1. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #163042 by eXcommunicate on April 17, 2008 at 9:54 pm

Richard Dawkins is the new Hugh Heffner. Who knew?

2. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156341 by eXcommunicate on April 7, 2008 at 11:12 am

Jeez, this lady was way out of line. To her I'd say how dare she be a Democrat with a philosophy like hers! I know some of you on this board dislike Obama, but he has never chastised atheists or demeaned the atheist point of view. You can have someone go to church for 20 years, yet still have respect for others, and then you can have a woman like this who (apparently) goes to church and has no respect for others. It takes all kinds. There are asshole theists and there are asshole atheists.

3. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #144824 by eXcommunicate on March 16, 2008 at 8:17 pm

Oh wait, Mr PhD... Atheists are in a "cult" but you aren't... k.

4. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #129036 by eXcommunicate on February 18, 2008 at 2:23 pm

You apppear to be completely clueless about the security business. It involves a lot more than just having bodyguards stand around. It depends how much money you have to spend, of course.

5. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #128773 by eXcommunicate on February 17, 2008 at 11:13 pm

MaxD: "ain't no thing butta chicken wing"... 'sall good. I should pick my words more carefully when I am carelessly throwing my thoughts around. ;)

6. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #128766 by eXcommunicate on February 17, 2008 at 10:57 pm

MaxD: My point is not that her security guys will be big dumb oafs - my point was in regards to guys here on the internet talking about how they'd take a bullet for Ayaan. Unless you are trained to see these things coming an average Joe will never have time to prove he's badass enough to take a bullet. But in regards to having bodyguards, sure, they will be able to prevent a stabbing or maybe even gunfire from close range, but my point in regards to not "knowing what hit them" would be that an incendiary device or a gentleman with a rifle at some range would make Ayaan's bodyguards superfluous, or simply add to the bodycount. If anything we know the techniques employed by Islamic fanatics range from the blunt (stabbing someone in broad daylight) to a bit more sophisticated (home made bombs, covert ops).

I have no answers - only making conversation. I did donate, btw, back when the call for aid first went out.

7. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #128388 by eXcommunicate on February 16, 2008 at 10:25 pm

Guys...

If a Muslim Radical wants to kill Ayaan nobody will go Rambo and take a bullet for her. She (and you), and all her bodyguards will never know what hit them. Sad fact. Walking around with 2 or 3 beefcakes in sunglasses will not protect her.

Sad fact is the price of free speech is either the freedom to shut up or the freedom to risk your life. Some of us will be killed for our speech, whether its me, Ayaan, Richard, or someone else on this board. Either we are cowed or we are defiant.

8. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #126937 by eXcommunicate on February 14, 2008 at 2:23 pm

I wouldn't for a moment say Madeline was/is stupid. For me it seems she is still on her spiritual journey and is a bit confused. Good interview with Richard though! I agree somewhat with Bunting's assertion that fundamentalism is rooted in a kind of insecurity. Fundamentalist organizations offer structure and security to vast portions of the population that feel they need it. We Atheists like to proclaim our undying individualism, but we have that "luxury" of individualism here in the fat and happy West. Many rural communities here in the U.S. heartland are rotting economically at the core. Times are extremely insecure for many many Americans. Its no accident, IMHO, that Christian fundamentalism thrives in those states in the Union that a.) the rejection of worldly authority (far away evil Washington DC), b.) have fewer social safety nets, making Churches the providers of social security instead of secular providers, and c.) are more rural/conservative in nature, and ultimately isolating. This kind of environment just breeds tribalism, out-group hate, and fundamentalism.

If Hamas or the local Church of Christ is the one providing for your family's social, emotional, and/or financial security, then who are Atheists and/or the big bad secular West? The ones that will take that security away. It's a simple, but deep psychological equation that occurs in every one of us, not just "fundamentalists". It's the root of tribalism.

So what do we do to replace that security net and loosen the grip of fundamentalism and ultimately religion altogether? All I hear from fellow Atheists is that they want to rip the blanket off people and expose them to cold hard truth and reality. No solutions at all, but to throw cold water onto a freezing man. Sure, rip that blanket of false security and false truth off of a person, but a person still needs warmth. What we need instead is a different kind of blanket, not just cold water, or else religious fundamentalism will never wane.

9. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #125078 by eXcommunicate on February 10, 2008 at 10:37 pm

Hitchens' opening statement is blistering. He actually delivers it with gusto! I am impressed.

10. Blasphemy

Comment #123044 by eXcommunicate on February 6, 2008 at 12:01 pm

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/media/video/stoning_video_100kbps.wmv

11. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #122747 by eXcommunicate on February 6, 2008 at 12:02 am

Wasn't Hitchy supposed to debate D'Souza again? Was that ever posted?

12. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #122545 by eXcommunicate on February 5, 2008 at 12:32 pm

The last bit at the end with the bottle of Bourbon was hilarious.

13. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #122512 by eXcommunicate on February 5, 2008 at 11:21 am

I can't understand a word Christopher is saying.

EDIT: Turned my volume way up. Nice. Hitchy is so much better when he's sober.

14. The God Delusion: Now Available in US Paperback

Comment #113304 by eXcommunicate on January 19, 2008 at 8:44 am

GAH! Phatbat, I was just about to say that. ;)

15. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109359 by eXcommunicate on January 8, 2008 at 10:52 pm

What is a brainwash? One example: when I was still going through the primary school, the deputy principal would often take me from my class into his office, where he would spend hours explaining to me how bad is religion (he would make a great co-author for Mr Dawkins' next book) and how wrong I am that I still clinch to my beliefs in spate of such facts like, for example, the men (Uri Gagarin) went into the cosmos and allegedly did not see the God there, and so on. I was too young to comprehend everything he was saying to me, but one thing I know now that is was the classic example of a brainwash.

As to the morals, should we have a universal moral base or should we work out the moral systems, that suit us individually? The danger of atheism, in my view, is that everyone would be entitled to their own morals. It is the same danger as if every motorist would design their own road rules, don't you think?

16. Blind Faiths

Comment #108875 by eXcommunicate on January 7, 2008 at 6:56 pm

So no one has convinced me that religion is the SOLE cause. A cause, potentially, granted. An idiom for violence, yes.

17. Blind Faiths

Comment #108614 by eXcommunicate on January 7, 2008 at 10:51 am

al-rawandi - Here's the problem with your list... There are many other countries and populations with everything in your list, besides religion, being on the negative end of the spectrum (hopelessness, victimization, poverty, etc.), that don't breed suicide bombers and death cult personalities.

18. Blind Faiths

Comment #108602 by eXcommunicate on January 7, 2008 at 10:24 am

Well, Western Militarism should not be discounted as a tool against Islam. Having said that it is a merely one tool in an array of tools we have at our disposal - not the primary one. But when we are egregiously attacked, the fanatics must be made aware that we are not above a shockingly overwhelming and decisive military response. I'm with Hitch in that eventually, some of the fanatics will look around at their overwhelming military defeat and wonder if Allah is really on their side. Granted, Iraq seems to muddle this issue, but the Afghanistan War in its first year was a good example of this. The problem in Afghanistan wasn't that we were too ruthless, afterall, it's that we pulled our punches and took our eyes off the prize. This is an error that grieves me to my core. Imagine the message sent around the world if the Taliban had been, for all intents and purposes, utterly obliterated in a matter of a year, and Osama bin Ladin and his top command all captured and killed. Such a shockingly swift lopsided victory would have sent the proper message, but no - we pull our punches, let bin Ladin slip away, give lip service to tyrants like Musharraf, allow the Taliban to regroup, etc., so we can go on wondrous adventure in Iraq. I'm confident George W. Bush and his advisors will go down in history as one of the least competent American administrations in modern times.

19. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #108035 by eXcommunicate on January 5, 2008 at 9:41 pm

@roach & Summer...

Not to start a circle jerk, but I'm in complete agreement. That's one of the things I say to theists when we discuss the Bible itself. If the Bible is so great and so revolutionary, then why does it advocate a morality and lifestyle that any other book from the 8th century BC could have advocated? There's nothing truly unique or special about it to warrant such reverence. For instance, its when Christians try to defend slavery vis a vis, the Bible. They recognize that slavery is wrong, but try to say the Bible is a product of its time. That's where I jump in and say, hey wait a minute, is the Bible timeless or not? Is the morality contained therein "objective morality" that should stand the test of time, or not? For some Christians this gets them thinking. No doubt they'll find some rationalization somewhere down the line, but at least there is that fleeting glimmer of doubt.

20. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #108021 by eXcommunicate on January 5, 2008 at 8:39 pm

@Summer

Thank you for the insight into Judaism. Posts like yours are the reason I come back to this site every day. :)

21. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #108017 by eXcommunicate on January 5, 2008 at 8:33 pm

Paine said:

Why? Is there any point in debating D'souza? He spews so much nonsense that you'd take hours to refute each point.

Besides, I think the debate with Dennett showed that he doesn't need to be demolished by his opponent, he can do it all by himself. I mean, as boring as Dennett was, Dinesh still managed to make a complete jackass of himself.

There's no point in anyone serious debating Dinesh, any unknown would be up to the job.

22. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107968 by eXcommunicate on January 5, 2008 at 5:36 pm

I agree with Sauveterre on all three (corrected) points. I disagree with Negasta that Wolpe is a moron beyond compare. I mean, seriously? Worse than D'Souza? Naw. The man (Wolpe) is obviously intelligent and its a shame he didn't put that intellect into something more worthwhile than Judaism.

And now, having watched the entire video, I can finally agree with those that advocate the smackdown between Harris and D'Souza. I once thought Dawkins could be our man, but he seems to get flustered a bit sometimes. Harris looks to be so zen, it would take a Sasquatch walking up to shake his hand (eat his liver?) to rattle the man. ;)

PS: Sauveterre, you can edit and delete your own posts.

23. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107775 by eXcommunicate on January 5, 2008 at 9:31 am

"The torture of crackers..."

24. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107383 by eXcommunicate on January 4, 2008 at 12:49 pm

Sam's facial expression @2:32 is classic.

25. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106856 by eXcommunicate on January 3, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Shuggy - Unfortunately your design could be misconstrued to read "a theist" rather than "atheist."

26. Changing my Mind

Comment #106714 by eXcommunicate on January 3, 2008 at 10:00 am

jeepyjay - My intent with that diagram was not to construct a 100% accurate view of "belief." My point was that a 1 axis view of belief, similar to a 1 axis view of political thought, is inaccurate. A 2 axis view is less inaccurate in both instances.

27. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106570 by eXcommunicate on January 3, 2008 at 6:55 am

Naw man, they're your style. Live it up!

No, you don't need to write in thick impenetrable paragraphs. Your reply misrepresenting what I said sorta proves my point - you fly off the cuff, without thinking things through. Is that an ad hominem? If it is to you, I can't really argue with that, that being your perception of being personally attacked. But the fact is, you go on to say I am "not even close" about your views and then refuse to elaborate. Is it beneath you, man? Don't do it for my sake, I'm clearly not the only one who wishes you'd clarify your statements (I'd wish you'd take the time to clarify them when you first make them, but beggars can't be choosers).

28. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106566 by eXcommunicate on January 3, 2008 at 6:43 am

I have to repat my question, are you deliberaltely trying to misunderstand?

29. Changing my Mind

Comment #106273 by eXcommunicate on January 2, 2008 at 3:40 pm

Belief is not a simple atheist-theist axis. There is a second axis that runs perpendicular and that is the agnostic-gnostic axis. Together they are what I call the "Belief Compass." It's very similar to the (internet) famous "Political Compass."

A graphic of the "Belief Compass" I whipped up:
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/1082/atheisttheistagnosticgnyh5.jpg

The Political Compass:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

30. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106083 by eXcommunicate on January 2, 2008 at 10:40 am

On the contrary, Diacanu's posts are not concise. They not succinct. If anything they are thoughts strewn carelessly about without thinking things through, or if he has thought them through, without giving thought to how he expresses himself. "Bluntness" and honesty are one thing, but coherent he is not.

Diacanu, so let's sum up your argument against genetic manipulation:

1.) You want the human race to stay within limits that you are comfortable with. You fear you will lose emotional attachment to future incarnations of humanity.

2.) You assume the power of genetics will be centralized into authority.

3.) Given your distrust of authority, #2 is automatically "bad".

4.) Even if the power of genetics is decentralized, human beings are petty and evil and horrible and piss poor judgers, IYHO, of what their children should be like, so we'll fuck it up anyway.

Sorry if I'm being a dick here, but I feel the need to pin people to their arguments, especially when they appear vague. Thanks to zbob, Mitchell Gilks, Janus, Paula Kirby, et alia for writing coherent posts.

31. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105226 by eXcommunicate on December 30, 2007 at 11:46 pm

Styrer, let's understand where you're coming from. First, just answer this: Stereotyping, although ethically questionable, had an advantage somewhere along line of our evolution as a social species. Furthermore, in some ways it may still benefit us as individuals attempting to navigate modern society. Do you agree with these statements or disagree? Why or why not?

32. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104334 by eXcommunicate on December 28, 2007 at 10:42 am

This is a backhanded compliment if anything. Didn't take long for a religious leader to put his spin on the "revelation" that Richard likes to sing Christmas carols. Hell, I like singing "12 Days of Christmas" with my extended family every Christmas, but that doesn't mean I do it for the "awe" and "inspiration" I get from the "Christian Message"[TM].

33. Christmas with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #104259 by eXcommunicate on December 28, 2007 at 8:25 am

Hi c04bf156. :)

I haven't read many of Richard's books, so others can recommend which to read first, but I think all of his books are plastered on the front page of this site. I need to take a looksee at a few of them myself. Happy hunting!

About Richard's comments at various forums/interviews/etc. on Youtube - you're right, he does get asked the same questions over and over again and probably attempts to address them proactively before the questions are even asked (even then - they still ask them). But you'll notice over time Richard's presentation and arguments do "evolve" so to speak.

34. Christmas with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #103493 by eXcommunicate on December 25, 2007 at 8:58 pm

castletonsnob - Yes, it must be a "conservative" thing to do to punish a country's people when its government is hostile to U.S. interests. WTF? Hitchens can vacation in Venezuela for all I care. Why should you care? Why should it be a Left vs. Right issue?

35. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #103060 by eXcommunicate on December 24, 2007 at 9:13 am

I'm waiting for the first book to prove God heals amputees:

http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/

36. Christmas with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #102279 by eXcommunicate on December 22, 2007 at 8:31 am

Surely a 2.0 would kill the man. ;)

37. Synthetic DNA on the Brink of Yielding New Life Forms

Comment #100849 by eXcommunicate on December 19, 2007 at 12:50 pm

I really don't know what to think of this. I mean, I'm an Atheist with a capital 'A', but am weary of science being used for ill. I am a strong proponent of science, but there are too many instances in our lifetimes even where science has been perverted or gone awry. I'm no Christian doomsdayist, who doesn't think mankind should "play god" or whatever that means, but I believe these things should be heavily regulated, at least in the early to mid-stages, so that we as a society can fully come to grasp with the implications of what we're doing.

38. This Week's Flea

Comment #100557 by eXcommunicate on December 18, 2007 at 10:19 pm

Sheesh, maybe I can write a book full of half-baked nonsense "critiquing" Dawkins, at. al., and I can make thousands of dollars!

It's like that dude, D'Souza. I wish I could be as intellectually dishonest as some of these guys and rake in their kind of cash.

The fact these fleas get published at all is at the very least evidence against a benevolent deity.

39. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96204 by eXcommunicate on December 10, 2007 at 6:50 am

What's hawt?

HAWT Horizontal-Axis Wind Turbine?

hmmm..maybe you're right!

40. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96199 by eXcommunicate on December 10, 2007 at 6:35 am

Would it be rude for me to say I thought the Muslim chick in the headscarf was hawt? :( lol

Good work by Richard here. Though I think he has a habit of not "getting" questions though. It might be Richard's precise nature. Dr. Joyce's question for example.

I do have to say that Richard smited mightily Father Whatshisnuts. I was proud at that moment.

41. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95608 by eXcommunicate on December 8, 2007 at 6:40 pm

Mostly chicken-it tastes like T-Rex.

42. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95360 by eXcommunicate on December 8, 2007 at 6:21 am

Eddie Tabash's interview is a good too.

43. Holy Nonsense

Comment #95271 by eXcommunicate on December 7, 2007 at 8:20 pm

I'd laugh at Romney's speech if he wasn't running for president...

44. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #94850 by eXcommunicate on December 6, 2007 at 8:30 pm

Not to sound like a total dick n00b, but doesn't it seem like the whole conference was about a bunch of ubermensch grandstanding to one another? Then again, I haven't watched all 1000 hours of video.

45. Bad Faith Awards: Vote for the winner now

Comment #94631 by eXcommunicate on December 6, 2007 at 5:37 am

D'Souza without a doubt. Richard being on that list is laughable.

46. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94399 by eXcommunicate on December 5, 2007 at 3:28 pm

I'm with Riley on this one. As an argument for God, "Fine Tuning of the Universe" is a non-starter, for the logical reasons Riley pointed out. A valid area of inquiry though? You betcha!

47. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #93854 by eXcommunicate on December 4, 2007 at 10:24 am

Ack! Is there no 2 of 2 for Friday? Sam is cut off.

48. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #93629 by eXcommunicate on December 3, 2007 at 6:59 pm

Sometimes I wonder if Hitchens and Dawkins get a little miffed by all the condescending (to me) comments about their accents. Are we really that childish here in America? Nevertheless, this is a very good interview. Hitchens is quite agreeable when not confronting an enemy talking head.


And despite being a Christian Conservative, Joe Scarborough is very agreeable as well. He's one of those "old school" conservatives that a liberal can at the very least reason with. Last observation/question: Do you think some of the chuckles and giggles from the female anchor indicated discomfort with the discussion topic?

49. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93545 by eXcommunicate on December 3, 2007 at 12:40 pm

Dr. Benway: I still think Dan skirted the topic agreed upon for debate in his very first opening statements. The topic wasn't, "Is religion a man made invention?" The (ludicrous) topic of debate (as agreed to by Dennett) was "Is God a man-made invention?" I assume D'Souza proposed this topic as a rhetorical trap, but Dan didn't address it. I think the format of the debate wasn't even set up to fully broach the issue anyway. But anyway you look at it, Dan still wiped the floor with Dinesh (Mr. "Men's Wearhouse Big & Tall") D'Souza.

50. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93518 by eXcommunicate on December 3, 2007 at 10:39 am

Well, let's be honest - Dan pulled a "Dinesh" and didn't fully address the topic of the debate. He kind of beat around the edges and then it's off to a new topic. I don't blame him - Dinesh came up with the Debate Topic and might have been setting Daniel up for a rhetorical "fall". This is why I don't like American style "debate" where the moderator rarely, if ever, steps in to keep both sides honest and on track. Having said that, Prof. Dennett still did an admirable job parsing D'Souza's circus act and responding appropriately and with the proper authority.

John_Geeshu: Have you even read these last 7 pages of talkback? It's chocked full of refutations of D'Souza's supposed "good points" and "eloquent" answers. On YouTube, likewise, you'll find over a hundred responses refuting Dinesh's presentation. The ad homs come because of D'Souza's easily refuted arguments, not because we're threatened by his intellect. I agree, the man's not an idiot. But I think he willfully obfuscates and equivocates. It's a conscious decision from him to do this. It's his "schtick". It's what gets him famous (for riling atheists) to sell books that make him rich. It all just means more professional speaking engagements for him. If only I could morally and intellectually bankrupt myself to his extent - I could make a bunch of money at it and be on easy street.