1. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #161098 by Galactic Lord Xenu on April 14, 2008 at 7:44 pm

Sure, you're joking now, ha ha, see guess, he was joking, he wasn't being serious at all! Nobody would be stupid enough to believe he was serious! Nope!

Sure, buddy.

The fact that you're telling me I'm wrong in regards to isms just means you're telling me I'm right, because the whole point was to show you that your anti-ism-ism is ridiculous and that you don't even truly believe it.

You're pretty silly.

2. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #161092 by Galactic Lord Xenu on April 14, 2008 at 7:31 pm

He's against Darwinism, atheism, and anything else that's an ism, because he has a simplistic mindset that doesn't understand basic literary concepts. His own dogma towards isms is ironically an "ism" unto itself.

His rant was amusing to read though--highly emotionally charged and shrill, I could almost hear him pounding on the keyboard with that meaningless dreck.

I suppose he is against "egalitarianism" in every single possible sense of the word, "humanism", and so on.

It's funny, he's borrowing Rastafarian logic here, and it's just as bad from him as it is from them.

His "anything goes! especially if it suites me!" philosophy is a bit disturbing, though.

Oh, and to the person that mentioned Linux not counting being open source--do you understand our arguments at all? Just because something is free, open source, etc, doesn't mean it's not acceptable or even not encouraged by libertarians. I think you have a very poor understanding of what we're saying, you're letting your own anger and ideology cloud your comprehension of a different idea.

Linux is something put together by people that came together voluntarily to make it. As far as I know, it's been created almost virtually with no government money; it truly is a great demonstration of humans coming together to fill a gap in the market. Even if Linux development has had government funding, it was most likely for a application needed by the government; and anyway, Linux didn't start out with any government funding and never would need any to survive.

Corporations and businesses, however, have poured money into Linux, and businesses like IBM and Novell contribute to its codebase.

Some consider Linux itself to be very CAPITALISTIC, in fact:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lora/m.lora22.html

Also, you can legally SELL Linux under its license.

3. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #161082 by Galactic Lord Xenu on April 14, 2008 at 7:18 pm

I guess the charge about (some) atheists having no morals is true, for without any "moral" framework (politics falls within morals, strictly speaking, as it's a *should* question; usually in reference to human rights etc). Naturally, this does not mean that government should cover every "moral issue" in the traditional way of thinking it, but the root is some sort of morality all the same because it deals with inter-human relationships.

Since you have no "ism" towards politics, I suppose you are for whatever is convenient at the time for you; truly, that is a selfish notion.

An "-ism" is merely a name for a political belief; technically, there are an infinite amount of possible "isms" and when you dig down, everyone has their own "ism"; if you have any guiding political/moral principles then you have an "ism", although possibly it is unnamed.

And the only alternative is random emotional responses to issues, and doing whatever feels convenient at the time.

OF COURSE, this is a guy claiming that an economic school was totalitarian because it was named after the country Hitler was born in, despite it being focused entirely on individual freedom and, unknown to him, its two greatest adherents were actually Jewish.

Oh, and the fact that Vienna (in Austria!) was a center for philosophy and the arts. But I guess all those Viennese philosophers and artists were just goose-stepping fascists, eh?

ACtually, I see now that you are simply for "whatever works". Is this a code for, "whatever serves me best, even at the expense at the lives or rights of others"?

4. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160291 by Galactic Lord Xenu on April 13, 2008 at 10:37 pm

Oh, and to expand on my previous post:

This guy is making essentially a type of fallacy that assumes that because of what we have in the present, we couldn't have had as good or better alternatives had the past been different.

Had Christianity (and religion) never existed, we'd be lacking much of the great arts we see today, but we'd have other great works to compensate for it.

5. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160290 by Galactic Lord Xenu on April 13, 2008 at 10:32 pm

More pathetic hogwash, more idiotic editorializing, etc...

Dawkins doesn't even need to defend himself on this, because he already has.

People have been influenced by religion to make great works of art. OK. That doesn't change the fact that despite the inspiration and the emotional behind those works, religion is a falsehood, a superstition.

They say Christianity is a myth--so what do they propose? Believing what they know to be a lie? Teaching other people what they think is false?

People have turned to mythology as inspiration for ages. Even during the Renaissance, when they weren't painting yet another Mary and Jesus work, they would very frequently draw on inspiration from the great Greek and Roman mythologies--Birth of Venus is a famous example off the top of my head. We still draw on the great myths for inspiration, yet none of us (well... a few still hold out for the various pantheons...) believe in the Greek and Norse gods.

And nobody is advocating one believe in Greek mythology to enjoy the art behind it. It's fun, yes, but we are not fighting against mere artistic usage of religion.

And I laugh at the idea of the Christian religion exploring complex philosophical ideas. The theology can be convoluted, yes; the religion itself, the actual beliefs, dogmas, and the ideas in the bible, pale in comparison to even a little reading of Hume, Nietzsche, Kant, etc, religious or irreligious.

Much of the great art merely reflects the periods they came from--without religion, we'd almost certainly have something else. The fact that religion was the subject matter because in ages past people were more preoccupied with it does not mean it can, or would have, been the only type of art.

I find it silly, it seems that this clown is almost advocating we keep religion and superstition around because of paintings and music, things in which ANYTHING can be its subject matter.

6. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #160286 by Galactic Lord Xenu on April 13, 2008 at 10:14 pm

I'm also rather amused at the car company conspiracy. It sounds exactly like what the health nuts say about the medical establishment having a cure for cancer and such.

7. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #160284 by Galactic Lord Xenu on April 13, 2008 at 10:08 pm

Those damn bourgeois businessmen, oppressing me!

*puts credit/debit card in machine, gets gasoline*

How DARE they raise the price on me! I need this to get to work!

*puts credit/debit card in machine, gets gasoline*

They're stealing from me. This is an outrage. I, a mere proletariat, can only sit and watch as the money drains out of my wallet. If only the government would save me!

*puts credit/debit card in machine, gets gasoline*

It's theft! Theft! I can't live my luxurious lifestyle without this. I'm being ripped off.

*puts credit/debit card in machine, gets gasoline*

Prices went up again? I'm still going to pay for this, but I have a human right to gasoline at comfortable prices, and that's what is personally convenient to me. Only the government can correct this grave social injustice!

*puts credit/debit card in machine, gets gasoline*

PRICES ROSE AGAIN? THIS IS UNSPEAKABLE CORPORATE GREED! It's not too high that I won't pay, but damn--prices are supposed to be what I'm used to, what I'm comfortable with--not what I'm personally willing to shell out!

If only God the government would come down and save me from these evils!

8. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159708 by Galactic Lord Xenu on April 12, 2008 at 11:03 pm

So why are you buying gasoline?

You still have a net benefit in the end...? In that case, both of you are benefiting.

Or are you not having a net benefit..? In which case... why are you buying gasoline?

It's true that they may raise prices to what you are not currently comfortable with, or they may have a strong grip on that sector. We all get upset when prices rise, but that's life and people trying to make money (unless you're opposed to that, which is rather trendy these days).

It's also true they have a strong grip, but they cannot maintain that monopoly if someone else is offering a better price or service, whether it be cheaper gasoline or an alternative fuel altogether.

The market is, in its purest sense, the will of the masses, as it's the masses that choose to keep these companies in business; they can either not by the product, out of not feeling it provides them a good deal or not approving the business' practices, or they can buy it if it is more necessary to them than the money.

You speak of the "invisible hand" taking the money out of your wallet, but I see you placing your money directly in the hands of the gas companies--they're not taking it, how can they, if you are offering it because you need something hey are offering?

You're giving up your money at "high" gas prices, you're handing it right over, they aren't taking it, buddy. You obviously want legislation to come in and make sure you get gas at prices *you* want, and you want a clear conscious, a way to justify your own form of greed. You're part of the problem--you're ponying up the money at that price, you're supplying the demand needed to keep prices at that level. Oh, but being part of the solution--to find alternatives, to conserve gas, to not help create the demand--that's too difficult, or perhaps you don't benefit enough out of doing that. If you want to know who the culprit really is behind high gas prices, look in the mirror--you're the consumer enabling them to keep prices high.

Obviously, you want, and need, a government to come in and make them offer what they have at a price you are more comfortable with, because as a normal person, you want things as cheap as possible with little regards to the possible negative consequences, you are jealous and angry that, despite how much you've benefited from making money in this system, that others have been allowed to end up with far more than you have; it is envy by comparison, no matter how much you have benefited, you see that others have benefited more and thus you react emotionally feeling that something is wrong. Classical psychological experiments have demonstrated this phenomenon again and again.

If we had a "system" where things were far worse, but everyone were equal, I have a feeling your complaints would be elsewhere. Like, perhaps, trying to fill your stomach. But at least it'd be "fair" and the money wouldn't be "squeezed out of your wallet", right?

It's interesting, because if gas prices were normally higher than this, and suddenly they fell to current levels, you'd be glad that they were *so low*. This reminds me of psychology experiments where rats, upon completion of a maze, would be rewarded a large amount of pellets. Further trials they would receive much less pellets than expected. What happens? Observable frustration, or otherwise a reaction to getting less then expected. The furor over whenever prices are raised higher than what you've come to expect or want is just another manifestation of this phenomenon in humans. The thing is, there is no *right* price for gas, no objective standards by which things should cost or otherwise judging the merits of exchange. There is merely what people are willing to pay for the product--what it is worth to you, and to others.

Also, I found you comparing the free market to a board game rather amusing; I didn't realize you got your views from tabletop games, it's a rather interesting perspective to say the least...

9. Sen. Clinton: Faith got me through marital strife

Comment #48326 by Galactic Lord Xenu on June 7, 2007 at 1:10 pm

Ron Paul is the only reason that I watch the Republicans at all, too.

Despite his conservative Christian leanings he's one of the few that seem sincere and unrehearsed.

The Democrats, more secular as they may be, want to take this country in the opposite direction I do.

10. Sen. Clinton: Faith got me through marital strife

Comment #48287 by Galactic Lord Xenu on June 7, 2007 at 10:26 am

It's a shame that the least religious candidates are the Democrats. I'm still going with Ron Paul, though.

11. Manufacturing belief

Comment #42737 by Galactic Lord Xenu on May 19, 2007 at 9:30 am

His view on philosophy is weird. He likes Hume, who dealt with epistemology quite a bit, and he doesn't like any other philosopher, because... they don't have much useful to say?

How are you even going to define 'useful'?

Sure, there's a lot of silly "philosophy" out there and Hume was a great philosopher, but to simply reject philosophers is nonsense especially considering that science is applied (epistemic) philosophy.

12. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41172 by Galactic Lord Xenu on May 15, 2007 at 3:12 pm

Falwell's death brightened my day. I did a dance when I read the news.

13. The God Delusion

Comment #21747 by Galactic Lord Xenu on February 10, 2007 at 10:31 pm

Orr engages in wordplay and strawman, as evidenced by him pretending Dawkins was having no philosophical ambitions (where did he get that? I don't see it) and then goes on to think that Dennett also said that Dawkins' arguments were only addressing ones from the pulpit, etc etc.

Given these... "criticisms" I cannot faithfully conclude Orr is a particularly intelligent man.

Why won't these people tell us what "good" theology is or what thinkers they prefer (Orr dodges this question quite cleverly by pretending to address it and then quickly moving on to something else)? I suspect they have faith in theology itself and think that good theology is out there, somewhere--and that it also justifies their beliefs.

14. [Warning: Graphic] Children's foreheads slashed in Muslim saint's name

Comment #20142 by Galactic Lord Xenu on January 31, 2007 at 3:09 pm

What a complete misrepresentation of what I said.

Come back when you grow up and learn to spell, reading your posts and the "thoughts" behind them is aggravating me.

15. [Warning: Graphic] Children's foreheads slashed in Muslim saint's name

Comment #20137 by Galactic Lord Xenu on January 31, 2007 at 3:03 pm

"Intelligentperson" (you are not), it is not "appealing to emotion" to say it is wrong--the appealing is done to show that it is worth fighting against.

Your relativism is also quite laughable, along with your grammar. How old are you? 15?

16. [Warning: Graphic] Children's foreheads slashed in Muslim saint's name

Comment #20133 by Galactic Lord Xenu on January 31, 2007 at 2:52 pm

Squiddity's posts read like an undergraduate who has just learned about informal fallacies yet doesn't quite understand them.

To use horrific examples when talking about something you argue against is perfectly fine. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the dangers of totalitarian states by pointing out specific horrific regimes, and there isn't anything wrong with using emotion in reference to these stories--"this is horrible!"

The assumption of this story being on the site already is that the reader doesn't believe in Islam. It is here because it showcases how religion is not a simple, harmless thing but how the superstition fosters pain and can really hurt people.

Stop trying to call out fallacies to make yourself feel educated.

17. Creationism Song

Comment #17730 by Galactic Lord Xenu on January 15, 2007 at 6:43 pm

I feel sick.

18. Federal Way schools restrict Gore film

Comment #17312 by Galactic Lord Xenu on January 12, 2007 at 10:02 pm

I feel like shooting myself in the face.

19. Sam Harris's Faith in Eastern Spirituality and Muslim Torture

Comment #16407 by Galactic Lord Xenu on January 6, 2007 at 2:14 pm

I was a bit hasty and did not read Harris' reply, so here are some comments about that:

Given what Harris has written in his book I think he is trying to downplay what he has previously written. Go read his quotes from the book and you'll see--the writer of this article is correct here, and points out the same thing.

I also think that he does make a fair point about torture; while I may not agree I will mull it over some. He's being unstigmatized for coming to a conclusion people don't like rather than looking at his reasons for it.

20. Sam Harris's Faith in Eastern Spirituality and Muslim Torture

Comment #16401 by Galactic Lord Xenu on January 6, 2007 at 2:05 pm

No, actually, Harris and psychic power is true. The torture thing is also true, but a bit misunderstood.

Harris is well-known because of his clear and concise attack on Christianity. He's a bit wack on some other stuff, as you can tell. I really wish Dawkins would distance himself from Harris, given that the real battle is over supernatural thinking...

Anyway, I don't think Harris is arguing that torture is a good thing, just that if war is acceptable, then torture itself should be. Which is actually something I think deserves a discussion, even if we may think he is misguided.

21. Secular fundamentalists are the new totalitarians

Comment #16299 by Galactic Lord Xenu on January 6, 2007 at 1:59 am

This guy is an idiot. But if you've gotten this far down the page, you've figured that out by now.

22. Divided by a common language: Richard Dawkins clarifies his position

Comment #15583 by Galactic Lord Xenu on January 1, 2007 at 12:32 pm

What concerns me is whether faith is "abusive" to children as it is irrational, and teaching children faith-based ideas is no different from having them grow up to believe the world is flat. Is it abuse to teach children in a cult that they must serve their charismatic cult leader or God will kill their family? Is it abusive to let children grow up and be subject only to Scientologist education?

Do parents and other authority, simply put, have the right to feed children what a rational mind would find to be patent nonsense?

If it is, does that mean religion should be included as abuse? It is probably not possible or desirable to make it illegal, but it's something to ponder.

23. What are you optimistic about? Why?

Comment #15582 by Galactic Lord Xenu on January 1, 2007 at 12:23 pm

I meant that we could not confirm it as being true. Simply put, we may NOT be capable of describing the universe at its most basic level.

Take, for example, string theory, which has no experimental evidence confirming or rejecting its predictions (yet, at least).

24. What are you optimistic about? Why?

Comment #15578 by Galactic Lord Xenu on January 1, 2007 at 12:04 pm

I'm not so sure that even if a "Theory of Everything" exists, we will be able to know the answer scientifically (meaning, we will never have a good reason to believe such a thing and thus never recognize it as the truth).

Also, they only listed Dawkins as an author of TGD? Why not also include The Selfish Gene and/or what Dawkins considers to be his magnum opus, The Extended Phenotype?

Edit: Apparently they are just listing the most recent works, nevermind.

25. Big Woman with a Distant Past: Stone Age gal embodies humanity's cold shifts

Comment #15369 by Galactic Lord Xenu on December 30, 2006 at 7:29 pm

260,000 years old? Puh-leeze! Everyone knows that the world is only about 6,000 years old. And what's this "evolution" crap?

26. Ghosts in the Machine

Comment #15313 by Galactic Lord Xenu on December 30, 2006 at 9:55 am

As silly as ghosts are, I'm not sure you can conclude ghosts are myth simply due to the fact that they can be induced in the brain.

Unless I'm missing something about this...?

27. Our Teapot, which art in heaven

Comment #9985 by Galactic Lord Xenu on November 26, 2006 at 8:19 pm

Heh, read again:

But equally fair is the believer's retort that the burden of self-proof rests with the greenhorn, not with the veteran. In the history of human thought, neo-Darwinian atheism is the new kid on the block and, if this book is anything to go by, it has yet to prove itself to the 'hood.


He's QUITE THE PHILOSOPHER, wouldn't you say?

28. Our Teapot, which art in heaven

Comment #9949 by Galactic Lord Xenu on November 26, 2006 at 5:52 pm

What an intellectual amatuer! Strawman and a complete and utter inability to -understand- the basic points of the arguments made!

This mental midget is a sad excuse of biomatter.

29. Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists

Comment #9458 by Galactic Lord Xenu on November 24, 2006 at 8:50 pm

Lee Strobel is an idiotic clown (having skimmed through one of his other works). The only thing good that can be said about him is that he doesn't like postmodernism.

Excuse me while I go drown myself in the toilet.

30. Praise the Lord - a bestseller!

Comment #9457 by Galactic Lord Xenu on November 24, 2006 at 8:45 pm

This guy is nothing more than an idiot that is responding to an idiotic sensationalistic article Dawkins addressed on this site's forum, I think.

31. Reptiles of the Mind -- Giving Thanks for Rational Atheists

Comment #9345 by Galactic Lord Xenu on November 24, 2006 at 2:27 pm

Another trite and idiotic piece with an almost threatening tone.

His problem is the typical "you can't talk about issues labeled 'faith'" crap. Boring.

32. God knows why faith is thriving

Comment #3130 by Galactic Lord Xenu on October 25, 2006 at 8:58 pm

The fact that they must resort to emotional appeals and misdirection shows that they are utterly lacking in evidence for their proposition.

"But many people who believe that the illness is caused by subluxations are utterly fine, moral people! Something is wrong with those meatheads who dogmatically and closed-mindedly espouse germ theory."

33. Battle of the New Atheism

Comment #2800 by Galactic Lord Xenu on October 23, 2006 at 4:01 pm

I'm not sure of why Geisert and Futrell don't endorse Sam Harris, but I at least have my own reasons:

He DOESN'T have the same goals as us.

http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-09/092206bad.html#i8

34. Battle of the New Atheism

Comment #2799 by Galactic Lord Xenu on October 23, 2006 at 3:59 pm

When questioning someone elses' beliefs is "impolite", you know there is something wrong with society's values.

We, at least Americans (I cannot speak for elsewhere), shun questioning faith. People like Mr. don't appear to be doing much good when politeness means bending the implications of our positions to appeal to the sentiments of the unwashed masses.

Take, for example, James Randi's brilliant (and yes, often scathing) attacks and criticisms of quacks, con-men, and supernaturalists in general. Few would advocate toning down the full implications of homeopathy being bogus (being that homeopaths are practicing dangerous non-medicine) or that psychic power scientifically unsound (thus making psychics, well, loony charlatans). But when it comes to the superstitions of the masses, well, manners apparently dictates "don't go there!" if the implication is too hard on the other side, truth be damned. And it's not just theists and agnostics making this criticism, some atheists do to.

35. Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Comment #2364 by Galactic Lord Xenu on October 20, 2006 at 10:14 pm

The reviewer is seriously a critic of post-modernism? He sure writes like one--incoherent steam-of-thought babbling, bouncing to-and-fro from criticisms to irrelevent political references, pretentious name-dropping (Foucalt? Check. Derrida? Check. References to psychoanalyis? Check.), convulated jargon and poorly-phrased wording, etc. I have to say that this type of rant is typical of the gutters of lit-crit...

His argument isn't much better. He says Dawkins makes various straw-man errors and doesn't attack the strongest arguments; he fails to mention what, exactly, they are. He makes frequent straw-man attacks himself (I do not need to outline them as most of them have already been outlined by others).

Essentially his criticism of Dawkins' book seems to be of some sort of mystic view of religion and theology, some sort of transcedental nonsense that seems to boil down to "religion is beyond analyzing like mere scientific facts". Am I wrong in this? I really have trouble reading Nonsense, Pretension, and Obscurantism, which is apparently the language of the review's author.