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

Comments by SRWB

Go to: Chaplain Demands Atheists Canceled At Fort Bragg - Chaplain Thinks Organizers Want to Set Fire to Churches

SRWB's Avatar Jump to comment 23 by SRWB

Clearly, but does the US army need to feed the egos of evangelical chaplains, like this one, by dignifying them with a commissioned officer rank? If I was an atheist infantry lieutenant, I'd find it galling to have to salute a preacher every time our paths crossed.

Unfortunately most military forces have given officer rank and status to the clergy, much like they do to doctors, dentists and lawyers. As a serving officer it galls me too to salute a higher ranking chaplain, or any other senior officer who I do not respect, but one just remembers that, technically, it's the rank which is being acknowledged, not the individual.

Thu, 15 Mar 2012 21:19:34 UTC | #927603

Go to: The Myth of Militant Atheism

SRWB's Avatar Jump to comment 43 by SRWB

Those that have been visitors to this site for a few years will recall a similar round of discussions that focussed on all atheists, particularly the so-called 4 horsemen, as being "fundamentalist atheists". Remember Wee Flea and that ilk? This is merely the latest tactic to muddy the waters. "Militant" and "fundamentalist" are used interchangeably because both words have taken on a negative connotation in our language. It is meant to get our backs up since every strategist knows, offence is the best form of defence!

Fri, 02 Mar 2012 22:54:02 UTC | #923892

Go to: IN FULL: Atheist in memory lapse and slavery shock

SRWB's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by SRWB

I will attest that I have been a non-believer from a very young age; a 7 on the scale! I think many classify themselves out of habit. Even I did so for many years when filling in forms, etc. largely because I couldn't be bothered to query why there was no "box" for atheists to tick or argue about it. The closest category on most forms is usually something like "no affiliation" which is actually a copout as it does not really allow an uneqivocal response. But now I am becoming much more vocal about the issue.

I suspect that many of Richard's so-called "census christians" feel similarly and just don't care enough to make waves. In many ways they really are just "cultural christians".

Thu, 01 Mar 2012 23:02:54 UTC | #923607

Go to: Human Rights Watch – You are Disgusting!

SRWB's Avatar Jump to comment 44 by SRWB

One should never make the mistake of equating the two concepts of human rights and democracy based simply on majority. While the idea of democracy may include beliefs in equality and tolerance, it is more often more narrowly defined as the "majority rules" and displays little or no regard for the broader aspects of universal human rights in regards to ending discrimination. We see this even in the most "democratic" societies of North America, Europe and parts of Australasia, which are generally held up as the most respectful of these ideas. While most if not all of those countries are democratic in the sense of majority rules, it could still be successfully argued that most, if not all, are not totally compliant with basic human rights concepts. Most still have issues with certain types of marriage, race or linguistic rights to name a few.

Mon, 23 Jan 2012 21:25:21 UTC | #910978

Go to: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

SRWB's Avatar Jump to comment 361 by SRWB

He was and remains an example to thinking people everywhere. He'll be missed.

Fri, 16 Dec 2011 21:44:51 UTC | #900018

Go to: UPDATED: Life as a humanist with the armed forces in Afghanistan

SRWB's Avatar Jump to comment 27 by SRWB

I would bet that there are alot of atheists in foxholes (in the military in general), if my circle of friends is an accurate indication. And we are all serving members in the Canadian Army, not ex sevice personnel. Including me, I am aware that at least four of my closest friends proclaim themselves as non-believers, and quite vocally as well.

But then in this regard Canada is very different from our generally more pious southern neighbor!

Sat, 27 Aug 2011 17:48:01 UTC | #864722

Go to: 'Drowned' boy reveals the psychology of miracles

SRWB's Avatar Jump to comment 28 by SRWB

Personally, I know a little bit about spending time in hospital after an operation due to a fairly serious condition and the real impact that doctors and the host of other medical staff have on recovery as opposed to the uselessness of prayer and such medieval nonsense.

Give me a doctor and modern medicine over prayers and Christian incantations any day - I know which one actually works!

Sat, 20 Aug 2011 14:43:43 UTC | #862748

Go to: 20 Christian Academics Speaking About God

SRWB's Avatar Jump to comment 25 by SRWB

The biggest problem with these "sophisticated" theologians and "Christian academics" is not that they spout this inane, puerile garbage so consistently. The real problem is that there are so many ignorant twits out there who gobble it all up by the pailfull and provide these hacks and charlatans with gainful employment and a better living than most of them could ever hope for! That's the real travesty!

Wed, 10 Aug 2011 20:01:26 UTC | #859836

Go to: FOURTH UPDATE: RD on Revelation TV

SRWB's Avatar Jump to comment 593 by SRWB

That was extremely painful to listen to! What a nice guy but so deluded.

Total lack of credibility!

Thu, 17 Mar 2011 21:52:01 UTC | #604116

Go to: Wisconsin on the Map to Pray With Mary

SRWB's Avatar Jump to comment 13 by SRWB

This whole issue of apparitions appearing to people has always both intrigued me and pissed me off. After all, how do any of these people who supposedly witnessed this really know, assuming that an apparition actually appeared, without a shadow of a doubt, that it was the "Mary" who appeared? What if it was actually some other woman like Mary Jones? This is the same as seeing an image of Jesus on a wall or a piece of toast. How can anyone really be sure that it's them, especially as I am unaware of any genuine 1st century photographs of the two of them!

What nonsense.

Wed, 29 Dec 2010 17:02:04 UTC | #570209

Go to: Bishop of Winchester: legal system discriminates against Christians

SRWB's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by SRWB

Blockquote Perhaps if religion could be classified as a psychological illness, that might help such a case?> Blockquote

But to do that would be playing right into the bishop's hands. If religion were even further protected under existing human rights statutes as are many illnesses (like under the Canadian Human Rights Act) then that would give people like the the Bish even more ammunition for their beliefs to be protected and put on a higher pedestal.

No, the solution is to vigorously counter such idiocy with reason.

Mon, 27 Dec 2010 14:51:13 UTC | #569262

Go to: Clinton John Dawkins

SRWB's Avatar Jump to comment 87 by SRWB


My condolences to you and your family. Ditto epeeist's comment about unpraying!

Thu, 09 Dec 2010 13:12:49 UTC | #560669

Go to: Top 10 consequences of having evolved

SRWB's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by SRWB

And I've always wondered why we have toenails!

Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:06:48 UTC | #555366

Go to: Bishop to bless Lincolnshire's gritters

SRWB's Avatar Jump to comment 44 by SRWB

It's not just the churches in the UK which hold religion, the churches and clergy in the esteem to which they have become accustomed and which they, as a result, now feel they deserve. In the end, the entire system of religion doesn't really have anything to offer except platitudes and feel good nonsense like blessing machinery.

Sun, 21 Nov 2010 22:52:07 UTC | #551189

Go to: Angry Atheists - more insanity

SRWB's Avatar Jump to comment 41 by SRWB

We should all seriously consider the choices on offer according to Voris! Apparently the options available are "god" or "satan" with nothing else. Personally, if it was up to me, I would expand the choices to include a variety of additional fictional characters like Batman, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny (all good) versus Sauron, Freddy Krueger, and Jason (all evil)!

Seriously - what an oxygen thief!

Wed, 18 Aug 2010 23:56:48 UTC | #502166

Go to: Angry Atheists - more insanity

SRWB's Avatar Jump to comment 40 by SRWB

Comment Removed by Author

Wed, 18 Aug 2010 23:54:47 UTC | #502164

Go to: Angry Atheists - more insanity

SRWB's Avatar Jump to comment 39 by SRWB

Comment Removed by Author

Wed, 18 Aug 2010 23:53:41 UTC | #502163

Go to: Angry Atheists - more insanity

SRWB's Avatar Jump to comment 38 by SRWB

Comment Removed by Author

Wed, 18 Aug 2010 23:53:07 UTC | #502162

Go to: An honest peek into the brain of a Christian conservative

SRWB's Avatar Jump to comment 30 by SRWB

Onward Christian soldiers! God should be pleased that he has people like this to stand up for him, seeing he's doing such a piss poor job of standing up for himself!

Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:03:57 UTC | #487929

Go to: Donohue vs. Hawking

SRWB's Avatar Jump to comment 18 by SRWB

I note that the link also includes the usual lame drive-by nonsense about genocidal regimes in Germany, the USSR, etc. and how science without faith also "leads to disaster". What tripe, and combined with the other inane but predictable comments, it does demonstrate that Donohue and his ilk are running out of valid arguments (not that they had any to begin with).

Updated: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 21:15:33 UTC | #478616

Go to: Bill Maher Slams 'Extremist' Muslims On HBO's Real Time

SRWB's Avatar Jump to comment 6 by SRWB

Fully agree - that was one of Bill's best.

Sat, 01 May 2010 15:40:00 UTC | #464593

Go to: A criminal matter, not a spiritual one

SRWB's Avatar Jump to comment 46 by SRWB

I concur with the consensus of the group - great article and so very true!

Are any of you really surprised? How else would one expect the biggest (one of the biggest?) cult to behave? They've pretty much had the run of everything for 2 millenia and have been kowtowed to by everyone and everything. When it all comes down to it, this situation just demonstrates that Papal infallibility and authority is just so much bunk, despite all the mewling about the evil effects of secularism and the whining that they are being oppressed and attacked. It looks good on the whole sorry lot.

Wed, 07 Apr 2010 20:25:00 UTC | #456908

Go to: The fires of Hell are real and eternal, Pope warns

SRWB's Avatar Jump to comment 133 by SRWB

The pope knows this, how£ exactly.

Because he is infallible and he relies on a coherent and totally reliable ancient holy book to guide him. Besides, he needs to control the billion plus sheep out there. This is one way to do that!

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:22:00 UTC | #443414

Go to: A religious but not righteous Judge: Cherie Blair

SRWB's Avatar Jump to comment 16 by SRWB

Therefore, although there may be a general tendency towards good behaviour, religious people have more reason and justification to be good, both from the aspect of being taught what "good" means and from the feeling of being watched.

I guess if that were true, Mr. Shamso Miah wouldn't have been so hasty in taking a poke at another guy. Imagine if Big Brother hadn't been watching!

Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:49:00 UTC | #440533

Go to: Hear the rumble of Christian hypocrisy

SRWB's Avatar Jump to comment 315 by SRWB

Earlier in the thread he seems to be condemning any notion of an objective moral standard by which we can judge 'right and wrong'. Yet at the same time he accuses Christianity of being rotten to the core and condemns the church for oppressing women and gays. Since there is no god and all morality is the product of random events its hard to untangle Steve's position.

Steve's point, if I may, is that there is no objective God-given moral standard; what we live with today (and it is by no means universal across cultures) has been established by trial and error (mostly error) and through many hard-won battles, legal, social and otherwise. What it is definitely NOT is "the product of random events" - that's a strawman and a poorly constructed one to boot! However, that by no means indicates that there is a "god". Clearly, there is much to the argument that morality is situation-dependant, flexible and human inspired.

Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:26:00 UTC | #437999

Go to: Hear the rumble of Christian hypocrisy

SRWB's Avatar Jump to comment 296 by SRWB

But who decides who is allowed to preach and what they are allowed to say...

Do we really want to police this£ How about the rules as applied at Speakers' Corners. In the end, people who choose to stay, listen and act are as responsible for "buying" as the individual "selling".

Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:45:00 UTC | #437861

Go to: Hear the rumble of Christian hypocrisy

SRWB's Avatar Jump to comment 292 by SRWB

But for any vicar to say anything at all about what is right and good based on the authority of the church is surely to be frowned on. It is an abuse of privilege in a democratic society.

I agree, but the question is whether they should be prevented from speaking. It is the privileged position from which they speak which is the problem. I don't believe they should be prevented from speaking, but only with the clear proviso that they are not doing so in any official, government-sponsored capacity. They do have the right to communicate, even if what they spout is objectionable.


Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:13:00 UTC | #437846

Go to: Hear the rumble of Christian hypocrisy

SRWB's Avatar Jump to comment 269 by SRWB

It is the belief in absolute and God-given morality, and so the existence of sin, that is destructive.

And that, in a nutshell, is kind of the point of the article in the first place.

On the issue of who is a true Christian and who isn't, the measure has already been well established by Richard's article and Paula's (among others) accurate and erudite musings on the subject. Now we are haggling about the degree to which these believers actually believe all these stories to be true, which to discount and whether they provide a model to emulate. Some (Robertson)clearly will be more robust than others, while many "enlightened" Christians will allow modern sensibilities to intrude on and mould their beliefs. Either way (robust or enlightened) it's still based on the same nonsensical thinking and impossible scenarios.

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:36:00 UTC | #437709

Go to: Hear the rumble of Christian hypocrisy

SRWB's Avatar Jump to comment 238 by SRWB

Disturbing in that a retired biologist seems to have taken it upon himself to act as arbiter in a debate despite there being no place for him at the table.The issue has absolutely nothing to do with him. He is a scientist, albeit a retired one; as far as I’m concerned the only thing he should be commenting on in regards to Robertson’s recent claims, is the science behind earthquakes, for which he doesn’t need to give a nod to the televangelist at all.

So it is your opinion that only theologians should comment on "God" and how "he" acts. That's a bit rich, considering that Richard, and many of the posters on this site, have a vast knowledge of the tenets of Christianity (and other religions in general), ironically greater than many practitioners. This looks like an attempt to put Christianity on a pedestal to avoid criticism and exposure. I hope that is not the case.

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:45:00 UTC | #437537

Go to: Hear the rumble of Christian hypocrisy

SRWB's Avatar Jump to comment 153 by SRWB

Maybe Jesus just died for his contemporaries and those who preceded him. Perhaps another messiah will need to step up to save all the sinners of the last 2000 years! That's the beauty of the Christian racket - once you're in there's no going back if they have their way. You are a sinner, always will be and only belief in Jesus can come close to saving you.

Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:08:00 UTC | #436985