Comments by sapient
1. D'Souza - Nothing to Refute Here
Comment #86667 by sapient on November 9, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Paine Said:
I hope D'souza has the guts to respond. The twit is known to lurk around these pages, trolling for out-of-context quotes he can use for his self-aggrandizement.
If he has read this( and Im pretty sure he reads anything with his name in it) and if he is man enough( which I seriously doubt) he'd put finger to keyboard and respond.
What say, Dinesh?
The first two pieces that Kelly wrote were sent by our team to Dinesh D'Souza and the papers which originally published his work. We would not only welcome a response, we extend an invitation to Dinesh if he wants to have a recorded conversation with us for our show.
Please post Kelly's RSS feed on your site for the year and support this project. If any of you find religions figure heads writing pieces in major print media, please feel free to submit it to Kelly for consideration.
Thanks for the great comments, Kelly and I have read them all, and will continue to.
Subscribe to feed, or repost it:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/Kellym78sBlog
http://www.rationalresponders.com/blog/428/feed
Make a widget with Kelly's feed, for any site you have (including myspace):
http://www.springwidgets.com/widgetize/?param=http://feeds.feedburner.com/Kellym78sBlog
2. Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed
Comment #85323 by sapient on November 5, 2007 at 1:38 pm
This is the type of stuff I hope the intellectuals here will rip apart so we don't have to...
"Our antics in the past have been designed specifically to reach the layman. Major media publications want material that is more scholarly, and so therefore this entire year will be a demonstration in just how scholarly we can be
FROM BONZAI:
So you are operating under the assumption that the layman is stupid? Talk about elitism. "
STRAWMAN... someone light a match.
3. Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed
Comment #85308 by sapient on November 5, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Oxy said: "Janus, I was actually rather impressed with Kelly's scholarship, relative to what I had seen from her previously. I agree that the RRS's methods tend to border on "antics", often appearing amateurish and infantile, but I thought that this piece bucked the trend."
Thanks Oxy for having the decency to see this piece for what it is. We realize that some of our stunts have made it hard for people who quickly judge books by their cover to not understand just how intellectual we can be here at RRS. Our antics in the past have been designed specifically to reach the layman. Major media publications want material that is more scholarly, and so therefore this entire year will be a demonstration in just how scholarly we can be, at least in this one aspect from Kelly.
Look forward to at least one piece per week that will debunk theist talking heads in a scholarly manner. Hopefully 2 per week... time and troll permitting.
Janus, will you be able to keep up the act of posting discouraging comments within seconds of Kelly's posts going on RDF for the next 50+ pieces that will be coming this year? Or will you at some point decide to admit the pieces she will be writing are not even in the realm of amateurish? And would more accurately be described as college level or higher.
For those interested in the fact that Kelly has not yet finished college, keep in mind she held a 4.0 and is half way through a 5 year Masters program in psychology, before having her third child made it too hard to juggle it all. In those 2 years she made honors in both english lit and composition. She plans to return to school soon, will gain easy acceptance in to one of three Ivy League Schools, and will one day hold the credential that will make people who value a piece of paper over actual intelligence, happy.
For more on this issue, see Matthew Chapman's Youtube video about this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dARv4_31krY
Lastly, if anyone would actually like to engage in the discussion of these issues with Kelly, she will entertain comments in her blog on RRS website throughout the year.
Hopefully she will have the opportunity this year to actually write these articles, as opposed to responding to trolls and hate when the stories are posted. I will be trying to respond to some of the criticism off site, while she will (hopefully) only take the time to respond to people in her own blog.
If any of you get behind this project, please feel free to utilize this particular post of mine to answer other trolls in the future, when deconstructive criticism and trollish behavior ensues. Each time we have to respond to a troll takes away from our time to respond to someone of importance... like Dinesh (yes, I know we wish he wasn't important, but he is).
Here is the blog:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/blog/kellym78
Here is the feed:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/blog/428/feed
And you can find a widget for your website that will catalog Kelly's efforts on our myspace page:
http://www.myspace.com/rationalresponse
5. The New Atheists on Organized Freethought
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!
6. The New Atheists on Organized Freethought
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.
Comment #75847 by sapient on October 3, 2007 at 9:04 pm
We just confronted eXcommunicate in our video chatroom. I hope his spine prevails and he chooses to retract some of what he said in this thread soon.
Not that I expect it, it would just be nice considering the time we spent. I won't say more in an attempt to be the bigger man.
Comment #74869 by sapient on October 1, 2007 at 12:37 am
In the last 2 years my moderators have exposed over 20 people who have come to our site to speak negatively of the Rational Response Squad and claimed they were atheist, these people were actually Christian. We think about 15% of the people online who claim to be atheist are people who speak negatively of us. However, for some odd reason not a single person came up to myself or any of the 17 other people we had there representing the Rational Response Squad to say a bad word. Why is this?
Are most of the atheist dissenters actually Christians? Are they just too wimpy to confront us in public about it? Or are most of them (as I suspect) frauds?
By the way "excommunicate" (comment 74156) made some negative comments about us in this thread, however Rich Rodriguez and Hambydamnit of the RRS say this guy was doing nothing but kissing our ass. To the best of their recollection he said things like... "Oh hey RRS, love what you guys are doing, you guys are awesome."
I hate frauds, but more so I hate people with no spine.
Take what you want from this. I have taken something new from it. I no longer give any credence whatsoever (NONE) to random anonymous people online claiming to be atheist but have bad words to say about us. If they don't have the balls to say it to our face, I no longer give it time. Although I may put this text into a cut and paste so I can post it again later, as more spineless frauds show up.
9. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.
Comment #70770 by sapient on September 16, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Which definition do you mean? If you mean impious behaviour then taking a blasphemy challenge would be nonsensical and redundant because every moment of my life I'd commiting blasphemy but being impious. That can't be the definition you mean. It would help if you stated one.
When you object to the blasphemy challenge based on definition and then ask us to define which blasphemy we are referring to, you are putting the cart before the horse.
You just exposed your flaw.
Don't you already know which definition we're using? Don't you already know which definition everyone else in the world will use when they see your blasphemy?
No, you don't. And since there are working definitions of blasphemy that don't require you to actually believe in said thing you are blaspheming, you'd sound like a fool for discounting them all. Which is exactly what you've done here... before you had all the data.
10. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.
Comment #70766 by sapient on September 16, 2007 at 9:18 pm
But I'm not the one with the knee-jerk anger (this is what we literati refer to as irascibility), and the obsession with conversion.
I'd proudly be angry over dumb, any day.
11. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.
Comment #70763 by sapient on September 16, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Is this a test of sentiment or misjudged use of words?
It's a test of: you realize it doesn't matter that you don't believe in it, you can still speak irreverently of it.
12. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.
Comment #70759 by sapient on September 16, 2007 at 9:08 pm
What you're not understanding Sapient is that I am saying that I cannot commit blasphemy in my view. Because I don't think that there is anything that I could possibly blaspheme, I recognize that I could blaspheme in other peoples eyes, but not mine. If I'm asked to say something that would be blasphemy to me, I could not.
I heard you the first two times.
Did you understand I understood your position as Christian or someone just lacking the ability to understand the definition of the word blasphemy? Now I'm willing to accept it could be the later.
As for the dishonesty charge, you may not realize but because you hold an untenable view on the definition of blasphemy you end up not having real logic to hold on to. Thus, you have to explain your position in such a way, that you can't even remember what you're position is when you restate it. Your view of the word blasphemy is inane and off the mark. You dishonestly hold to the view that you must believe something is sacred to you in order to blasphemy it, and every position you've taken is a dishonest extension of that.
Additionally... whether I was pissed off or not is irrelevant. You don't understand the definition of blasphemy, I don't feel it's wise for me to waste the time explaining what my mental state has been, as I've read your posts. I wouldn't be owed an apology, nor would I want one. I want you to be right... not to apologize for being wrong.
13. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.
Comment #70750 by sapient on September 16, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Elitist Spinoza
Since when did elitism in intellectual circles become an insult?
I'm not sure when it exactly started. You're the elitist shouldn't you be the one telling me? I suppose it started somewhere around the point that the elitists had read so many books and skipped out on so much TV in their elitism, that they lost all ability to function properly in society. This happened likely right around the time the elitists put their heads in their asses.
Elitist Spinoza
The intellectuals ARE the elite minds. I'd rather not get into a tit-for-tat with anyone about credentials... but Dawkins, Dennett, Grayling (and Harris soon) are ALREADY the elite! Most of us haven't done one-fiftieth of the reading those men have done... or one-hundredth of the writing (at least not on their level... how many of us plebes have published under OUP?).
To operate on the pretense that atheism isn't elitist is silly. Of course it is... and it damned-well should be!
No one needs to be told that Kent Hovind is a fucktard.
WE ALL KNOW IT ALREADY.
If you're so proud to be an elite mind, then how come you can't put a 4 piece puzzle together in the real world?
Hovind manage to have earned enough money spewing his nonsense over the years to amass the need to pay $850,000 in back taxes. If "ALL" already "KNOW" that Hovind is a fucktard, how'd he accumulate all the money? Huh, fucktard? Answer!
How some elitists cant see how god damned moronic they are, is beyond me.
14. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.
Comment #70749 by sapient on September 16, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Mitchell Gilks said
The blasphemy challenge asks you to commit blasphemy, but I can't do that. Nothing I could possibly say about an imaginary being I would consider blasphemy. So I couldn't take the challenge if I wanted to. It only serves to legitimize their foolishness in my eyes. It would only be blasphemy to those that believe in that crap.
a few hours later Mitchell Gilks said
As for my comment on blasphemy I did not say that I couldn't blaspheme, I said that it would only be blasphemy to other people, and not to me.
I don't have time to respond to the crux of the stop speaking up atheists. Instead I'd like to draw your attention to the dishonest above, and be done with this post.
15. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.
Comment #70691 by sapient on September 16, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Spinoza...
There is a difference between a bald insult, and an insult you can back up with argument.
You mean like inferring that we make bald insults?
You actually need me to prove Kent Hovind is a fucktard?
Good job getting to page 3 of the 49,000 page RRS legacy and having it all figured out Spinoza. You are the epitome of elitism.
16. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.
Comment #70682 by sapient on September 16, 2007 at 3:25 pm
icouldbewrongbut
I'd like to see atheist spokespeople rise above name-calling. I thought this went without saying.
This is the stuff I mean. Yes you are wrong. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you are ok with people calling others out on what they think of them or you're not. We think the most accurate description for Kent Hovind is: fucktard
You think saying that you can't stand us, we're self important, act immaturely, and imply were not intelligent enough is ok.
So are we allowed to "name call" now, hypocrite?
For me, I prefer intelligent discussions about how to rid the world and the people I care about of the sickness of religion.
I just hope to continue to see more well-spoken folks like Richard Dawkins / Sam Harris / Christopher Hitchens get the limelight rather than RRS.
Have you ever heard Hitchens? Because I thought it went without saying that you'd like to see your atheist spokespeople rise above name-calling.
Hypocrites unite for Hitchens tonight!
17. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.
Comment #70679 by sapient on September 16, 2007 at 3:07 pm
sapient,
Just wondering, even if you were able to sniff out xian posters, what do you do with that information?
Perhaps you would consider expanding on what you have done with the data you have uncovered on your own site.
The easiest and obvious reaction is to ban the user from posting, and ban their ip. It's not always that easy. People have multiple computers or other ways around the system. We have extensive tracking and have a team of about 10 people that look for people who come back after a ban.
In rare instances, something we've never done, you can actually report someone to their ISP.
For the record, we also found at least one atheist that I can recall posing as a Christian, but he admittedly agreed to act honestly once we figured him out. The Christians almost never fess up.
We did have an interesting story a few weeks back in which we suspected someone was posting as an atheist and a theist. We couldn't figure it out, very weird stuff. It turned out an atheist woman was posting and her Christian husband was posting on the site as well, however a few times the husband posted as her by accident. The family came clean instantly, their accounts are in good standing.
Like I said, I love free speech. But with the short amount of time I get on this planet, I just don't have time for talking to someone like that. If I engage someone on an issue, I want to know it's their real position, not some caricature they made up to try to convince me of their point in a dishonest manner. Because of this, we thwart it on our site. We only have to ban about 10 accounts per month, but it helps keep the place clean, more honest, and less trollish.
We have dozens of theists posting within the guidelines, some have been there for quite a while. We don't ban to restrict speech, we do it to enhance the honesty level of the speech. And at $250 per month for a server, we think we have the right to determine what goes on it. (listen to me rationalize censorship, bad sapient, bad sapient, oh im so torn)
For the record: My experience moderating online atheist message boards goes back 7 years, and includes mod time on www.atheisnetwork.com www.infidelguy.com www.atheistforums.com. I feel our site is a conglomeration of the best rules from each.
18. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.
Comment #70673 by sapient on September 16, 2007 at 2:50 pm
I, and many others here support you, please be assured of that. The admirable thing about you guys is not TBC or your methods but the simple fact is you got off your ass and did something positive. An example that many here would do well to emulate but probably never will. I'd never thought about religites posing as atheists but now you have me thinking.
And we here at the RRS support every single atheist org out there that manages to function within the rules of the law in the country where they reside. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM!
Only two times have we ever spoke negatively of atheists on the front line and both times were instances in which the supposed "nice guy atheist" was attacking us. Greg Epstein acted immorally to get a headline as he preached secular morals. And Shermer wrote a piece attacking a target that doesn't exist.
Do you hear me chicken shit atheists? I support you if you want to speak out in your chicken shit group, and would even promote the Chicken Shit Atheists of America if you agreed to a reciprocating link.
(Kelly said in the background, that we're starting that group tomorrow, as a parody.)
19. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.
Comment #70670 by sapient on September 16, 2007 at 2:43 pm
aoratos philos on September 16, 2007 at 1:18 pm
How can "The blasphemy challenge" be irrational?
It's only irrational if you are an atheist but then contend that there is a god to blaspheme.
Atheists who took the blasphemy challenge contend that there is no god, (or doubt it's existence). They are making a statement from the worldview of a Christian, to show them that their presupposition that god exists is the source of their problem.
It's a strategy, a tactic, it's not a statement of gods existence and their rejection of that fact!
You all know this but still hold that blasphemy challenge atheists are irrational?
Dear ohh Dear...
Mitchell and at least one other person said the Blasphemy Challenge was irrational and their argument was entirely illogical. You easily point it out. If Mitchell is in fact atheist he's proof that being an atheist doesn't make you an intelligent person, and that being an atheist is only the first step. Personally I think he's smarter than that, and he's a Christian, but I don't have enough data.
The notion that you can't blaspheme something you don't believe in is so violently stupid, you'd wonder if one had down syndrome.
Here is the response that James Randi offered to a fundamentalist Christian who was seeking to write a blog that James Randi would not go to bat for me, as I had once mentioned in our chatroom.
Randi decided to ridicule Michaels position (and Mitchells) after the initial email stated the "so-called Blasphemy Challenge"
James Randi responds...
"The Blasphemy Challenge is not 'so-called'--that is in fact its name". -
Delusional Guy responds...
"Dear Mr. Randi,
Thank you for the clarification on the Rational Response Squad.
For what it's worth, the reason I call the "Blasphemy Challenge" 'so-called' is, well, because it isn't really what it is advertised to be. Simply saying "I deny the Holy Spirit" (or any variation thereof) isn't blasphemy against the Holy Spirit at all, regardless of what anyone claims. In order to commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, one must be witness to the divine works of God, then maliciously attribute those works to Satan and demonic forces—that is the context of Mark 3:22 on which the "Blasphemy Challenge" is based. Since atheists don't believe in God or Satan, they cannot really blaspheme against the Holy Spirit—in fact, the entire exercise seems rather pointless and redundant for an atheist."
Now for all the "you can't blaspheme, it's irrational, etc..." people... listen up.
"Michael,
Dictionaries provide examples of usage, not definitions. With this in mind, Webster says "to blaspheme" means:
To speak impiously or irreverently (of God or sacred things).
To speak irreverently of God or sacred things; utter impieties.
Nit-picking and St. Mark aside, I believe that the intent and meaning of the "Blasphemy Challenge" are well understood. And, I'll shock you by admitting that I do not believe in gods, demons, angels, devils, fairies, or psychic spoon-bending. I'll go further: I deny all these myths, and I am very well aware of the wonders of nature.
I think that's blasphemy, and I'm proud to have that in my record. If it doesn't meet your standards, I would be happy to expand on it in any way you see fit, so that I may stand as a recognized, committed, dedicated, confessed, blasphemer."
James Randi
The letter from Randi is appropriate for Mitchell and whatever other atheist here that is too fucking stupid to understand what the word blasphemy means.
It's not religion that is the root of all evil, lack of critical thinking skills and utilization of sound logic are the root of all evil. I think religion is a byproduct of those. We should work on not just helping people overcome theism, but retraining them on sound utilization of logic. I also believe there are large chunks of the population who lack the ability to even attain such skills, including some atheists. I hope we evolve past that. It's hard to imagine living in a world where I wouldn't understand the definition of blasphemy, and then act arrogant as I assert my moronic position to others over and over. It's hard to believe others aren't doing that on purpose for an ulterior motive.
I reckon, a lot of this happens at RDF because RD is at Barnes in Noble in the supershopping center in middle America, if you know what I mean. So he gets everyone, and for the most part he lets everyone post. We sniff people like Mitchell out and find some Christian site he owns, and expose them.
Mitchell since you display such poor usage of thought I figure I should make a disclaimer: I never once said you weren't atheist. If I did, it was an accident, I admit I can't confirm either way.
20. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.
Comment #70662 by sapient on September 16, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Mitchell, thanks for the libel. I was just talking about how the haters are unable to post a good argument, and here you are stooping to Kent Hovind levels. I was also talking about how a skeptic wonders if people like you are actually Christian. Do you like others thinking you are that irrational? Do you like others thinking you might actually be a Christian in disguise as an atheist? If not, maybe you shouldn't make such weak criticisms. If your critique of our debate was as libelous as your last comment, I'm glad I didn't have to waste my time seeing it.
Could you and the entire "we hate how you do it" community please remove head from ass.
MITCHELL GILKS LIBEL SAID
After seeing the RRS for the first time on tv arguing with those fundy nuts I went to their site right afterward to complain about all the mistakes they made, but on their homepage it asked people not to send in corrections, because they had enough. They had already been fully informed of all their mistakes. Are these people really qualified to argue something that they made so many noticable mistakes on that they have to ask people to stop sending in corrections?
Now, here is what it actually said. I won't even addressed your warped view, I'll simply let the audience decide, ya jerk.
Text that was on homepage http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rational_response_squad_alerts/rational_response_squad_alerts/6653
Did we make mistakes in the full debate? Yes. We stumbled on a few words, made an inaccurate point or two, and made a weak point at a moment or two. Ironically our worst points still seemed to be too much for them. So while we welcome criticism, especially constructive, please keep in mind that we feel we have a good handle on what we did wrong. We'll grow, learn, and get better. What we're really hoping for in this thread is for the actual content and discussion about gods existence to be brought into question. Challenge us to continue, and we will continue to respond to your claims. If you are a theist, please feel free to post your scientific evidence for God, leaving out the miserable arguments that Ray Comfort has already been beaten on of course.
Am I off base here? When an "atheist" goes out of his way to completely mis characterize other atheists positions, are any of you getting suspicious?
I spoke with Josh Timonen the other night for almost 4 hours. One of the topics was our curiousity about just how many "atheists" are actually Christians who come online to impersonate them. At RationalResponders.com we sniff them out through back end measures, here at RDF they allow more free roaming.
The free speech is nice but online you never know when you are merely a pawn in some impersonators game to cause a rift within the atheist community.
I can tell you we've sniffed out at least a dozen christian accounts posing as atheists in the last year on our website.
Oh one last thing Mitchell, take your little book of notes from all the mistakes in the Ray Comfort debate and argue it's validity in front of 7 million people. (remove head from ass, please people!)
21. Open letter to YouTube video
Comment #70513 by sapient on September 15, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Oh the rabbit hole goes deep. Wait til you hear the reason Richard Dawkins doesn't currently have his youtube account. A video will be coming hopefully within a week. Please folks repost these videos and look for more videos to repost coming soon.
22. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...
Comment #65286 by sapient on August 23, 2007 at 1:19 pm
J.C. Samuelson on August 23, 2007 at 12:01 pm
avatarPerhaps ironically, I agree with the overall thrust of both articles. It seems to me that some are reading far too much into Shermer's article. The way I read it, he was offering a caution against getting carried away with ourselves. It's all too easy for any human to get caught up in our own "righteousness" (so to speak) and become the very thing we abhor.
I don't see it as simply offering caution. I think writing it in a style of "simply offering caution" was his cover for an argument with no validity. I got the picture he was attempting to paint the people he was warning as if we'd already turned sour, not that he was warning us not to. I got that picture specifically from these two sentences "Nevertheless, we should be cautious about irrational exuberance. I suggest that we raise our consciousness one tier higher for the following reasons." He's suggesting we raise our consciousness a tier and then goes on to present an extremely passive approach to the most dangerous meme to ever grace our planet. Not only is he off base, but I do in fact believe he was trying to infer in a politically correct manner that people in "the movement" and the authors listed were violators of these principles he'd like to see embraced.
Would you expect a backlash or for someone to school me if I were to write a letter to Shermer and Epstein warning them about the dangers of slipping into drag, becoming a crack whore, and going on a mass killing spree before ultimately killing themselves? This is how Shermers letter read to me. A warning that completely misses the mark and does little but help to thwart the very significant progress the authors (and the people aligned with this "movement" thing I keep hearing about) he mentioned have helped accomplish. Shermers arguments play right into the hands of the religious right, maybe he's ready for politics in America! (I can say the same for Epstein)
23. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...
Comment #65283 by sapient on August 23, 2007 at 1:06 pm
28. Comment #65257 by roach on August 23, 2007 at 11:12 am
Richard Morgan,
You're creeping me out. Next time break the prozacs in half.
Ditto. Just how many stuffy uber intellectuals have decided to call this site home? From usage of "atheist chicks" (colloquialism anyone?) to poor grammar... are the uber intellectuals up enough on their logic to know that neither grammar nor the usage of colloquialism reduce the logical value of that persons argumentation?
I really want to see a more united front amongst atheists but between a weak letter from Shermer and stuffy counter responses from uber intellectuals, the weak isn't turning out to be a great one. Score one for the zealots.
24. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...
Comment #65088 by sapient on August 22, 2007 at 9:52 pm
JANUS SAID:
Um, have you read Shermer's letter? He's _against_ the Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens tactic. He wants them to _stop_ being so direct and forthright in their criticism of religion.
On his podcast with us he said he accepts all of their tactics, and recognizes various approaches can be beneficial. I will try to upload all of the content for free soon, and alert you to the info in this thread. After hearing him on our podcast, I think you'll find his letter to be very odd and out of place.
25. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...
Comment #65020 by sapient on August 22, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Kelly,
I swear I was just logging in to say the same thing, and there you are beating me by 3 hours. You're a totally cool atheist chick!
Comment #13616 by sapient on December 18, 2006 at 8:26 pm
Sorry, I got too busy to respond to those past points I wanted to respond to. I just wanted to cut and paste something that may be of interest to you folks...
Today Brian Flemming answered some questions for Jean Prescott of The Sun Herald in Biloxi, Miss. She has not written her story yet, but since her story is likely to be shortened and have commentary added, I thought you all might want to see a transcript of the dialogue. So here is RRS member and director of The God Who Wasn't There movie Brian Flemming…
Q: Why is it important to The Blasphemy Challenge to dissuade young people from celebrating Christmas, Chanukah, whatever their little hearts desire?
A: That is not a specific goal of the Blasphemy Challenge. The Challenge is part of a tongue-in-cheek "War on Christmas," but nowhere on the site do we actually encourage anyone to not celebrate any holiday.
Q: Isn't it really more about freaking out mom, dad, the preacher, the Rev. Billy Graham, et al?
A: The goal of the campaign is to provoke conversation about religion -- specifically a conversation about the supernatural claims of Christianity. Obviously, we feel that Christianity's claims about its ghost and Hell are false. We invite Christians to demonstrate that these claims are true.
And, yes, freaking Christians out is part of it. We invite Christians to ponder why they get so freaked out about a stunt involving the "Holy Ghost," when they probably wouldn't have that reaction if the stunt were about Zeus, Poseidon or any other deity that people believed in before Christianity.
Q: Who donated the $25K, though in 2006/2007 currency, that's really not a lot of money, is it?
A: The 1001 DVDs we are giving away represent a retail value of slightly more than $25,000. Beyond Belief Media donated these DVDs. The Rational Response Squad is handling the mailing of the individual DVDs to the recipients.
Q: Are the Rational Responders perhaps just overreacting to Bill O'Reilly and his ilk?
A: Overreacting? I'm not sure that a website and a YouTube video can be considered an "overreaction" to an orchestrated campaign by a cable network with millions of viewers. But I'd agree that Bill O'Reilly and others are certainly overreacting to the secularization of Christmas, and our "War on Christmas" is indeed mocking that paranoid overreaction.
Q: I know a few atheists, and they really are not at all militant or in any way eager to "convert" anyone to their way of thinking, though they do get a chuckle out of jerking somebody's chain now and again. They simply don't believe. Would it be fair to say, then, that the Rational Responders are the evangelical arm of atheism?
A: The problem with this formulation is that Christians are atheists, too -- with regard to nearly every god that people have ever believed in. Christians merely carve out an exception for one of those gods. And I stand with those Christians on their 99% atheism. I just don't understand why they make that one last exception. So atheism, which is apparent even in the religious, is not itself an ideology -- the word just describes the absence of a belief that certain mythological characters are real. Virtually everyone is atheist to some degree.
It would be more accurate to characterize us as critics of Christianity. The Blasphemy Challenge is just critical inquiry in the guise of a stunt. It poses a question: What good reason is there to believe in the supernatural claims of Christianity? We welcome a sensible answer to this question.
Q: Help me to understand, tell me what The Blasphemy Challenge hopes to gain.
A: In our culture, religion gets an exclusively privileged place in conversation. Every other subject -- science, politics, etc. -- must follow the general rules we have for discourse: You make a claim, and anyone has a right to ask you questions about that claim to see if it stands up to scrutiny. Religion proponents, however, are routinely allowed to make sweeping claims and are immune from critical challenge. It is taboo to question religious claims, even if they are clearly lunacy.
The Blasphemy Challenge breaks this taboo. What we hope to gain is a level playing field where those who promote supernatural ideas must justify these ideas in the same way they would be required to if they were making any other kind of claim.
Comment #13280 by sapient on December 16, 2006 at 6:00 pm
Just getting back from our 3 hours out of the house, and I almost didn't think about work once! :-)
I've got some catching up to do before I properly address the comments I want to touch on. 3 hours away means about 100 emails or posts on my board. (ugh) The link on my site about wikipedia (I didn't realize before) is in an area that only members can view, if you have an account at RRS you can login:
HERE
Comment #13263 by sapient on December 16, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Crap... my post was just lost.
This time much more brief...
I'm out the door for one of those breaks that Logicel referred to, I've been working 20 hour days for 15 days straight on RRS issues.
Yorker: I am sorry if I misread, I will reread and revisit the issue tonight. I've got a feeling that the sleep deprivation is getting to me, again my apologies if I misread, I'll comment later.
Logicel, I also had written out a long history of my wiki debacle before I lost my post. Here is a link to the story about wiki:
HERE
Also, here is a link to the repost of your thoughts about the usage of "childish" in this thread: HERE
I did want to address one thing now... the bold text is merely a way to seperate my responses from the original poster.
Comment #13239 by sapient on December 16, 2006 at 10:33 am
Yorker: "They're just a bunch of young kids so I don't really blame them for this typically youthful reaction, so unlike most here so far, I'm not going to over-react to this. There are a few here who are strong supporters of the young, let's hear what they say."
Yorker I found your comment here belittling. Brian Flemming created the idea and he turns 40 this year, and our team is run by 20-43 year olds with an average age of 27. Calling us kids only makes your argument look worse. It was nice to see you do an about face in a future comment. You continue to comment that other 30 and 40 yr olds are not mature thereby projecting your own inadequacies of yourself on to us. It is you who is not acting mature, it is you who has engaged in a cheap rhetorical ploy designed to offend, all the while ignoring the dictionary definition of mature. You should be ashamed of yourself considering you hold maturity in such high regards.
Munger: "The problem is that by "denying" the holy spirit, you are announcing that you believe there is something to deny."
This argument is so poor, please rid your vocabulary of it. I denied the existence of Unicorns above to easily show you how bad that point is, and I await someones proof that Unicorns now exist. The word deny means to reject something as truth. It does not mean to reject something as truth therefore saying it's truth.
David A Robertson: "The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not to deny the Holy Spirit but rather to attribute the work of the Spirit to the Devil."
This argument is thoroughly refuted here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fac9xZyCPDs (watch video from 3:50 in)
MaxWeiss: "This seems misguided at best. We should be trying to prove to the world that atheists are good and decent people just like the rest of the world"
Yes, let's try what has been tried for 5,000 years. Let's meet the definition of stupidity head on and continue the same thing over and over again and expect a different result.
You keep being the palatable atheist, the one who shows others that you're just a good person, the one who most people probably don't even know is an atheist, and we'll try something progressive. I don't fault you for it, maybe you're on to something new. :P
WOW LOGICEL I ABSOLUTELY LOVED YOUR POST AND WILL REPOST IT ON MY SITE!
Comment #13125 by sapient on December 15, 2006 at 4:52 pm
You can't blaspheme that which doesn't exist?
Stupid ugly Unicorns are having sex with my dogs, and I deny the Unicorns!
Now, do me a favor, and look around, find me the Unicorns that now exist, and let me know where they are, because I've always wanted to see a Unicorn.
31. Reading of The God Delusion in Philadelphia v2
Comment #6634 by Sapient on November 15, 2006 at 7:32 am
#1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA9sFkYZSk8&eurl=
#2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3okMzAzfAg&eurl=
#3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXo6Gx_INY8&eurl=
32. Reading of The God Delusion in Philadelphia v2
Comment #6439 by Sapient on November 14, 2006 at 8:45 am
There is a danger of becoming a little too 'self-assured'
I've heard this a few times in the last few weeks, and while I agree I have yet to hear this argument used with relevance. Yes, definetly there's a danger in being too self assured, but is it dangerous to be self assured that you're correct in saying 2+2=4? No. It's not. Some things you can learn to realize are ridiculous, and it's not dangerous to be as certain as one can be that these things are ridiculous. Current self assurance doesn't mean that you're unwilling to change your thoughts should proper evidence present itself. Dawkins himself has used this "self assured" argument, yet isn't Dawkins "self assured" that evolution is a fact? Yes... yes he is. And should evidence be provided that evolution is false, Dawkins would be the first one in the boat with me to ridicule the lie of evolution.
I'm tired of hearing this "self assured is dangerous" argument.
33. Round Table Discussion with Richard Dawkins
Comment #4686 by Sapient on November 5, 2006 at 11:10 am
1) Not taking part in community events such as baptisms will only isolate you from your friends and family.
You may be right, however to some degree what we're trying to say is that religion has already offered the isolation, we're just a product of it. But I wont dwell here, let's see what's next..
While it's true that Baptisms, Easter Egg hunts, and Christmas are all celebrations rooted in religious traditions focused on children, participanting in such activities doesn't require indoctrinating children into a dogma. I myself was baptised - neither do I remember the event nor can I remember anyone referring to me as a "Christian child" after the event. AS such, your focus on baptism is I believe misplaced.
It was Margaret Downey who used baptism as an example, and to some extent I agree. I don't condone the practice and don't think I should support it. I can support my friend who is baptising their child in other ways, maybe even by suggesting to the friend that they only push on their kids what they can actually prove.
But what really bothers me is this: what you are promoting is an anti-social and divisive behavior that woud isolate atheists and undermine common social connections among families and communities; ultimately making it harder, not easier, to participate in rational dialogue about the dangers of faith.
As Sam Harris says the fight against irrational faith will be fought on a hundred fronts at once. If you're method is to be very civil with your family, show support at functions which include God, and so on, so that you can keep the line of communication open, I salute you. I don't think either method is more right or wrong. They are just two different approaches.
I heard "we must be careful not to be hypocrites" and it sounded to me like the speaker was referring to all atheists. If I misunderstood this, then I apologize.
I think you did misunderstand a little. I believe Margaret was talking about the show participants only. And I agree with her. Does it make sense for me to say the Catholic Church is the most corrupt organization on Earth, and then show support of my friend by attending ceremonies inside it's walls, in which he is supporting that organization? I don't think it does. To each his own though, should you choose to enter a Church, especially in the hopes to keep communication open in the hopes of discussing religion under a more mutually respectful roof, then I salute you.
2) Even worse for me was the presumptuous and dismissive characterization of the "angry believer".
I edited out a portion of what you said here, to save space, as it all revolves around the above sentence. I must say I'm uncertain what you're referring to. And to go on and insinuate bigotry is unfounded. Are you referring to us talking about why people get so angry when we talk about faith as being irrational? If so, and you don't agree with the reasons we think people get upset (ie challenging their entire worldview) then what do you think the reason is?
My family and my friends are mostly Christians or Muslims. They are generally very thoughtful and in many cases more intelligent than I am. My own thoughtful conclusions concerning the lack of evidence for their beliefs is not a label that seperates me from them any more so than my preference for syrup on my pancakes.
Good for you, you're luck to not have been in a family of extremists. There are many households where religious fundamentalists have atheist family members and could not say the same as you.
When atheism stops being simply the conclusion one reaches based on rational consideration of evidence, and becomes something more like a support group, (or (god forbid) a belief system like a religion) then an "us versus them" mind-set becomes inevitable,
Religion created that us vs them mentality many hundreds of years ago, to pretend it doesn't exist (except for maybe in the future) is to deny reality.
and rational discussion with the voluntarily manifested outsider group becomes impossible - isn't it difficult enough already to creae rational dialogue without creating and clarifying lines of demarcation?
Nope, we have an abundance of theists that want to talk with us. Keep in mind, 100 fronts at once. Did you not hear the good cop-bad cop analogy? There are plenty of good cops, religion still exists, obviously scientific thought has yet to win. Maybe some bad cops are needed to stir the pot.
By contrast, Professor Dawkins is spot-on when he observes that: "We are all atheists". Some of us just go one step further.
Agreed.
34. Round Table Discussion with Richard Dawkins
Comment #4611 by Sapient on November 4, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Geoff Campos,
A fully edited high quality (much better audio than the video) mp3 file will be made available shortly. Look for it on this site or at www.rationalresponders.com
Luther, if you want a higher quality file to manipulate, let me know via myspace or elsewhere (you know how to get me) and I'll get you a link for download. It's a 650 meg file in a higher wmv format.
35. Round Table Discussion with Richard Dawkins
Comment #4586 by Sapient on November 4, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Riley, constructive criticisms are very much appreciated, if you'd care to restructure your views in a more constructive format, I'm all ears.
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
