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

Comments by alphonsus

Go to: Church accused of 'scaremongering'

alphonsus's Avatar Jump to comment 57 by alphonsus

“These reforms are part of a wider commitment to support the growing trend in society for both mothers and fathers to be involved in the upbringing of their children from the outset. The driver behind this is that children generally do better if both their parents are involved in their lives, irrespective of whether the parents live together.”

That quotation is not, as it may appear at first sight, from a statement on family values by the Church of England. In fact it is from the government’s consultation document entitled “Co-operative Parenting Following Family Separation: Proposed Legislation on the Involvement of Both Parents in a Child's Life” which was launched today. You can find it on Does anyone have any views on how the sentiments expressed there accord with the same government’s determination to allow same-sex marriage and adoption by same-sex couples?

Wed, 13 Jun 2012 22:33:20 UTC | #947257

Go to: Church accused of 'scaremongering'

alphonsus's Avatar Jump to comment 54 by alphonsus

I think that everyone who has commented on this topic so far supports the proposals to introduce same-sex marriage, but on a point of information I would be interested to know if opinions on this issue necessarily divide so neatly along believer/non-believer lines. I realise that most religious bodies and religious people hold the view that marriage properly so-called can only be between a man and woman (there will be some individuals who disagree but they would be out of step with their particular religion). But is the converse also true - do all atheists necessarily support same-sex marriage? Or are there any out there who subscribe to the view that marriage by definition is something between a man and a woman and whilst fully recognising the rights of same sex couples to enter legally recognised and protected partnerships these should be called something other than marriage?

Wed, 13 Jun 2012 17:28:50 UTC | #947225

Go to: Louisiana lunacy: tens of millions to be spent on faith-based education

alphonsus's Avatar Jump to comment 59 by alphonsus

Comment 13

"If anyone is so bold as to assert that there exists nothing besides matter: let him be anathema." So I'm afraid science "is an anathema" to the RCC

Why do you think this sentence is contradictory to science? Surely many things exist that are not matter, what about beauty, joy, love, sadness, anger, etc etc? These may not exist independently of material things (and in particular rational beings i.e. man) but in themselves they are not matter.

Tue, 12 Jun 2012 06:58:33 UTC | #946995

Go to: Easter in a Catholic hospital

alphonsus's Avatar Jump to comment 23 by alphonsus

Comment 10 by the great teapot I suppose on the plus side there is always a priest on hand ready to read the last rites before the patient is actually dead, that must be a great source of comfort. F*****g leeches

I presume from your final sentence that what preceded it was meant ironically. But in fact for some people it is a source of comfort if they or their relative receives spiritual care or the last rites before death. Even if you personally don't believe in it, why deny other people that comfort, as long as it isn't forced on those who don't want it?

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:02:09 UTC | #933925

Go to: Bioethicist Richard Dawkins: Morality, Society Can Be "Intelligently Designed"

alphonsus's Avatar Jump to comment 14 by alphonsus

Comment 6

The fact that an atheist can stand up and say that they abstain from stealing, killing etc because they worked out for themselves that it is wrong gives them, literally, the moral high ground.

Not really. The ability to "work it out for themselves" is an expression of what Christianity understands as the Natural Law, in other words people are endowed with the natural ability to arrive at the truth through their use of reason, as beings created in the image of God. Unaided reason can't always arrive at the full truth, but in principle the truth revealed by God (through the bible and the church) is the same as that arrived at by reason. Faith and reason, as the church has been saying for a long time, are not contradictory but complementary pathways leading to the truth.

Thu, 05 Apr 2012 13:51:33 UTC | #932545

Go to: Queen highlights Church of England's duty to all faiths

alphonsus's Avatar Jump to comment 51 by alphonsus

Comment 1ds :

Didn't defender of the faith mean burning catholics?

Actually no, it was a title given by the Pope to Henry VIII for defence of the Catholic faith (before he went his own way)

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:44:45 UTC | #918466

Go to: Abortion, an anti-Christian student union, and the closing of the British mind

alphonsus's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by alphonsus

I agree with above commentors that the writer has overlooked the fact that this ruling cuts both ways. I also agree about the absurdity of such a ruling and ask where does it end. However, the wording used by the union does reveal their bias in the expressions "anti-choice" and "pro-choice" speakers. I suppose nobody would like to be seen as anti-choice, just as people on the other side of the debate would like to be characterised as "anti-life". I'm sure that's why both sides define themselves in terms of what they are pro rather than what they are anti. But if the UCL union was being totally even-handed here they would have used the more neutral terms pro-abortion and anti-abortion.

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:08:07 UTC | #913385

Go to: Two equally bad fallacies

alphonsus's Avatar Jump to comment 25 by alphonsus

Finally we have my favourite: "you can't disprove God". You can, for certain definitions of God. For the Christian God, it's actually quite simple.

Is it? Please would you share it. But I suppose it does depend on someone's definition of God.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:16:13 UTC | #913077