1. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148793 by Sinful Messiah on March 24, 2008 at 12:00 am

In an interview with Pat Robertson, Ben Stein discusses his new propaganda piece.
http://www. youtube. com/watch?v=EYTTkenu60Y

Here's what Stein says:

Darwinism leads to Social Darwinism, so I've always questioned it.

Darwinism explains so little:
It does not explain how life began.
It does not explain how gravity keeps the planets together and in their orbits.
It doesn't explain how thermodynamics works.
It doesn't explain how physics or the laws of motions works.

No one has ever observed the evolution of a single mamallian species. No one has found fossil record of this.

People want to suppress the idea of an intelligent designer because they think, "If there's a God, I'm going to be held morally accountable. If there is no God, if it all happens by accident, random mutation, and natural selection, I'm not responsible; I'm just a creature of my genes. But if there is a God, I'm morally responsible and I'm in deep trouble here."

It's a perfectly reasonable hypothesis that an intelligent designer who always was created life.

Life came from an intelligent designer. I'm willing to admit that I could be wrong, just give us free speech!

Darwin didn't mention astronomy or physics.
Why can't we question whether Darwinism accounts for those things too?

2. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96776 by Sinful Messiah on December 10, 2007 at 10:26 pm

Attila the Hun. Genghis Khan. Napoleon Bonaparte. Adolf Hitler. Joseph Stalin. Pol Pot. Saddam Hussein.

I could name more. In fact, name any legendary killer or conqueror. Know what they all had in common? They did not believe in the Easter Bunny.

I think this conclusively proves that non-belief in the Easter Bunny leads to murder and genocide.


My question is this: When is the Pope, a leading aeasterbunnyist, going to apologize for the actions of his fellow non-believers?

3. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96750 by Sinful Messiah on December 10, 2007 at 9:53 pm

BAEOZ -

[Is sinful Messiah claiming that we are all born Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc and then we winnow away those religions which just don't happen to coincide with our parents religion*?]

No.

[Religion is learnt through culture and upbringing. It's not innate.]

Agreed. So we are born areligious. But how can we say that we are born atheist?

Mathew Alper--an atheist--wrote an interesting book called "The God Part of the Brain," in which he argued that some of us are born with an innate sense of god or gods. He backed up his thesis with dozens of studies and some good arguments.

I'm not saying that I buy into Alper's theory, but I think it is premature to claim that we are "all born atheists."

__________________________________________


Don_Quix-

[I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you asking me if I believe that human beings are born with pre-existing academic knowledge? If so, then of course I certainly disagree. However I wouldn't describe myself as a "blank slate theorist" (whatever that is).]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate

4. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96733 by Sinful Messiah on December 10, 2007 at 9:35 pm

[That's me all over baby. Irresponsible, unreliable, and a bunch of other ibles.
*smirk*]

And you are clearly ignorant of logic and the burden of proof.

You claimed that we are born as atheists. Now you are asking me to disprove you?

[See where digging your feet in will get you with me.
Not very far.]

Yes, I already noted that you are quite the dogmatic fundamentalist.

5. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96729 by Sinful Messiah on December 10, 2007 at 9:27 pm

Diacanu:

[Well, unless you can find me a baby who absent religious indoctrination is at least a deist, I think it's time for you concede the point, and let it the fuck go.]

I'm sorry, you made the claim that we are all born atheists. I don't need to go out and find a baby, nor do I need to "let it the fuck go."

On the other hand, you should not be making claims without being able to support them with reason or logic. FYI: You have not supported your claim.

6. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96726 by Sinful Messiah on December 10, 2007 at 9:24 pm

[Null hypothesis: we are not born as atheists.

This null hypothesis certainly can be scientifically tested and the questions answered, and further EVIDENCE can thus be bestowed upon the theory that we are all born atheists. This is the great thing about reason and science. It can actually be tested. Faith, on the other ridiculous hand, cannot ever be tested rationally. It is a null state of being.]

Agreed. Until this hypothesis is tested we shouldn't make the claim that we are all born atheists. It is irresponsible to claim that we are all born as atheists without the data.

I would personally like for it to be true, but I cannot let that influence my thinking.

7. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96724 by Sinful Messiah on December 10, 2007 at 9:22 pm

Diacanu:

[I believe I did.
And I see you gave no rational refutation to the case I made, but went into hysterics.
I accept your surrender.]
Hysterics? Surrender?

I just reread what you wrote above. I see an attempt at an analogy which concluded with the admission that:

[I admit my conclusion may be a bit of a leap off from that, but....]

What more must someone else say when you admit that you conclusion does not follow?

It was a simple suggestion.

If you believe that we are all born as atheists, be prepared to support your claim with reason or evidence. Don't be dogmatic (we like to leave that to the theists).

8. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96718 by Sinful Messiah on December 10, 2007 at 9:16 pm

[Would it be fair to say "we are all born without detailed knowledge of organic chemistry"? Or is that being too dogmatic?

If you agree with that statement, then to me it seems that saying "we are all born without detailed knowledge of a magical sky-fairy" would also be a valid statement.

If you don't agree with that statement, then I must be misunderstanding what you are trying to get across here.]


Interesting strawman on what I was saying. Nowhere did I say anything about detailed knowledge of any specific deity or deities.

The claim that we are all born atheists is far from being demonstrated - it is as equally distant from being demonstrated as the claim that we are all born as theists.

What has been demonstrated, however, is that we are not born as a blank slate. Unless you disagree? Are you a blank slate theorist?

My point here is that we should not make such claims without reasons or evidence. Unless you disagree?

9. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96702 by Sinful Messiah on December 10, 2007 at 8:57 pm

[We are born with an "absorb information and instruction from parents and people of authority" gene. Whether or not you want to call it "god gene" is your choice. It is an idiotic choice, but it is your choice nonetheless.]

praskal-

Which gene is that? If you don't know, don't make things up. If you don't know it's OK to just stay silent. There's no need to invent information. We like to leave that to the religious people.

Same advice goes to Diacanu.

If you are to make a claim like, "We are all born atheists," be prepared to defend it. Obviously the data is not completely in here. It's a discussion that we can have.

But you two are being dogmatic with your absolutism.

10. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96673 by Sinful Messiah on December 10, 2007 at 8:15 pm

I'm still having trouble with the fact that Jonathon Morris thinks that we can somehow atone for the sins of others.

As if we are at all responsible for the bad deeds of the deceased.

11. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96670 by Sinful Messiah on December 10, 2007 at 8:13 pm

"I think it more likely it's a gene/brain part meant for something else that gets exploited. "

Why do you think that?

What reasons do you have for saying that we are all born atheists?

What evidence supports your beliefs?

12. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96666 by Sinful Messiah on December 10, 2007 at 8:05 pm

Diacanu-

How do you know that we are all born atheist? How do you know that some of us are not born with a 'god gene' or 'god part of the brain'?

13. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96638 by Sinful Messiah on December 10, 2007 at 7:30 pm

theantitheist:

That priest wont be happy unless we crucify Richard Dawkins so that the sins of all atheists, past and present, may be forgiven.

14. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96612 by Sinful Messiah on December 10, 2007 at 6:48 pm

The letter from the Priest is nothing more than an invitation to join the religion of self-loathing and self-blame: Christianity. What a sick belief system in which one attempts to take the blame, humiliation, and punishment for the crimes of others. And that's what this is really about isn't it? Trying to make the Pope of Atheism own up to the sins of others. If it worked for the Catholic Pope, why not the atheist Pope?

Sadly, the atrocities in the name of Christianity ultimately work to the benefits of Christians, as it just shows that they need Jesus all the more. It also gives the priests one more thing about which to hate themselves.


If he replies at all, Dawkins should simply take the offensive. He can recap some of his best arguments against God and possibly highlight the current dangers with Catholics such as condoms/AIDs in Africa or stem cells.

If I were Dawkins I would respond, just not to any of the claims regarding the "greatest crimes of the 20th century," as that argument is utter bullocks.

He should simply say that horry old argument was answered in the book, pages 272-278 and embed a link to amazon. Might as well get some free advertising.


As Sam Harris said at AAI, it's a waste of time to have to deal with this nonsense. This is exactly what he was warning about.

As far as you people on this website go, you're just regurgitating the same old rebuttals. Some of which were written by Dawkins himself. Even Father Morris has heard these rebuttals, but that doesn't stop him, D'Souza, or any others from throwing bombs at every opportunity. What is the point of preaching to the choir here? Who are you trying to impress? Don't you think we've all heard these before?

15. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96591 by Sinful Messiah on December 10, 2007 at 6:31 pm

This is exactly what Sam Harris was talking about at his speech at AAI.

A endless, tired argument that won't go away. Poor Dawkins.

16. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #84963 by Sinful Messiah on November 4, 2007 at 11:05 am

I'll read these books in Borders/Barnes & Nobles and then leave them under the couch.

17. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #83095 by Sinful Messiah on October 28, 2007 at 11:53 pm

Stalin killed 100,000 Christians?

1) The Lord works in mysterious ways!

2) You think they'd get the hint...


:)

18. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #83093 by Sinful Messiah on October 28, 2007 at 11:33 pm

The theory of evolution leads to eugenics, genocide, murder.

19. The New Atheists on Organized Freethought

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

Talk about low class!

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

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

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

20. The New Atheists on Organized Freethought

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

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

21. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #81591 by Sinful Messiah on October 25, 2007 at 12:01 am

I find the "hard-wired into our genome" retort to be unsatisfying and incomplete.

The theist can then press the argument by pointing out the innumerable instances of barbarism and violence throughout human history into the present day (not to mention in the animal kingdom as well).

The theist can also point out differences (ignoring universals) in systems of ethics in various cultures.

While I know there are rather simple rebuttals to all these arguments, why bother? As an atheist why not go straight for a sound system of ethics instead of appealing to nature?

I say the best rebuttal when a theist raises this canard is to briefly mention evolution/reciprocation/hard-wired and then immediately get right into the basic tenets of non-theistic ethics. Provide your audience or opponent with a more sound substitute for Christianity. This is something I think Christopher Hitchens could learn from Sam Harris.

While it's fun (and all too easy) to recognize the shortcomings and inadequacies of the abrahamic faiths in terms of morality, it's not enough to just knock them down and leave everyone hanging. Use the accumulation of a millennium's worth of philosophy and ethics to hold a strong position in the debate.

22. Pascal's Wager

Comment #81582 by Sinful Messiah on October 24, 2007 at 11:33 pm

I like the theological arms-race rebuttal.

Is it best to choose the religion that dreams up the most attractive heaven and the worst hell? At what point do we stop the race and make our choices?

The bottom line is that fear-mongering is a pathetic way to entice anyone for almost anything. It's even worse to base your truth claims and personal life choices based on such a fear.

I loathe this argument about as much as I loathe the "but where do you get your ethics?!" argument.

23. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #81327 by Sinful Messiah on October 24, 2007 at 3:38 pm

The Tamil Tigers argument should be addressed too

24. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #81320 by Sinful Messiah on October 24, 2007 at 3:26 pm

D'Souza slipped Pascal's Wager into the Hitchens debate.

A basic argument, but when debating one should be able to recognize the argument because it can be worded and thrown around in so many different ways.

I think D'Souza said "it's a leap of faith for both of us..."

25. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #75136 by Sinful Messiah on October 1, 2007 at 10:35 pm

I find the RRS to be shameless.

26. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74846 by Sinful Messiah on September 30, 2007 at 10:04 pm

Do the RRS core members have any education?

27. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74439 by Sinful Messiah on September 28, 2007 at 9:56 pm

Is it the lack of professional clothes or lack of credentials which cause the RRS to come off like angry amateurs?

28. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74426 by Sinful Messiah on September 28, 2007 at 6:44 pm

Roach: The complains are not so much about their appearance, but their delivery and the substance of what they say.

Yorker: Brian is in his mid-thirties. (In some places he claims 32, others he claims 34 years of age.)

29. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74421 by Sinful Messiah on September 28, 2007 at 6:05 pm

I'd have more respect for Dawkins if he did not associate with the Rational Response Squad.

30. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #72373 by Sinful Messiah on September 20, 2007 at 9:58 pm

madShelly -

I'm familiar with them and their website. I am not impressed.

On their website we find things like "Rook Hawkins, Expert: Ancient Texts" and then easily find out that Rook has no formal education and cannot read any of these ancient texts in their original language. In fact, neither Kelly or Brian are educated.

Even if it were impressive and they had fantastic resumes, are we to force the listeners of these radio shows to the rational response website to "make up" for the mistakes that the Rational Responders make in public?

Wouldn't it be easier if Brian and Kelly stayed on their website instead of representing themselves (and atheists) in public?

31. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #72070 by Sinful Messiah on September 20, 2007 at 9:02 am

I just listened to these this morning. It makes me cringe to think that countless Americans heard Sapient make a fool of himself on this radio show...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=89GcKtbS4xk
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3BPQ3uvn1n4

Listen for yourself.






Kellym78:

"you have no idea what our history is with Todd Friel and therefore cannot know why that went down the way it did."
"http...
Go here for more info on the Todd Friel incident."

Countless people have seen Sapient humiliated in that clip, are you going to force all of them to go to your website and hear your side of the story?

"First of all, many "thinking people" don't need to be shocked out of their delusions."

So you're goal is to shock people? Why not use logic and reason?




gizmoi:

"Brian keeps his cool a hell of a lot more than I would had I been in that situation (which is why I do not go out and debate things myself, cause I can't handle stupid people. I tend to blow up at them.)"

The RRS could learn something from you. You have a sense they seem to be lacking.

Now if you did "blow up" on some "stupid people" would you make excuses for yourself or take responsibility for your actions?

"And one thing that I think should have been brought up to Todd was, even if no one currently has died because they could not have a late term abortion as Todd puts it, the point is they want to take the rights away."

The point is that Sapient should not have brought up abortion as a morality argument. That's one of his many mistakes. Why not bring up AIDs in Africa? The point is that Sapient is and easy target.

32. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #71474 by Sinful Messiah on September 18, 2007 at 8:54 pm

It is incorrect to say that atheists debating the existence of God on national television do not represent atheists.

In the broadest sense they do: Joe Sixpack will associate all atheists with the uneducated, unsophisticated individual presenting arguments against God on television.

When Sapient makes himself look bad, he's making us all look bad. Here's a video of him looking terrible:


http://youtube.com/watch?v=qd08gSALUSk

If that video were not enough, Brian Sapient's comments in this thread tend to prove my point.

33. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70530 by Sinful Messiah on September 15, 2007 at 11:18 pm

Does Brian Sapient hurt the public image of atheists with his low brow humor and unprofessionalism?

Should Dawkins distance himself from these armchair amateurs?

As atheists, do we need unsophisticated, belligerent representatives?

34. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #30999 by Sinful Messiah on April 10, 2007 at 2:41 pm

I wish it wasn't cut short. I thought she was gonna smack him!

I like the mother's line of thought here. Once you're confirmed thats settles it. God exists!

35. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #20816 by Sinful Messiah on February 6, 2007 at 5:20 pm

I sent my angry email to them.


I hope everyone else does the same.

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

Comment #16439 by Sinful Messiah on January 6, 2007 at 3:32 pm

"The next thing is buddhism (I also read his essay on that): Why on earth should we need buddhism? I understand that meditation obviously works but why do we need buddhism for meditation? And what is this wisdom of buddhism Harris is talking about? If it is near to the scientific method, why not just use the scientific method and forget about buddha?"

Are you sure you read his essay, "Killing The Buddha"? He makes it very clear, particularly at the end of the essay, that if there are benefits to gain from meditation that they need not be "Buddhist." Haven't you heard Sam talk about Christian physics and Muslim algebra? To credit these disciplines with erroneous religious nomenclature is to completely misunderstand their purpose.