This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Godless

Godless - Comments

stephenray's Avatar Comment 1 by stephenray

"On the plus side, Pastor Ted is now welcome at Rick Warren's church on Sunday."

Arf, arf!!

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:12:00 UTC | #182452

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 2 by Tyler Durden

On the plus side, Pastor Ted Haggard is now welcome at Rick Warren's church on Sunday.
Why? Has Ted finally come out?

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:16:00 UTC | #182454

ghuckin's Avatar Comment 3 by ghuckin

....and Rev. John Hagee who blamed Hurricane Katrina on a vengeful God angered over a gay pride parade in New Orleans. And they did this even without Doppler radar.


They used Doppler gadar. (Also) arf, arf!!

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:25:00 UTC | #182463

ThoughtsonCommonToad's Avatar Comment 4 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

Just to refresh: it was televangelist Pat Robertson who predicted "earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly even a meteor" would hit Orlando for inviting gays to Disney World, and Rev. John Hagee who blamed Hurricane Katrina on a vengeful God angered over a gay pride parade in New Orleans.

Even though I know they said this I still think it must be some kind of Onion type joke. Poe's Law.

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:36:00 UTC | #182474

FightingFalcon's Avatar Comment 5 by FightingFalcon


Obama has been the more overtly God-centric candidate in this campaign,


[sarcasm]

Wait....isn't McCain the psychotic Christian evangelical in this race?

[/sarcasm]

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:39:00 UTC | #182477

kev_s's Avatar Comment 6 by kev_s

In case you don't follow Pharyngula too...
I thought this was interesting from Obama.
Maybe he's just a typically dishonest politician who'll say anything to get votes but this sounded like what he really thought to me.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/this_is_how_obama_could_make_m.php

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:43:00 UTC | #182482

Gregg Townsend's Avatar Comment 7 by Gregg Townsend

6. Comment #192092 by kev_s

Because Mr. Obama has said things that are the opposite of this speach...it's impossible to determine what he 'really' thinks. His critics on this website, I'm afraid, are spot on.

Sad but true.

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:46:00 UTC | #182485

ThoughtsonCommonToad's Avatar Comment 8 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

Because Mr. Obama has said things that are the opposite of this speach...it's impossible to determine what he 'really' thinks. His critics on this website, I'm afraid, are spot on.

He hasn't, not contradictory, just less explicit.

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:51:00 UTC | #182487

robotaholic's Avatar Comment 9 by robotaholic

hahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!! Pastor TED -

oh yeah ARF ARF

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:58:00 UTC | #182496

FightingFalcon's Avatar Comment 10 by FightingFalcon

Reply to Comment #6....

I'm pretty tired of seeing that video on here. How many people are going to make up their mind on Obama based on a 2 MINUTE video?!

I thought Atheists were all about collecting as much data as possible and then making an educated decision based on what the evidence seems to favor?

One speech by Obama does not make him a secularist. Especially when there are plenty of other speeches that show his sympathy for the oft-mentioned "Judeo-Christian roots of America".

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:09:00 UTC | #182500

monoape's Avatar Comment 11 by monoape

Don't you remember, Ted don't need to come out - he was cured. They preyed the gay clean out of him.

P.S. "..."In God We Trust," on the currency in 1907,.." - it was 1957.

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:10:00 UTC | #182502

FightingFalcon's Avatar Comment 12 by FightingFalcon


P.S. "..."In God We Trust," on the currency in 1907,.." - it was 1957.


I think the article was talking about how some people tried putting "In God We Trust" on our currency back in 1907 but that President TR stopped them.

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:13:00 UTC | #182505

ThoughtsonCommonToad's Avatar Comment 13 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

I thought Atheists were all about collecting as much data as possible and then making an educated decision based on what the evidence seems to favor?

One speech by Obama does not make him a secularist. Especially when there are plenty of other speeches that show his sympathy for the oft-mentioned "Judeo-Christian roots of America".

He has repeated this a few times and it takes pride of place on his website. The fact is it's incredibly important that Obama gets in so that the when the next supreme court judge is appointed its not another conservative Christian. How many 5 to 4s does it take to show just how important this issue is.

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:13:00 UTC | #182506

Dr. Strangegod's Avatar Comment 14 by Dr. Strangegod

The Obama video is great. If he stuck to that, we'd all be happy. It's too bad he has to, or feels he has to, pander to the believers. There are parts of this speech that the most fervent would object to, but I think most believers would be okay with what he said. They would do well to realize that they would all benefit from this attitude toward religion.

EDIT: Also, I'm happy to let him say a bunch of pandering crap to get into office, as long as he actually operates according to the ideas in this speech.

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:15:00 UTC | #182508

Epinephrine's Avatar Comment 15 by Epinephrine

Going to agree with ThoughtsonCommonToad, the important thing is what kind of judge(s) get placed on the supreme court.

While it sucks that Obama is playing the religion card atm, I think that you're more likely to get a judge supporting separation of church and state from him.

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:20:00 UTC | #182511

hopeful's Avatar Comment 16 by hopeful

"I believe in a president whose views on religion are his own private affair."

This is slightly off-topic, but I just don't buy in to the whole "religion is ok as long as you keep it private" idea.

It is not in the nature of religion to be kept private, and I don't believe it is possible for a person to behave outwardly completely independently of their heart-felt inner beliefs, particularly when we are talking about a job that involves the management of society.

Such key jobs should not be entrusted to people who believe in stone-age myths regardless of whether they talk about it or not.

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:41:00 UTC | #182532

thewhitepearl's Avatar Comment 17 by thewhitepearl

"The fact that these people were taken seriously about anything other than, say, what color socks to wear on bingo night, tells us something about how far we've strayed rom the pulpit into the town square."

Ditto!

I didn't know about the meth part for T.H...it figures..

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:45:00 UTC | #182538

Prom_STar's Avatar Comment 18 by Prom_STar

Kennedy, Roosevelt, Obama (for the most part), most people on this site--we get the issue. Religion and state are separated for the benefit of all involved parties.

Side note: What ever happened to the days when Christians kept out of politics because it was too wordly? Can we have those days back?

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:07:00 UTC | #182560

zosky's Avatar Comment 19 by zosky

Hopeful said, "It is not in the nature of religion to be kept private, and I don't believe it is possible for a person to behave outwardly completely independently of their heart-felt inner beliefs, particularly when we are talking about a job that involves the management of society."

On the contrary, people in the medical field do this very expertly. A friend of mine, who is a surgeon is very able to critically analyze study data and information pertaining to science but when it comes to religion, he just believes. That's it, he just believes. It is called compartmentalization. And many other doctors think this way. They do not question their religious beliefs and are able to keep those beliefs neatly away from science. They do this because the religious beliefs are never analyzed.

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:29:00 UTC | #182577

hopeful's Avatar Comment 20 by hopeful

zosky said "On the contrary, people in the medical field do this very expertly. A friend of mine, who is a surgeon is very able to critically analyze study data and information pertaining to science but when it comes to religion, he just believes. That's it, he just believes. It is called compartmentalization."

Yes, but could your friend remove someone's kidney if he believed in religious dogma that said that removing a kidney destroys the soul?

I agree that compartmentalization might be possible in some situations. However I specifically mentioned jobs that are involved with the management of society.

Can a government leader make genuinely good policy on science education if he doesn't actually believe in science?

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:44:00 UTC | #182594

Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 21 by Cartomancer

Fatherhood... shudder. And there was me thinking that being a homosexual spared me from acquiring that particular incurable sexually-transmitted condition.

I wonder why gay parents would want to go along to Rick Warren's megachurch in the first place? Not feeling ostracised enough already? And Fathers' day isn't even a christian festival!

It really does surprise me that there are still openly gay people out there who believe in all this asinine religious nonsense. Especially after most of the world's major churches, and all of its major mosques, have done their utmost to dissuade gay people from joining in. Surely the cognitive dissonance must get a bit much?

Then again, most of the gay people I have ever met are quite irredeemably stupid - and we all know about the positive correlation between intelligence and religiosity!

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:41:00 UTC | #182699

schmeer's Avatar Comment 22 by schmeer

Regarding "In God We Trust":
The phrase was added to paper currency in 1957, but had been rejected by T. Roosavelt who believed it was blasphemy, as correctly stated above.
However, it did appear on some coins beginning in 1864. Regardless of when it first appeared, it still doesn't belong there.
The US Treasury website has a lot of information on that government approved violation of the Constitution.

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:57:00 UTC | #182706

Geodesic17's Avatar Comment 23 by Geodesic17

On the contrary, people in the medical field do this very expertly. A friend of mine, who is a surgeon is very able to critically analyze study data and information pertaining to science but when it comes to religion, he just believes. That's it, he just believes. It is called compartmentalization. And many other doctors think this way. They do not question their religious beliefs and are able to keep those beliefs neatly away from science. They do this because the religious beliefs are never analyzed.


Well, we wouldn't want these people not believing that they are god's gift to the world, would we?

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:38:00 UTC | #182718

adk's Avatar Comment 24 by adk

On the plus side, Pastor Ted is now welcome at Rick Warren's church on Sunday.


Hah! No way, he was 'cured' right, after like 4 months of intensive therapy or something? Reminds me of this catchy song:

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=HZmHC75FDqQ

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:09:00 UTC | #182753

Biblebeltheretic's Avatar Comment 25 by Biblebeltheretic

Post 16;

I suspect "keeping religion a private affair" is a tactic to avoid saying you don't believe the bullshit. I used it myself when I was much younger and wasn't comfortable saying I was an atheist.

It gives the impression that you are religious but would rather not talk about it.

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 01:44:00 UTC | #182797

paulwwww's Avatar Comment 26 by paulwwww

Sorry if this post shows up twice.

This "God in the Whitehouse" crap is really getting under my skin. Compound this with the fact that politicians and big media keeping referring to the USA as a democracy (brainwashing anyone). Obviously this great country is a Republic. Fundamental religion and democracy spells disaster.

On a lighter note;

It also made for one the strangest images on television â€" a smiling Haggard in his S.U.V., with wife and kids, talking about meth and massages from a buff male escort.


LMAO

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:18:00 UTC | #182803

Gregg Townsend's Avatar Comment 27 by Gregg Townsend

10. Comment #192110 by FightingFalcon

I'm pretty tired of seeing that video on here. How many people are going to make up their mind on Obama based on a 2 MINUTE video
FF,

Are you sure their mind is made up? Solely because of this video? I agree that you have evidence of Obama's waffling on issues, but your "tone" (if there is such a thing on the internet) is condescending to the point of annoying. So, what if they like this video, how does it make them more gullible than you who enjoy watching Jeremiah Wright go off and then tell us all that's truly what Obama believes?

How do any of us know what another 'truly' believes? Does it really matter if other posters on this site agree with your choice?

[edit]I should know better than to post before coffee. Please ignore the pointless post above :)[/edit]

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:05:00 UTC | #182855

Stella's Avatar Comment 28 by Stella

So Obama is the new JFK. I hope not.

JFK "inspired" us with his youth, his energy, his grand plans for visiting the moon, his new programs that brought younger Americans into the stream of public service. But he was also elected with help from the mafia; sat on the fence about civil rights at a crucial moment that could've been the catalyst for earlier, broader change; tried to invade Cuba (a sovereign nation, despite what the stupid, imperialist Teller and Platt Amendments might have posited); undermined leftist governments in Latin America with the typical covert CIA operations; continued Eisenhower's interventionist policy in Vietnam, and approved the use of free-fire zones and napalm there; and (shock!) sent arms to the new Baathist regime in Iraq during their campaign to rid the country of suspected leftists while American oil companies (notably Mobil and Bechtel) were doing business in that country.

This has all happened before.

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 06:35:00 UTC | #182878

wagnerpe's Avatar Comment 29 by wagnerpe

I liked this article. It's always great to point out the hypocrisy among these evangelical nutjobs, but even better to just quote them verbatim and let their craziness speak for itself.

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:22:00 UTC | #182888

Steven Mading's Avatar Comment 30 by Steven Mading

Fighting falcon said:


I think the article was talking about how some people tried putting "In God We Trust" on our currency back in 1907 but that President TR stopped them.

The confusion here is caused by the fact that "In god we trust" was not put on all types of currency in the same year. A few coins had it put on in 1907, and then in 1957 it became all currency forms, not just the few types of coins that it was before.

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:18:00 UTC | #183003