I don't believe in Peter Kay
Printable View
I don't believe in Peter Kay
He's a taste sensation! :)
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/theatre/...er_kay_is.html
Is it common for authors to engage in negative campaigning for silly book awards, as if it was an election or something:confused: :D
Dawkins' reaction to his portrayal on South Park (mentioned further upthread) does not reflect particularly well on him either
Very defensive about the gay thing - you'd think he wouldn't be particularly bothered...Quote:
Finally, I have repeatedly been asked what I think of South Park and of Ted Haggard’s downfall. I won’t say much about either. Schadenfreude is not an appealing emotion so, on Haggard, I’ll say only that if it wasn’t for people of his religious persuasion, people of his sexual persuasion would be free to do what they like without shame and without fear of exposure. I share neither his religious nor his sexual persuasion (that’s an understatement), and I’m buggered if I like being portrayed as a cartoon character buggering a bald transvestite . I wouldn’t have minded so much if only it had been in the service of some serious point, but if there was a serious point in there I couldn’t discern it.
http://richarddawkins.net/tourJournal#11
Apologies to bring posts from a weeks back but I was just reading back through the thread ;) and a couple caught my eye!
So, I take it you wouldn't get them baptised:confused: If you decided not to get them baptised and they came home one day, they said they wanted to get baptised (considering they have come to the age to be able to reason) what would your reaction be?
I read that Dawkins goes as far as saying that giving your child a religion is a form of child abuse. I feel that is a bit extreme but I'd agree with him if a parent was 'forcing' a religion on their child! Afterall, parents tell their kids about Santa Claus, the toothfairy and the Easter Bunny as it brings them happiness just as God bring joy and hope to certain people. Dawkins states that if you believe in something then you should be able to back up that belief with scientific evidence, but in saying that, he gave his daughter the joy of Santa Claus, so why not teach her about God or who/whatever if it makes her happy?!
Josephus, a historian from the first century, also wrote about him.
At some point people will stop asking the same questions over and over again. Google "dawkins claus -kindergarten" for Dawkins' opinions on the critical Santa Claus question.
What if they found out he's also called St.Nicholas? And they want to know about the Saints at an early age, and hence they want to know about Christianity at an early age? Will you teach them open mindedly and allow them to come to their own conclusions, or teach them what you want them to believe
I didn't have my kid baptised. It's been hard on his grandprents who are fairly devout. That and that alone I feel bad about.
If he ever comes to me, having reached reasonable maturity (NOT 6 or 7 years old), and says "Dad I want to be a Catholic (or Methodist/Unitarian/Pre-Tribulation Rapturist/Muslim/Hindu/Eskimo/Nunchaku)" then I will ask of him in sombre Homer-like tone "do I have to do anything?".
If he answers this riddle correctly he can do whatever he likes.
Guys, you're talking about Santa Claus. Seriously, think about it for a second.
I was joking. Maybe should have added a smiley.
History is based on fact. The Old Testement is a book which tells people who want to be Christian that they should go out and kill people who are not. The book also tells people to rape, stone gays and adulterers to death and the list of good christian morals goes on.....
You could have just said "the old testament is fiction, unless you're a complete moron".