Comments for Life according to Gordon

Comment on Human Beings are Fragile by Gordon

Gordon — Wed, 05 May 2010 22:24:07 +0000

I'm glad you found it helpful! And thanks for the feedback. I love getting little comments like this. =)

Comment on Human Beings are Fragile by Rachel

Rachel — Wed, 05 May 2010 22:08:41 +0000

Hi,

I literally came across your blog tonight whilst searching on google for documents on human nature and our frailty/vulnerability (in all its glory/with all it's pain and complication -- not too sure which!). I just felt a need to say how much your writing appeals to my interests/nature/analytical side. I was shocked to read someone writing like i sometimes think in my own head. Anyway, just wanted to say thanks for giving someone a glimmer of hope at a time when it seems mostly absent. Thanks x

Comment on Richard Dawkins is arrogant by Grant

Grant — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 04:04:04 +0000

Yep he is arrogant alright. An atheist reporter who agrees with what he says said after the interview Dawkins was so arrogant he felt like getting up and punching him. The whole book is full of inaccuracy. His assertion that religion = war for example. He does not do research or only quotes what suits his purpose. The Encyclopedia of War (1500 pages covering 1762 wars ) when analyzed reveals that religious wars only accounted for about 7% of these wars. Secular wars by far outweigh them -- not just in number but for the sheer amount of people killed per war. Then he glosses over the atrocities committed by atheists on their own people, by Lenin, Stalin , Mao & Pol Pot. Not too mention Hitler. It is not hard to pick holes in him or his book. Two reviews I read of it suggested the people that read it and believe it are gullable. They also made the point that his arrogant , blustering , holier than thou style is actually liked by those who have a similar nature.

Comment on Faith and Government by Gordon

Gordon — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:28:51 +0000

One route that they tried to go for awhile was to mandate that health insurance companies cover the cost of Christian Science treatment. I LOVED that idea. Currently I have health insurance through work and my particular health insurance provider does not cover CS treatment, so I pay that out of pocket. It's not bad; most of the practitioners I use are, on average, around $25 per day. So that's still obviously much, much cheaper than any doctor's bill. Nevertheless, since I never use the doctor, my health insurance doesn't really do much for me--aside from take money away from my paychecks that I never see any tangible benefit to. Of course all the atheist groups were up in arms when they got wind that some legislators were trying to include wording in the bill that CS treatment be covered, so it was quickly stripped. But just from a cost-analysis perspective, CS treatment is infinitely less costly than any conventional medical expense, so even if you don't believe I'm still not sure what the big deal was. Oh well. Awhile back I also remember finding out about at least one health insurance provider that *does* cover CS treatment, but I can't seem to find it anymore. And regardless, I know that I don't have that particular health insurance through my work anyway.

Comment on Faith and Government by Alex Engman

Alex Engman — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:15:31 +0000

I was thinking about something the other day that made me think of your religious beliefs. If the government enacts health care legislation, you will be taxed/fined if you do not pay for a government plan. If you didn't have health coverage through your employer you could probably sue the federal government for violating your religious beliefs.

Comment on Lies, damned lies, and statistics by Alex

Alex — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 06:51:46 +0000

I support fiscal conservatism right now first and foremost. Assuming a health care reform bill must be passed, I think it better damn well have the public option. Right now it seems that will not be the case. The current senate bill has what amounts to $600 billion in subsidies for the insurance industry and this is most likely exactly what the final bill will look like. A trillion dollars to do basically nothing except buy shitty health insurance plans for a few poor people that will probably get denied anyways. No actual fixing of the system will occur.

Comment on Richard Dawkins is arrogant by Life according to Gordon » Blog Archive » Lies, damned lies, and statistics

Fri, 02 Oct 2009 06:22:01 +0000

[...] Comments « Richard Dawkins is arrogant [...]

Comment on Richard Dawkins is arrogant by Gordon

Gordon — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 02:18:08 +0000

I don't really have any interest in picking a religious fight with a bunch of 11-year olds. Besides, I already know exactly what would happen if I posted it to that subreddit.

Top comment would be some witty remark taking advantage of one of my writing nuances to make fun of the hypocrisy of Christians.

Next four top-level comments would be straight-forward making fun of Christian hypocrisy and citing examples/whining.

Next comment would acknowledge that Dawkins has ego problems and thank me for the well-researched article, possibly saying something like "Don't know why you're being downvoted." A comment would be posted as a reply to this one saying that it doesn't help the cause of atheism to approach people combatively.

Next comment would be a pun thread.

A few heavily downvoted comments might show up saying how this is refreshing, as they're tired of all the boring circle jerking that comprises this subreddit.

Although keep in mind that only a random, limited subset of those comments would actually happen, as this article would never gain any traction and would be downvoted out of sight within minutes.

Comment on Richard Dawkins is arrogant by Alex Engman

Alex Engman — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:09:48 +0000

That's one of the most articulate and well researched things I have read in a while. Post it on the atheism subreddit.

Comment on Richard Dawkins is arrogant by Jesse Chounard

Jesse Chounard — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:33:56 +0000

I haven't read the book, though it's been on my list for awhile. Now I'm glad that I didn't get to it yet, because I would have assumed that such a well known author would have done better research about the quotes he chose to use.

I suppose I need to be more diligent about verifying what I read.