1. Comment #81897 by mr-zero on October 25, 2007 at 11:21 am

sounds interesting.
Z

Other Comments by mr-zero

2. Comment #81907 by jimbob on October 25, 2007 at 11:32 am

I've only had time (so far) to listen to the first 10 minutes, but a thought occurred to me as I listened to Sam Harris (on the topic of the "label "atheist").

That thought is a possible counter when dealing with the derogatory baggage of "atheist" that we are often confronted with. So why don't we counter that we actually stand for reason (not blind faith in dogma), and thus, it would make more sense if the religious, not us, had a label --- which in this case would be "areasoners," or maybe "arationalists."

Other Comments by jimbob

3. Comment #81929 by Beteo on October 25, 2007 at 12:10 pm

@ jimbob

That's a very, very good point. I like and will start using the term Arationalists.

Other Comments by Beteo

4. Comment #81944 by upsidedawn on October 25, 2007 at 12:32 pm

It really annoys me that the Merriam-Webster On-line dictionary defines "atheist" as "One who believes there is no diety." Grrrr.



Other Comments by upsidedawn

5. Comment #81958 by ksskidude on October 25, 2007 at 12:53 pm

I look forward to listening. I am in need of some very stimulating atheistic converstaion. I live in the midwest in America and am getting worn down by all the christian zealots. I would say that consider I myself a new atheist. I have always been a skeptic though, but never a true atheist. Fear had its nasty grip on me. But as I began to read and read more atheist books and more science and evolutionary information, I finally let go of that last bit of (maybe).

I am now border line, angry atheist, but am rational enough to know, that even if I am angry, showing my anger does no good.

Anyway just thought I would write a bit, thanks for reading, and sorry if I wasted any of your valuable time.

Other Comments by ksskidude

6. Comment #81964 by ridelo on October 25, 2007 at 1:03 pm

upsidedawn:
You made me curious and I looked for the definition for atheism in "van Dale: Groot Woordenboek de Nederlandse Taal".
Atheïsme: ontkenning van het bestaan, de bestaanbaarheid of bewijsbaarheid van een (persoonlijke) God.
Or:
Atheism: negation of the existence, the "existencability" or the provability of a (personal) God.

Somewhat better, but nevertheless also: Grrrr!



Other Comments by ridelo

7. Comment #81979 by cebolla on October 25, 2007 at 1:27 pm

Just to play along,i typed atheism in the dictionary that came with my Ubuntu linux distro...the result was somewhat disgusting:

Atheism

Atheism A"the*ism, n. [Cf. F. ath['e]isme. See Atheist.]
1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or
supreme intelligent Being.
[1913 Webster]

Atheism is a ferocious system, that leaves nothing
above us to excite awe, nor around us to awaken
tenderness. --R. Hall.
[1913 Webster]

Atheism and pantheism are often wrongly confounded.
--Shipley.
[1913 Webster]

2. Godlessness.
[1913 Webster]

Other Comments by cebolla

8. Comment #81996 by Teratornis on October 25, 2007 at 2:05 pm

In reply to comment #81958 by ksskidude:

I am now border line, angry atheist, but am rational enough to know, that even if I am angry, showing my anger does no good.

In the ancestral environment, our hominid ancestors evolved the emotion of anger as a way to prepare their bodies for immediate, desperate, violent physical action.

In the modern environment, this emotion tends to be maladaptive more often than not, because we are civilized now to a large extent. Few of us must fight off large predators with weapons made of stone and wood, and while we still have a crime problem, hand-to-hand combat for most people in the developed world exists more often as a sport than a way of life.

And yet we still get angry when our ideas are challenged, or when we discover we have been lied to, or we take offense at the actions of others. In the ancestral environment, one's response would have been straightforward: attempt to violently subdue, and if necessary, kill the offending party. Obviously that sort of response is rarely appropriate any more, and yet we are still stuck with the outdated ancestral emotions.

There isn't much we can do to wish away our genes (yet), but I think that just knowing why we are angry gives us at least a chance to channel our anger constructively.

As an example, consider all the shock and anger felt by almost every citizen of the U.S.A. on December 7, 1941. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, lots of Americans were very angry. But Japan was farther away, and at the time Japan was militarily superior to the U.S.A. So there wasn't any effective way Americans could express their anger like primitive hominids.

What America needed to do was to shift almost its entire economy over to war production for the next four years. Every American needed to join the war effort, whether that meant enlisting in the armed forces, working in a munitions plant, collecting scrap metal, or buying war bonds. People needed to approach the many different aspects of the problem with the clearest possible heads. And this personal commitment had to be maintained, in the face of great sacrifice, as long as it took to defeat the enemy.

The initial heat of anger cannot sustain itself for four years. Anyone who stayed actively angry that long would probably die of medical complications, and wouldn't have been much use to the war effort in any case. Rather, what was necessary was to undertake a long, demanding, and often wretchedly unpleasant objective response to the initial affront - the only course of action with any chance of succeeding.

One thing that saw Americans through years of sacrifice was to look back on Pearl Harbor (and other setbacks, such as the Bataan Death March), and remember why they were doing it.

As the Mafia saying goes, "Revenge is a dish best served cold."

World War II was probably the last time that virtually the entire U.S.A. agreed on something, and stayed in agreement for several years, even as the cost kept going up and up and up.

Organized religion is obviously so entrenched that it isn't going away any time soon. Thus there's probably no constructive way for you to satisfy your anger any time soon - you can't snap your fingers and expect the rest of the world to come instantly to its senses. Instead, if you want to respond to religion rather than merely try to ignore it, you will probably have to make a substantial, long-term, personal commitment, possibly involving a varying mix of time and money, depending on which part of the effort you want to join.

Of course it all starts with reading, to get your facts right. You need to at least be able to make the rank-and-file theists feel sorry if they question your stance. You probably won't change their minds, at least not right away, but you should have little difficulty getting them to admit their position makes no sense to them. They not only need "faith" to believe what they believe, they also need "faith" to believe that what they believe will someday make sense. It's a partial victory if you can at least get them to realize and admit that.

For the most part, rank-and-file theists haven't really thought about what they believe. Most don't know much about what their own holy books actually say. If someone claims to believe the Bible is the Word of God, for example, there's a lot in the Bible they are choosing to ignore. It's interesting to ask them to explain how they know which parts of the Bible to obey, and which to ignore.

The real answer, of course, is that their religion comes entirely from men (with some small contributions from women, but religion is mostly the Man Show). God does not come down and tell people which parts of the Bible to ignore; instead, that comes from a continuously evolving and schisming religious tradition. Check back in 500 years, and nobody is going to believe exactly what any religious person today believes. It's difficult to find any two people alive right now whose religious beliefs are identical.

Other Comments by Teratornis

9. Comment #82007 by amanda marie on October 25, 2007 at 2:18 pm

Maybe I'm alone in this but I really dislike the Rational Response Squad.

They seem like the gloomy high school jag-offs who show the glimmering potential of maturing into the pals you'll likely make in Physics Lab five years from now. But for the present they'll only inspire groans and eye-rolls with their constant tirade against the "establishment" (their parents).

I don't know. Am I being too hard on them?

Other Comments by amanda marie

10. Comment #82020 by bluebird on October 25, 2007 at 2:44 pm

amanda marie, there's an archive article dated 9/15 with opinions about RRS. There are a few who don't care for RRS.

ksskidude I think we live in the same neck of the woods and we "feel your pain".

Other Comments by bluebird

11. Comment #82023 by z8000783 on October 25, 2007 at 2:47 pm

No, you're spot on, Amanda Marie.

Other Comments by z8000783

12. Comment #82043 by kellym78 on October 25, 2007 at 3:28 pm

Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't really feel like getting into it again on these forums, but we have supporters and haters, just like everybody else.
The vast majority of people with such strong opinions of our character (as amanda marie apparently does) that I have encountered actually know very little about us and are running with the caricature that has been handed to them by somebody else. Whatever.
When it gets down to brass tacks, it doesn't matter that much whether they hate us or love us--the people who are responsible for catapulting atheism into the public sphere unanimously support us and recognize that some of that notoriety is due to our efforts. Some random internet haters aren't going to stop that, and I'm honestly sick of wasting my time trying to convince people to like me.

Other Comments by kellym78

13. Comment #82078 by jesus_christ_himself on October 25, 2007 at 4:37 pm

Agree with the above comments about the RRS, they did themselves no favours on that podcast.

The highlight for me was pastor deacon Fred, they should have him on all the time.

On behalf of my country I would like to take this opportunity to apologise to the United States of America for inventing Harry Potter and sodomy.

Other Comments by jesus_christ_himself

14. Comment #82082 by IQHQ on October 25, 2007 at 4:45 pm

Kelly

Oh, so that's how this all started? You were annoyed that more people didn't like you?

lol... please excuse me, that is very harsh and unwarranted....

Nevertheless, I have to agree wholeheartedly with the previous poster, Amanda Marie. To me, I detect at least a hint of "irrationality" in your attachment to "rationality". I am quite sure we agree (at least in principle) on most of the issues that you campaign on. Yet, to put oneself forward as a spokesperson for "reason", one must not simply attach themselves to what is seen to be the "reasonable" position on any given issue, but actually demonstrate through one's advocacy a "reasonable" way of thinking, acting, etc. The people to whom you may wish to influence will not serve reason by simply accepting your positions on a list of issues, such as evolutionary theory, religious belief, separation of church and state, etc. Folk can become attached to ANY opinion in a dogmatic way, and this may have little to do with the veracity of that perspective. What they need is a role model...

Of the RSS members whom I have seen debate, it is you in particular from whom I have seen the least evidence of this all important "way of thinking"... In particular, your easy-pickings debate with that nutjob ex-actor Creationist, chaired by Bashir, was quite disappointing.... I'm sorry that I am being so offensive, and so public with that offence, yet you've already claimed (in the last line of your post) to be impervious to the opinions of others, so I feel free to criticize. In the aforementioned debate, you were disappointing, not for the positions you held, but rather in the way your demeanour and tone (perhaps caused by nerves) betrayed your toxic emotions on the issue. also, there were some interesting portents into the "way you think", and to be quite frank, what I noticed was FAR from a model method.

And all this is fine, of course. Not all can be Einstein-like geniuses... not all can be Cicero-like Orators... I would not begin to presume what original experiences lie behind what I perceive as a deeply-ingrained bitterness about religion... perhaps in your own emotional life, you have good cause to be bitter! But, personally, I do not believe that this makes for a healthy contribution to the movement. Where a message IS communicated, I fear it will have an adverse effect. Sorry, but that is my opinion, and I am confident that in the Voltaire-esque tradition of Free Speech which we both cherish you will reply:

"I hate what you have to say, but i'll fight to the death for your right to say it".

If I was right in giving you the benefit of the doubt in this respect, I thank you in advance.

p.s:~ i still think you're pretty hot ;-)

Other Comments by IQHQ

15. Comment #82083 by IQHQ on October 25, 2007 at 4:46 pm

Kelly

Oh, so that's how this all started? You were annoyed that more people didn't like you?

lol... please excuse me, that is very harsh and unwarranted....

Nevertheless, I have to agree wholeheartedly with the previous poster, Amanda Marie. To me, I detect at least a hint of "irrationality" in your attachment to "rationality". I am quite sure we agree (at least in principle) on most of the issues that you campaign on. Yet, to put oneself forward as a spokesperson for "reason", one must not simply attach themselves to what is seen to be the "reasonable" position on any given issue, but actually demonstrate through one's advocacy a "reasonable" way of thinking, acting, etc. The people to whom you may wish to influence will not serve reason by simply accepting your positions on a list of issues, such as evolutionary theory, religious belief, separation of church and state, etc. Folk can become attached to ANY opinion in a dogmatic way, and this may have little to do with the veracity of that perspective. What they need is a role model...

Of the RSS members whom I have seen debate, it is you in particular from whom I have seen the least evidence of this all important "way of thinking"... In particular, your easy-pickings debate with that nutjob ex-actor Creationist, chaired by Bashir, was quite disappointing.... I'm sorry that I am being so offensive, and so public with that offence, yet you've already claimed (in the last line of your post) to be impervious to the opinions of others, so I feel free to criticize. In the aforementioned debate, you were disappointing, not for the positions you held, but rather in the way your demeanour and tone (perhaps caused by nerves) betrayed your toxic emotions on the issue. also, there were some interesting portents into the "way you think", and to be quite frank, what I noticed was FAR from a model method.

And all this is fine, of course. Not all can be Einstein-like geniuses... not all can be Cicero-like Orators... I would not begin to presume what original experiences lie behind what I perceive as a deeply-ingrained bitterness about religion... perhaps in your own emotional life, you have good cause to be bitter! But, personally, I do not believe that this makes for a healthy contribution to the movement. Where a message IS communicated, I fear it will have an adverse effect. Sorry, but that is my opinion, and I am confident that in the Voltaire-esque tradition of Free Speech which we both cherish you will reply:

"I hate what you have to say, but i'll fight to the death for your right to say it".

If I was right in giving you the benefit of the doubt in this respect, I thank you in advance.

p.s:~ i still think you're pretty hot ;-)

Other Comments by IQHQ

16. Comment #82088 by Jack Rawlinson on October 25, 2007 at 4:53 pm

The RRS-bashing has been done elsewhere, yes? Can we refrain from wrecking this thread with it too, please?

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

17. Comment #82108 by amanda marie on October 25, 2007 at 5:18 pm

12. Comment #82043 by kellym78

The vast majority of people with such strong opinions of our character (as amanda marie apparently does) that I have encountered actually know very little about us and are running with the caricature that has been handed to them by somebody else. Whatever.

Kelly, I don't have a strong opinion about you guys & I didn't intend to be abrasive in my comment. It's just that where I tend not to wince at the spokespeople active in our freethought/humanist cause, I tend to do so when exposed to the RRS.

And as far as basing my opinion on a "caricature that has been handed to [me] by somebody else" - I subscribe to your Youtube broadcasts, have visited your website, and have watched/heard you guys on interviews. I've given RRS a chance and have only decided that the way you present yourselves doesn't appeal to me.

Again, didn't mean to abrade anyone
~ amanda

Other Comments by amanda marie

18. Comment #82230 by sapient on October 25, 2007 at 10:38 pm

Amanda,

You're more than free to your opinion that we don't appeal to you. We aren't going to appeal to everyone, nobody is. Hopefully in your distaste of us you'll realize that some people react to the lines of thought that we open up, that passive tactics wouldn't.

To the poster who said we didn't do ourselves any favors with that piece. Maybe not with you, but with others, we did. Several people have already commented to us on how funny the olive branch extended to the chicken shit atheists of America was. Humor is sometimes more likely to open someone up than civil and elitist banter.

To the rest of the haters, Kelly wanted you to have this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcTU-yGf9IE (I concur)

We'll likely not talk about this much, as we've had conversations with Richard Dawkins, Margaret Downey, and Ellen Johnson as how to react to the haters or dishonest venom sent our way online. We've now realized it's a detraction and distraction and have been worlds more productive over the last few weeks without addressing it. We're trying not to, and likely won't address negative comments unless it's overtly libelous.

Other Comments by sapient

19. Comment #82240 by Quine on October 25, 2007 at 11:17 pm

Thanks Brian,

I do not expect to get much support from my friends, here, but I think without you the religious would ignore us even more than they do.




Other Comments by Quine

20. Comment #82300 by theory on October 26, 2007 at 2:47 am

I really enjoyed the interviews up until Rational Response Squad. I understand the casual attitude is part of their method, that's fine, but I was really taken aback by the way they addressed other people in the movement so callously. I don't really understand why they feel to need to project such smugness especially when conducting themselves around other like-minded individuals.

Please don't misconstrue this as me being a "hater"; we're part of the same movement so in that sense we're united, but how can we expect others to think critically if we don't practice our own self-criticality?

Humor is certainly an important aspect of the movement, but let's try to keep a clear separation between intelligent humor, and the kind of humor that might go over well in a high school classroom.

Other Comments by theory

21. Comment #82326 by scooternyc on October 26, 2007 at 4:15 am

Most interesting is the separation of political parties regarding this issue.

We are part of the same movement but that didn't stop people from trying to make this a partisan issue all weekend long. Those people, like politicians, will turn off a large group of supporters who would otherwise endorse their position on church/state separation, etc.

For reasons too numerous to detail, a good deal of the people at this conference didn't seem to care that their "politics" were getting in the way of their message.

Frankly speaking, people who enjoy being a victim enjoy engaging in being victimized by religious types so perhaps this is the connection. If you're already a victim you probably will make yourself a victim on this issue, as well.

Other Comments by scooternyc

22. Comment #82337 by PN.Shreeniwas Aiyer on October 26, 2007 at 5:17 am

*

Other Comments by PN.Shreeniwas Aiyer

23. Comment #82339 by coretemprising on October 26, 2007 at 5:25 am

Sapient wrote:
To the rest of the haters, Kelly wanted you to have this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcTU-yGf9IE (I concur)

I didn't have an opinion up until now really, one way or the other about you folks--now I do! Crimeny.

Moving on, does anyone know why the Sam Harris AAI video has been taken down? (I watched only part of it last night, now it's been "removed by the user" from YouTube.) His delivery is such a contrast to the foregoing, and so much more enlightening.



Other Comments by coretemprising

24. Comment #82342 by PN.Shreeniwas Aiyer on October 26, 2007 at 5:33 am

As always, Sam Harris is very level-headed and not dogmatic. I think he has a point. Actually RD and Dennett are also very sensible leaders.

I think we need all kinds of labels to oppose the oppressive religions. So more the better. Let us all come together with different labels but with common goals like: Doubt, reason, think, ....

Other Comments by PN.Shreeniwas Aiyer

25. Comment #82349 by coretemprising on October 26, 2007 at 5:57 am

Ok, nevermind about the disappearing videos. Just read the political "explanation" on another thread. Dammit.



Other Comments by coretemprising

26. Comment #82362 by discipline on October 26, 2007 at 6:39 am

> The highlight for me was pastor deacon Fred
> they should have him on all the time.

I agree -- that was priceless satire. Hilarious.

And I think posters here are being way too harsh about the Rational Responders. They did fine during this interview, and appeal to a critical demographic (read "young Americans"). Here in the U.S., we need all types of religion critics -- intellectuals, scientists, lawyers, punks, comedians, etc -- if we are ever to make headway in a nation where 60% of people are creationists.

Other Comments by discipline

27. Comment #82363 by boris on October 26, 2007 at 6:53 am

Here is the thought:
There is a large number of people deprived of dignity due to subjective/objective circumstances : poverty, unemployment, sickness, addictions etc. Furthermore, those fortunate who are not deprived of their dignity are daily at risk of loosing it. The religion is very efficient in giving it back, moving the responsibility for the situation from the person to a "higher plan" that should not be questioned.
The risk can be kept in check if society as a whole agrees to provide for a decent level of service and welfare, free schools for everybody, free health care, unemployment benefits, public transportation and similar. At the other end it is much greater in places where this services are lacking. Now, without doing a proper research, it seems to me that there is an obvious correlation between religiosity and public service (or better the lack there of). This would also explain why is the USA much more religious then UK and similar puzzling questions (not to mention why is Pakistan more religious than Holland.)
(excuse my english)

Other Comments by boris

28. Comment #82388 by Riley on October 26, 2007 at 8:14 am

12. Comment #82043 by kellym78: "Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't really feel like getting into it again on these forums, but we have supporters and haters, just like everybody else. The vast majority of people with such strong opinions of our character (as amanda marie apparently does) that I have encountered actually know very little about us and are running with the caricature that has been handed to them by somebody else. Whatever."

The 'Rational' Response Squad response to criticism seems to always take the form of lame excuses such as: "some like us and some don't", "it takes more than one approach", and increasingly they make name-dropping appeals. If an argument relied on the mere existence of supporters and such appeals to authority as they make, then the theist position should have outright won by now. If this qualifies as a rational response, then we should all be theists.

Opinions or not, it's hard to argue with the facts: I've listened to "Kelly" publicly taunting someone by repeatedly calling them an "atheist pussy" and making baby noises (literally whining like a baby), roughly: "whaaa, whaaa, whaaa ... just because I'm not an atheist pussy like you are ...whaaa" ...followed by relentlessly more infantile whining and more senseless name calling.

Call it what it is: the sacrifice of reason in defense of the perceived "greater cause".
The road to dogma is paved by such excuses as theirs, made in defense of irrational arguments.


.

Other Comments by Riley

29. Comment #82405 by bad_andy on October 26, 2007 at 8:31 am

Kelly and Sapient,

You both made excellent points in the interview I heard in that podcast. I thought the points about how the group of potential nonbelievers is much larger when taken as the sum of all the self identified brights, rationalists, etc was interesting. I thought the point about how any label can be demonized by the opposition was a great counterpoint to Sam's concerns about the baggage associated with the label "Atheist". I'm not offended by what else you said or how you said it. I'm disappointed that you don't seem to realize how ineffective it was.

The tone of many of your statements in the interview was combative towards those who disagree with you. This makes it easy for a potential new audience member to be put off instead of intrigued. The Chicken-Shit Atheist website idea just seemed like you were bating people. This doesn't work as self-effacing humor, because it's being directed at people who you feel don't have your courage of conviction. Speaking as someone who regularly uses the word Atheist to talk about myself, I'm not personally offended but I'm not laughing with you either.

I've heard a great deal of humor used effectively when discussing Atheism and religious ideas. Penn Jillette's "This I believe" piece, George Carlin's "Religion" from his "You Are All Diseased" album, Julia Sweeney's one woman show and Patton Oswalt's last two albums are all great examples of this. None of them pull punches, but all offer more than simple mockery.

I'm trying to stick to this particular interview, because you're falling into a trap that is unnecessary. You mock people and characterize this as thought provoking when it's the opposite. Responding to critics of this tactic by calling them 'haters' is simply missing the point. When you just turn people off, they don't think very hard about what you're saying. They just think about how they dislike it. I'm sure RD had some great things to say about dealing with libel or fanatical hate mail, but I doubt that it was, "Ignore honest feedback".

I think you had some very intelligent points during the interview but how many of the HNN podcast subscribers will want to hear more after you called them "humanists" in that tone of voice? Shock-jock tactics get attention, but does anyone take what shock jocks say seriously? I think you are both talented and intelligent. You could be saying a lot more that we should take seriously and with genuine humor. As a fellow Atheist, I wish you all the best.

Other Comments by bad_andy

30. Comment #82440 by heathen2 on October 26, 2007 at 10:39 am

I continue to be impressed by Prof. Dawkins. I liked how he responded to Sam's talk and also indicated that he continues to reflect on the ideas presented by Sam. He doesn't just quickly answer every question put to him with set viewpoints, but actually thinks and is open to change. He is a role model for me.

And as far as the Pastor Deacon Fred, I suppose one of the obligations of a free society is to tolerate and coexist with such nutjobs. I think "nutjob" may be too kind in labeling Fred.

Other Comments by heathen2

31. Comment #82520 by Ilovelucy on October 26, 2007 at 2:34 pm

heathen2, you don't think Spinal Tap are a real band as well do you?

Other Comments by Ilovelucy

32. Comment #82538 by Godless Heathen on October 26, 2007 at 4:01 pm

Pastor Deacon Fred: now THAT's my kind of preacher. I love to hear sermons from preachers who have the strength of their convictions, not those namby-pamby conflicted sissy fake Christians...

Other Comments by Godless Heathen

33. Comment #82544 by stptrck75 on October 26, 2007 at 4:42 pm

The RRS is like the annoying, boisterous, alcoholic cousin who shows up to a party to which he/she is never invited. They just make it awkward for everyone else.

Other Comments by stptrck75

34. Comment #82567 by upsidedawn on October 26, 2007 at 6:37 pm

I apologize for the sort-of-off-topicness, but I just wanted to thank ridelo and cebolla for providing still other annoying definitions of "atheist." Does anyone have access to the OED? I'd love to know the OED definition.



Other Comments by upsidedawn

35. Comment #82628 by Ilovelucy on October 27, 2007 at 3:26 am

Comment #82567 by upsidedawn on October 26, 2007 at 6:37 pm
avatarI apologize for the sort-of-off-topicness, but I just wanted to thank ridelo and cebolla for providing still other annoying definitions of "atheist." Does anyone have access to the OED? I'd love to know the OED definition.

Yeah, that Webster bloke is crap at spelling too.





Other Comments by Ilovelucy

36. Comment #82629 by Ilovelucy on October 27, 2007 at 3:29 am

Sapient wrote:
To the rest of the haters, Kelly wanted you to have this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcTU-yGf9IE (I concur)

Oh no! Another self pitying whine from an overrated and mildly controversial rapper!
Help! I'm melting!




Other Comments by Ilovelucy

37. Comment #82646 by scooternyc on October 27, 2007 at 4:32 am

Again, if you're a victim in most other areas of your life you imbibe in being a victim in this area, too. You rather like feeling put upon.

As such, you get enraged and angry at the very moment of opposition to your position. You react emotionally with instability which lends no credential to your stance.

Yes, appeal to a broad audience, but through irrational response and over-emotional tirades, this won't happen.

Other Comments by scooternyc

38. Comment #82727 by John Frum on October 27, 2007 at 11:16 am

There are a few around here who I can only describe as sanctimonious snobs and think that an aversion to fairy tales, superstition, and dogma etc, can be expressed only in an 'intellectual' manner.

Indeed there are those here who seem to prefer to project their own 'superior smart arse intelligence' (whatever that is) and wallow in their own smugness, rather than addressing the problem of religious belief, endemic in all of society today. Even "high school jag-offs" - whatever they are- can participate and contribute.
Nothing wrong with polite discussion BTW.

The "man in the street" (I can't think of a better phrase – maybe I'm not educated enough?) could well be put off atheism, thinking he needs a fucking degree in philosophy to feel at home around here sometimes.

You must be diverse enough to appeal to all sections of society, otherwise there is a danger you will disappear right up your own arseholes left only to contemplate your own IQs.



Other Comments by John Frum

39. Comment #82744 by Ilovelucy on October 27, 2007 at 1:00 pm

Man on the street? Reminds me of what Sid Vicious said when asked why he didn't make music for the man on the street "I've met the man on the street, he's a c**t."

Seriously though, Richard Dawkins must be doing a bad job as the Chair for the Public Understanding of Science if he's not appealing to the man on the street. I don't think RRS appeal to the man on the street. Their strategy seems to be focused on disaffected teenagers. Nothing wrong with that, but let's not try acting like this is some big class issue or that their critics are part of some academic elite.



Other Comments by Ilovelucy

40. Comment #82754 by sapient on October 27, 2007 at 1:20 pm

38. Comment #82727 by John Frum on October 27, 2007 at 11:16 am
avatarThere are a few around here who I can only describe as sanctimonious snobs and think that an aversion to fairy tales, superstition, and dogma etc, can be expressed only in an 'intellectual' manner.

Indeed there are those here who seem to prefer to project their own 'superior smart arse intelligence' (whatever that is) and wallow in their own smugness, rather than addressing the problem of religious belief, endemic in all of society today. Even "high school jag-offs" - whatever they are- can participate and contribute.
Nothing wrong with polite discussion BTW.

The "man in the street" (I can't think of a better phrase – maybe I'm not educated enough?) could well be put off atheism, thinking he needs a fucking degree in philosophy to feel at home around here sometimes.

You must be diverse enough to appeal to all sections of society, otherwise there is a danger you will disappear right up your own arseholes left only to contemplate your own IQs.

Here here!




Other Comments by sapient

41. Comment #82757 by scooternyc on October 27, 2007 at 1:26 pm

"There are a few around here who I can only describe as sanctimonious snobs and think that an aversion to fairy tales, superstition, and dogma etc, can be expressed only in an 'intellectual' manner.

No, the idea is that irrational emotional responses are not giving credential to arguments.

"If you have a good case, you pound the facts; if you have a weak case you pound the table"

You don't have to be a "Piled High and Deeper" type to argue logically and reasonably.

But you do need to have control of your emotions and not spewing that crap at people, much like your rant.

Other Comments by scooternyc

42. Comment #82758 by BaronOchs on October 27, 2007 at 1:30 pm

Ha, unfortunately for some people you cannot take out a copyright on Gods non-existence.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

43. Comment #82765 by Ilovelucy on October 27, 2007 at 1:50 pm

Ha, unfortunately for some people you cannot take out a copyright on Gods non-existence.

God's non-existence

(c)Ilovelucy 2007



Other Comments by Ilovelucy

44. Comment #82770 by BaronOchs on October 27, 2007 at 2:07 pm

lol

Other Comments by BaronOchs

45. Comment #82820 by Sinful Messiah on October 27, 2007 at 10:25 pm

I think the RRS are pathetic; they need to sit down and shut up.

Other Comments by Sinful Messiah

46. Comment #82821 by Sinful Messiah on October 27, 2007 at 10:40 pm

Talk about low class!

Can anyone believe that Kelly said, "I wanted to tell Sam to shut the hell up at the beginning of his speech so i could ask my question"??

But I laughed out loud when they said, "We're going to talk to Sam about this!" as if they're friends.

These guys are so self-absorbed, obnoxious, and repulsive. It must be their cult-like following of angry teenagers and all the alcohol which inflates their egos.

Other Comments by Sinful Messiah

47. Comment #82827 by kellym78 on October 28, 2007 at 1:10 am

edit : not worth the time

Other Comments by kellym78

48. Comment #82932 by BigJohn on October 28, 2007 at 9:48 am

If you don't like the RRS don't pay any attention to them. I don't.

If you do like them, go to their chat room on Stickam. After that you won't like them anymore.

Other Comments by BigJohn

49. Comment #82942 by John Frum on October 28, 2007 at 10:13 am

I welcome anyone who speaks against religion... we all piss in the same pot.

Talking of the Sex Pistols - they banged a few tables and changed the smug and comfortable music buisness for one.

Enough room for us all methinks!



Other Comments by John Frum

50. Comment #82956 by drbreakfast on October 28, 2007 at 11:04 am

4. Comment #81944 by upsidedawn on October 25, 2007 at 12:32 pm
avatarIt really annoys me that the Merriam-Webster On-line dictionary defines "atheist" as "One who believes there is no diety." Grrrr.

---------------------------------------------
Upsidedawn, I totally agree that having such a definition in a purportedly non-biased resource concerning the English language is unacceptable.

Why not, "a person who holds no belief in, and/or affirmative denies the exist of, any deity or anything supernatural." I suggest that this is reasonably accurate and NEUTRAL.

Other Comments by drbreakfast