Recent Comments
- Custador: I’ll explain this slowly so that even a... on Homosexual marriage: a ruse to persecute Christians?
- John Monett: To say that Christians persecute is generalized... on Homosexual marriage: a ruse to persecute Christians?
- Custador: Okay. First of all, let’s examine the mathematics of the Great... on John Piper and Divine Command
- John Monett: Why would the author of “Homosexual... on Homosexual marriage: a ruse to persecute Christians?
- NoYourGod: Holy f***ing (bull)s**t… on Still Earth
- ExpatPaul: Failing to give somebody special privileges that they try to demand over... on Religious tollerence
Funny $&#!@ From 9 Laughs
I'm one of the contributors to 9 Laughs:
Subscribe by Email
Archives
I forget the name of that host on Radio 2, but he’s a total dick!
1pt for Richard.
The presenter is Steve Wright I believe. I think Dawkins kind of makes a meal of this, he keeps talking about fiction and literature, but this is a song, and while I get what he means the comparison is a bit clumsy and likely not clear enough for many theists to see his point. A more fitting analogy would be for him to say he enjoys singing along to Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds but that doesn’t mean he either believes in any of the images in the song or that he takes LSD. It’s just an enjoyable song and people like to sing along.
The presenter is David Vine, but Custador’s description is not a million miles off.
Steve Wright’s a nice enough guy. David Vine is one of those arse-hats who picks the most right-wing nonsense from a tabloid frontpage every day and has outraged middle-class idiots phone in and be outraged about it. It really, really pisses me off that the BBC pays for him to do it, I must say.
Not that it makes any difference to the discussion but the DJ is Jeremy Vine, not David. He is, however, still an arse-hat.
Rik – I stand corrected. Of course it’s Jeremy.
On reflection, I think it would have made a far more entertaining show if it actually had have been David Vine. :)
I felt kind of offended that he stated Americans should grow up reading the bible because we are a ‘culturally christian’ nation? My daughters will be going nowhere near a bible; it is one of the worst assembly of books ever published. I don’t need anything dumbing them down. America is a free nation, no matter what the religious nuts think it should be. I am grateful everyday that I don’t have to raise my kids in the same confusing, senseless cloud that I was brought up in.
This was an interview on UK radio and the culturally christian nation Dawkins was talking about was Britain not America. The point he was making that, evil fictional bilge or not, the Bible sits somewhere near the centre of a great deal of english literature and a knowledge of it is fairly necessary to understand the references in a huge range of the “classics”, including Shakespeare. If you teach your children to understand it in context (ie what it says and why it’s bilge) it can do them a lot of good. To keep them completely ignorant of it when it has such cultural weight seems a little short-sighted.
I feel religion is something that doesn’t need to be addressed to children unless they bring it up (in which case I would answer in a truthful yet tactful manner). To me, these philisohpical issues are something that requires much educated and intellectual thought, something a young child, frankly, would care less about…unless they are indoctorinated early on. Also, I didn’t realize Britian was the country they were referring to, I admit I don’t know much about their culture in depth.
Well, all I can say is forewarned is forearmed. Tell them the truth before somebody else gets to them. And, like I (and Dawkins) said, it IS a foundation from which a great deal of fabulous culture stems. As revolting as a lot of what the Bible says is, it is undeniably a huge influence on a great number of artists and writers and is an inspiration for some of the greatest works of humankind. I would say that an education is incomplete without at least some knowledge of the “holy” books. Just my opinion.
I think children’s exposure to the bible should be age-appropriate, and placed in the context of fictional but important literature. Children should be taught that this is what many people believe (in North America, by FAR the majority) – to be fore-warned is to be fore-armed. But don’t tell kids the story of Esau & Abraham, or any other horror stories, when they are too young. My sister and I had nightmares for YEARS because of these stories. They had a SERIOUS negative impact on our development. Of course, in our case, they were taught as true, which is so much more damaging, as well as in a dysfunctional christian household (which makes children so much more vulnerable to pschological abuse). If in doubt about the appropriate line, err on the side of NOT exposing children to it. They’ll have to deal with it soon enough. But Kimberley, can’t help but be a little envious of your kids…
Dawkins is obviously a Mytheist.
Excellent link. Don’t forget to support the Atheist community on youtube by subscribing to the user that uploaded the video. I hear he is a really awesome, talented and incredibly handsome individual.
I dont know about this. The fact that the songs and stories are directly linked to the Christian religion make this pretty sketchy. Most people would assume you were a Christian if they saw you in a church, its just common sense. If you go to a Buddhist Cathedral and started participating in their rituals it would most obviously be assumed you were a Buddhist. If you have a problem with a religion and its histories of violence, then why would you go out of your way to participate in its rituals? If I hate Buddha and all that he stands for I’m not gonna go to a Buddhist Cathedral because I enjoy the mood or incense that is being placed at the time.
I get what you’re saying. For me in particular, I cannot go to church right now at all because I feel like it is not integrity for me to be there. People seeing me there assume I believe as they do, which I do not, so it is like lying to them. I accompanied by parents to their church about 2 years ago, to make my mother happy, and I felt so dirty being there I vowed that I would not do that again. I think I might eventually be able to tolerate it, but not now. But I also understand the point Hawkins is making – that is that we are of a christian “culture” even when our belief system is completely opposed to christianity. I love xmas carols, the gaudy decorations and lights, trees, etc. It’s a wonderful part of my history and heritage (and for me in particular, it was the one day a year our family actually got along, so that “peace on earth” thing wasn’t just words). I also love Halloween because I get to dress up and explore my dark side. Valentines Day and Thanksgiving are great too (Still haven’t found the charm of easter – celebrating the torture & death of someone, and then the fictitious coming-back-to-life thing just doesn’t quite do it for me – but I do like chocolate easter bunnies). These are our cultural traditions, and I totally separate them from any religious connotations.
Oh absolutely, I enjoy all of our holidays, but just like you I find it hard to sit in a church whilst everyone speaks to me as if I believe. Then I get to either play silent and tell a white lie or I can simply tell them I don’t believe as they do. Which then turns into the church hating me or paying an insane and uncomfortable amount of attention to me. Which in the end turns into ” Well if your not gonna believe then just leave, your gonna go to hell though if you don’t believe.”
My main problem is with church, I enjoy the holidays because its a family thing that is often more about Santa Clause, The Easter Bunny, Love/Sex, Chocolates, Candy and Costumes than anything else. Church is more strict in that its for the followers of that faith.
I can believe that. In Dawkins defence, I have to say, though, that the church and its services in the UK is/are nowhere near as bonkers as they are in the US.