in a religious carol service.

I understand your point, I just disagree with it.

1) We can't run our lives according to expectations of fundies. I can't care less about PR; we are not at war.

2) A lot of believers understand that non believers participate in things like carol singing and mid night masses as a part of tradition and common heritage. Instead of seizing that as an opportunity to preach or attack my experience is that they actually appreciate that as a show of good will. Not all religious people are narrow minded. fundamentalist idiots. I think some people here are allowing their war rhetorics to cloud their judgments, that is irrational.

1971. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101352 by Bonzai on December 20, 2007 at 9:10 am

No-one is claiming that it is just about Christian dogmas.

It is certainly implied, otherwise what's the fuss all about?

OK, a final example. Suppose you heard that Richard Dawkins has turned up at the Group Selectionist Dinner, and had joined in the traditional pre-meal chant of Group Selection dogma....

Is "group selection" day a widely practiced cultural event? I look up my calender and can't find any entry on it.

A "group selection dinner" is all about ideology and nothing else. By drawing the parallel you are saying that carol singing and Christmas celebrations with religious connotations are just about Christian dogma and nothing else, even as you denied that just one paragraph ago.

RD does turn up in Oxford dinners and says grace as a part of tradition. I see nothing wrong with it, nor do I see any need for rationalization.

1972. Three wise men just legend: archbishop

Comment #101349 by Bonzai on December 20, 2007 at 9:06 am

I don't see this as a "gotcha" moment. The mainstream Churches have acknowledged that the three wise men story was probably a myth long time ago. A Catholic nun told me that something like a decade ago.

1973. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101339 by Bonzai on December 20, 2007 at 8:57 am

It's just that impressions impress, and I do think that, in order to have maximum impact, we need to think about the impressions we create about ourselves. Even Al-Qaeda are evidently getting media-savvy these days. Like it or not (and I don't, particularly), PR does matter.

Sorry, I wouldn't run my life based on fundi expectations.

Most reasonable people, even believers, understand that Christmas is not just a religious event, it is time for community, family and friends and hopefully, also a time for contemplation. Give people some credits, just because they believe in God doesn't mean that they are idiots through and through.

1974. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101336 by Bonzai on December 20, 2007 at 8:48 am

What are we all supposed to say during an orgasm?

Maybe " ^^%%$# argh..argh..."?

1975. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101328 by Bonzai on December 20, 2007 at 8:36 am

Is it unprincipled to visit the st. Peter Cathedral or appreciate the sculptures of Michael Angelo?

Religion is a part of our history, a lot of great human achievements in the arts were inspired by religion. We can reject the metaphysical claims of religion and the dogmas of the Churches and Mosques but we cannot and should not reject wholesale everything that has a religious theme or connotation. Sacred music and art, glorious architectures are not just billboards for religion, they are records of human imagination, ingenuity and effort. I see nothing "inconsistent" or hypocritical in admiring them even as an atheist.

As I said before, only a Christian fundamentalist would think that Christmas is just about Christian dogmas and nothing else; it is only to a fundamentalist mind that participating in Christmas would require any "rationalization" on our part. I require no more "rationalization" to take part in Christmas celebrations than I would for visiting St.Peter Cathedral.

Rejecting God is not the same as rejecting culture and there is no logical reason that one must follow the other.

I agree with Brain that we are absolutely not at war with theists.

1976. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #101079 by Bonzai on December 19, 2007 at 7:23 pm

look i'm tired i have school in the morning i'll deal with this tomorrow

I figured. So tell me is this how you do your homework, if there is a question you don't know the answer to you just make up some story and say you solve the problem because you have an answer? How do you know it is the right answer?

1977. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #101072 by Bonzai on December 19, 2007 at 7:19 pm

what created gravity? what created time?

How is that an evidence for Islam? Just because you can make up an answer to some question it doesn't mean it is the right answer, anyone can make up answers in case you don't know.

1978. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #101057 by Bonzai on December 19, 2007 at 7:07 pm

Goldy,

Wonder where Fanusi is - thought he'd be here quicker than Bill Clinton on an intern...

I am wondering the same thing.. just when he can be of some use and he is gone for the holidays. LOL

1979. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #101053 by Bonzai on December 19, 2007 at 7:04 pm

Steve,

Finding names on fish is not really evidence is it? There are two reasons. First, there are so many fish and so many patterns that you can find anything if you wait long enough. It is like looking for patterns in clouds. I am sure you realise that. Secondly, people have been claiming that they have found similar symbols related to just about every religion that there is.

Third reason. Photoshop.

1980. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #101046 by Bonzai on December 19, 2007 at 7:00 pm

Where did matter come from?,what created matter?

Where did Allah come from, what created Allah? Why did he speak Arabic? Does he have a beard?

So if you don't know the answer to some question you just make up a story and say this is an answer? I hope you don't try to solve your math homework problems like that.

1981. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #101037 by Bonzai on December 19, 2007 at 6:55 pm

. so you have to restart your evidence in disproving that Qur'anic verses are not the words of Allah

No, it is your claim and the onus is on you to prove that 1) Allah exists and 2) the Quran is his words.

1982. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #101033 by Bonzai on December 19, 2007 at 6:52 pm

Steve,

Perhaps we could get back to the matter of you providing evidence for what you believe being true.

What evidence do you expect? If you keep pushing he(she?) is going to give you more "miracles" like finding Allah scrawed on a fish or a bull's ball, something like
http://www.geocities.com/islamicmiracles/miracles_of_allah_almighty.htm

One wonders why Allah would write his name all over the places like some teenage bathroom wall vandal.

1983. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #101018 by Bonzai on December 19, 2007 at 6:36 pm

Numerical miracle eh? It is sad that you guys have to resort to such gala trick to promote your religion.

Tolstoy's war and peace also contain numerical miracles.

http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS?service=UI&version=1.0&verb=Display&handle=euclid.ss/1009212243

1984. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #101004 by Bonzai on December 19, 2007 at 6:22 pm

Qur'an=words of Allah

It looks like we have a youtube regular here. Seems like the right level of mental competence.

1985. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #101001 by Bonzai on December 19, 2007 at 6:20 pm

Jesus is mentioned more time in the Qur'an than The prophet(as)! if God was giving the revelation to Mohammad then obviously he must be mentioned in the revelation. or else the Qur'an wouldn't make any sense at all.

It is easy to understand why Jesus was mentioned: Mohammad plagiarized wholesale from Christianity and Judiasm and he was hoping to convert the Jews and the Christians. But why would a message from God mention the messenger who was supposedly just burbing out what God dictated to the angel (why did God need a secretary?) Why would you mention the mailman in your letter?

1986. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #100996 by Bonzai on December 19, 2007 at 6:15 pm

Mansa have you seen a medium at work?

1987. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #100991 by Bonzai on December 19, 2007 at 6:12 pm

I agree with Mansa that Mohammad didn't have epilepsy, he was a plain con artist. The "revelations" were just too self serving and convenient to be the result of sporadic epileptic seizures.

1988. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #100987 by Bonzai on December 19, 2007 at 6:09 pm

Mansa,

You said that Mohammad told Muslim not to worship him but is it not true that in the Quran there are passages that describe Mohammad as the perfect creation and command Muslim to follow his example?

It seems odd that a message from God would contain a reference to the mailman whose job was supposed to just deliver the message. Far more plausible is that the whole thing was made up by Mohammad.

Seeing it like that his admonition that people should not worship him was rather insincere, exactly like Mao knowingly allowing his propaganda machine to create a personality cult and then tell the people they shouldn't worship him.

1989. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #100973 by Bonzai on December 19, 2007 at 5:59 pm

The whole peninsila of arabia were slitting each other's throats and burying babies including christians and jews before Mohammad(pbuh) came along

So you must agree with Hitchens that it is a good idea for the U.S. to invade the ME to stop stoning to death and other barbaric practices in the Muslim world.

1990. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #100962 by Bonzai on December 19, 2007 at 5:51 pm

What ego or power? He commanded people to worship god not him. no comparison to chairman mao at all.
chairman mao demanded the worship of him

Actually, the official story was that the people worshiped him spontaneously. Mao actually told people not to worship him explicitly. They persisted because they loved Mao too much.

It is on solid record that Mao did tell the people to stop worshiping him. The people, of course knew he probably didn't really mean it, or at least not as much as he said he did. Many might truly loved him, I won't rule out that possibility.

1991. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #100958 by Bonzai on December 19, 2007 at 5:45 pm

we know that because it was reported by the prophet's closest companions.

Yes, so his friends who obviously had vested interest reported that he was a good guy and that was definitive.

Mohammad only married more than 4 for tribal alliances.

I didn't ask why he married, I was saying that he couldn't have been that broke if he could afford 12 to 18 wives. The tribal alliance thing also sounds self serving but I would let it slide.

Now is it true that after each raid or battle, the booties were divided among the soldiers and tribesmen and there was always a portion reserved for "Allah"? Well what did Allah need booties for and where do you think they went?

1992. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #100952 by Bonzai on December 19, 2007 at 5:29 pm

ohammad(pbuh) gave every penny he had away and left his daughters broke. he wore plain clothes. his house was very plain. his attitude was more like an ordinary person walking down the street instead of a great statesmen general and king.

Again how do you know that? That sounded very much like historical embellishment 101.

Mohammad said a Muslim could keep four wives only if he could afford them. Now how many wives did he have? Something like 12 or 18? If he was broke it must be because they took him to the cleaner.

Also, I wouldn't be very surprised if he didn't lead an opulent life. A man could be motivated by ego or power, money doesn't have to be the only enticement. Chairman Mao wasn't a rich man, though he probably wouldn't need much money for someone in his position.

1993. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #100947 by Bonzai on December 19, 2007 at 5:22 pm

Yeah, how do you know that story? What is the source if the uncle only said that to Mohammad? Obviously he told someone about it later when he became important enough that someone would care to record it.

1994. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #100943 by Bonzai on December 19, 2007 at 5:17 pm

Mohammad was not. He rejected it at first and thought he was going insane. he was actually very afraid. he also wouldn't have risked his life if he didn't actually believe that he was called to prophecy

How do you know? Because his biographers said he said so! The unwilling or unknowing prophet is a very familiar motif btw.

1995. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #100938 by Bonzai on December 19, 2007 at 5:06 pm

If Mohammad(pbuh) was epileptic like you call claimed.

No, I don't think he was epileptic, I think he was just plainly and consciously lying, making things up as he went along. What a scoundrel.

There were many Mohammad like figures in history though most of them were not so successful and were subsequently forgotten. Joseph Smith being one, another was Hong, the leader of the Tai Ping rebellion in China around 1860's.

1996. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #100932 by Bonzai on December 19, 2007 at 4:55 pm

Hi, Paula,

No, Bonzai, if you've got that impression you've either misinterpreted something I've written, or I've expressed myself unclearly somewhere. I was never a fundamentalist.

I am sorry for misunderstanding your point and getting your background mixed up. My apologies.

I wouldn't lose sleep over PR. I think most people are mature enough to understand Christmas is not just a religious thing. Cathedrals are open for tourists these days, I think even the priests understand that the Japanese tourists taking pictures outside the St. Paul Cathedral are probably non believers. Why would anyone with common sense assume that we are closeted religionists just for celebrating Christmas?

Those who don't understand and try to make an issue out of it probably think all atheists are little Stalins anyway, you can't live your life around their expectations.

1997. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #100929 by Bonzai on December 19, 2007 at 4:47 pm

Steve,

I think people come to all kinds of arrangements. I can certainly see an arrangement where an atheist partner just does not discuss the issue of religion with their children because they do not want to offend the religious partner. I was just trying to point out that we can't assume anything really.

Well, exactly. I just want to add that many Catholics are not that serious anyway. My parents are Catholic but you won't find them defending the Pope or Church doctrines, they hardly know what the hell is going on. Mom actually told me to make sure that I use condoms if I had to sleep with someone when I left home many years ago.

People bring up their children as Catholic for various reasons. Often it is social, maybe Dad wants to network with Catholics in order to make business deals, maybe the parents want to get little Johhny into that prestigious Catholic school etc etc.. Many Catholics I know are not serious believers, the serious ones become born again Christians.

1998. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #100884 by Bonzai on December 19, 2007 at 2:14 pm

So yes, could sing carols, and I could say particular phrases. But they are still completely meaningless.

It doesn't have to be. Even though we know that movies are not real and the characters don't exist, I doubt that anyone would pay $12 to see a movie with the expectation that it would be a completely meaningless jumble of sound and images,--well except for experimental films.

Meanings can exist on many levels, factual truthfulness is only one level of meaning.

1999. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #100870 by Bonzai on December 19, 2007 at 1:31 pm

For all we know Heggard could be an atheist who takes advantage of the gullible.

2000. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #100864 by Bonzai on December 19, 2007 at 1:21 pm

Northern Bright,

o we KNOW how we leap on inconsistencies in the behaviour of people in the Christian camp. What makes us think that Christians will be any less keen to leap on inconsistencies in ours? And conversely - why is it ok for us to do something that is inconsistent with our belief on the basis that we like it, when it wasn't ok for Ted Haggard to do the same?

It is inconsistent only if you insist on seeing Christmas through purely religious lens.

For many people Christian festivals, music and traditions are not just corollaries to Biblical beliefs. They form a cultural backdrop, a language, a set of metaphors and symbols that have woven into the fabric of our society.

One cannot be a "consistent" atheist in the way you desire unless he renounces a large chunk of human civilization and heritage, good and bad. I for one would take a pass.

The world is not an axiomatic system and there are different angles to look at the same thing, or, are they really the same if you take a second look? The kind of "consistency" you insist on is only possible where there is only one meaning and one possible interpretation to events. You are trying to achieve this consistency by brutally hacking away the ambiguities which are intrinsic to the real world. You get consistency, but is it still the same thing that we are talking about, or is it just a simplified caricature you have created for yourself so you can apply binary logic to it?

Only the Christian fundamentalists would think that Christian dogmas are all that there is to Christmas, religious paintings, sacred music and the magnificent medieval architectures.

You (and RM) told us that you used to be a fundamentalist, I am afraid you have brought that mindset with you. I don't mean to be insulting but
just to express a somewhat interesting observation. I find that many of the more rigid atheists turn out to be former fundamentalists. On the other hand, those of us who have atheism as more or less our default mode (and moderate religionists such as Dawkins' Bishop friends) tend to be more flexible and see things in shades of grey. I think it is not accidental, there is something about that fundamentalist mindset that makes it easily fall for a binary view of the world, may be it is the appeal of simplistic consistency.