1. Sir David Attenborough on God

Comment #88850 by Amanda S. on November 19, 2007 at 4:26 am

If we have nothing to fear from religious moderates, who elected George Bush? Who are the Bishops advising to vote for their salvation? We better bury the archiac beliefs, before they bury us.
If you personally ascribe to the notion it is virtuous to accept religious claims without evidence, it is possible to possess the one truth, and it is correct to have faith you will receive rewards after your death, you encourage others to embrace irrationality.
Large numbers of adherents lend legitimacy to a belief. If one person prostrated themselves before God, they would be institionalized. Yet, the masses gather in church.
Atheism is condemned because we are in the minority.
Richard Dawkins states we have been accommodating and polite regarding religious views far too long. Didn't he say the religious should be embarrassed by their beliefs?
What do you think his purpose was in writing The God Delusion and speaking about atheism if we are to accept the tyranny of the religious without question?
We are supposed to limit comments to spare the theists sensitive feelings? Theists are certain any nonbeliver is going to hell. They have no qualms about this because it is clearly our own fault. Should we compare our insensitivity to one another? Atheists generic mean comments toward theists vs. theists certainty athesists deserve eternal damnation. They are winning the contest of evil words.
An out campaign is unlikely to work when athesists are admonished for writing atheists views on an atheists site. Perhaps we should have a camaign on how to correctly be an atheist. We could call it the stay in campaign.
If anyone doubts the power of ridicule, why do you think most atheists remain silent and uncounted?

2. Sir David Attenborough on God

Comment #87924 by Amanda S. on November 13, 2007 at 4:35 pm

Obviously, a few of us were imagining a better world. We would need a much more enlightened society to elect an out of the closet atheist. If you are tolerant enough to let theists bumble on about an invisible entity they will spend eternity with in the clouds, please allow us to dream.
No one stated theists should not be tolerated, only that we would be more comfortable if they were not in charge. Sam Harris is very eloquent in explaining why this would be the case. Don't try to disarm us. We only fight the status quo with words.
Moderates provide cover for the fundamentalists. The two could have a very stimulating conversation about how Abraham really loved Isaac. The fundamentalist would feel supported. They share the same basic beliefs. Yet, the fundamentalist feels the moderate just doesn't have the same commitment. After all the moderates brandish the same holy book. The fundamentalists just adhere to the tenets of their faith more devoutly. This alone should prove religion is poison if taken as prescribed. Yet, thanks to the moderates preaching transubstantiation, the apocalypse, and a literal hell is not enough to illuminate the loose cannons.
I am all for religious freedom as long as I am not looked down on for my lack of faith, my children are not taught biblical fantasy as fact, no one tries to make policy of religious dogma in an attempt to control women's bodies, and no one hears voices form up high instructing them to begin unnecessary wars.

3. Sir David Attenborough on God

Comment #87036 by Amanda S. on November 11, 2007 at 4:16 am

Which one of the three major holy books states other religions are equally as valid? The message in each is to smite those who do not believe exactly what is written in this book. But, these god inspired tomes are so darned big and boring the righteous have no clue what they are endorsing.
If someone states they believe we do not know how far the poison of religion has invaded their thought processes. Having an allegiance to an imaginary entity should be an impediment to election to public office.
Do you really want someone who believes in the second coming to control foreign policy? Or would you rather have someone rational who understands instability is a bad thing?

4. Response to Theodore Dalrymple

Comment #86073 by Amanda S. on November 8, 2007 at 4:25 am

Why do religious people cling to the myth of santa claus? Belief, or more likely duplicity, is regarded as intelligence when the opposite is more likely to be true.
Does the magic of story telling have no appeal unless the characters are real? If parents wish to provide an example of love and charity, can't they be loving and charitable? Does it prime the young for religion because children mimic the adults even when it is illogical to do so?
This myth clearly shows no one should trust answers from religious people. The pious prefer a consoling story rather than reality.
In many novels there is a character who privately reveals disbelief. I would take this to mean that the author does not believe and is confident that his audience harbors doubt also.
There are only so many words. So, most communication is redundant. In fact, the best literature has a familiar aspect.
The fundamental atheist argument remains intact because the original hypothesis is most likely correct.

5. Response to Theodore Dalrymple

Comment #85633 by Amanda S. on November 6, 2007 at 2:30 pm

Science is the foundation of medicine. If a particular treatment does not work, it is discarded.
Are the religious going to stop praying?
Could they ever understand that those close to god often make poor leaders.
Religious believers close their minds on purpose. The last thing they would want to do is accept reality.
Atheists have nothing new to offer because the truth does not change.

6. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #75397 by Amanda S. on October 2, 2007 at 2:04 pm

It is 'universally true' to any compassionate person that raping a child is wrong. However, the Bible still promotes incest, pedophilia, rape, and tells you how to sell your daughter into slavery. Even in more recent times the Catholic church had difficulty understanding the effects of child molestation and the importance of keeping such offenders away from the innocent.
If there were a god, our predestined lives would be an obligation to fulfill the purpose of a creator. Exercising free will would likely end with our relocation to a very uncomfortable place. The burden of such a life would truly be pointless.
Sometimes ridicule and laughter work well at exposing foolishness. Why should blind faith stimulate reverence and respect? We do not always attribute the changes within ourselves to an apporopriate cause. I would think even a caustic comment would do more to elicit change than silence. Any remark about religion at least stimulates thought. If no one ever questioned the faithful, they would retain the mistaken impression we all believe.

7. MORE GOOD NEWS for US taxpayers

Comment #73559 by Amanda S. on September 25, 2007 at 9:31 am

Why wouldn't an atheist site argue that the churches and those with religious affiliation should not be tax exempt instead of obtaining such exemptions themselves? Are we arguing that religion is not necessary, or trying to create an alternative? I guess I am confused. Please assist.

8. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #69407 by Amanda S. on September 11, 2007 at 6:39 am

Please, if anyone has time there is a debate on amazon regarding abortion. Log on to amazon the never ending debate on abortion. A voice for prochoice is definitely needed. There is a religious woman on the site that keeps telling me to bite her. She is angry bcause I have made some comments about religion. I need reinforcements.

9. Unreasonably superstitious

Comment #65943 by Amanda S. on August 27, 2007 at 1:40 pm

I only hope that Richard Dawkins is not backing off the defense againsts religion for an easier target.

While we are on the topic of foolish superstition, when is wine not wine and wafers not wafers? Why do Christians want to imitate cannibals?

When are the faithful going to admit the significance of holy baptismal water flowing from the tap?

10. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #60876 by Amanda S. on August 3, 2007 at 3:57 am

Rtambree Are you actually suggesting that incest should be legalized? I hope if you do that many people on this site let you know how ethically disgusting your ideas are. I agree there is no god. People should be ashamed to believe in such a concept in this day and age. However, it is this kind of garbage talk that makes chiristians think atheist are not moral.

11. The Out Campaign

Comment #60261 by Amanda S. on August 1, 2007 at 12:09 pm

Atheism is not a choice. If someone has a certain level of intelligence, they will have doubts whether they express them or not.