Comments by Glacian
1. Bill Maher's Religulous Opens Today
Comment #260338 by Glacian on October 5, 2008 at 10:21 am
This movie kicked ass. It was funny, and Maher remained sharp throughout the movie. I honestly don't understand all the comments about him not being so smart and not being funny. He's not George Carlin, Richard Dawkins, or Dennett, but damn it, he's pretty good. And Carlin wasn't always a bucket of laughs either.
2. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art
Comment #160539 by Glacian on April 14, 2008 at 7:31 am
That wasn't an onion article?
3. The Art of Creating Controversy Where None Existed
Comment #159823 by Glacian on April 13, 2008 at 7:50 am
I understand what he's saying but I'm a little leery about describing science as "democratic" - that could very well mislead people into thinking scientific "truth" is, in fact, determined by consensus, when in reality what it represents is provisional agreement to the best available evidence by a majority of experts.
I'm always disconcerted that many scientists apparently don't have enough time to involve themselves with the public, which I think is highly important. I'd like to see science be seen not as a strange pursuit for a bunch of "brainiacs", but as something interesting and enjoyable that more of the public would regard with interest and enthusiasm - I suppose what I'd like to see is more people like Richard Dawkins writing popular science and getting people inspired to involve themselves in it. People can't very well be drawn into science if scientists remain aloof to the world.
4. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist
Comment #125970 by Glacian on February 12, 2008 at 10:36 am
It's ironic that these people respond to images that characterize their religion as one that encourages violence, bloodshed, and murder with ... well, violence, bloodshed, and murder.
Personally, and not that I think it'll never happen, but I'd love to see every nation that regards free speech as a fundamental right publish these cartoons. I wouldn't want to see them published just to see the reaction of Muslims, but because I think a message ought to be sent to the Muslim world: you have no right to impose your belief system outside your borders, and against others who do not share your faith. I am almost as disgusted with the conciliatory attitude nations give towards Islam as I am with their barbaric acts.
That these people are willing to attack others violently if they even display a single cartoon mocking their religion is to me a sign of the absolute irrationality - no, insanity - of their faith, and it puts the lie to any claim they have to belonging to a modern world. These people still have one foot in the middle ages. I hope, one day, a light will spread through the Muslim community, and where apostacy isn't the result, at the very least, they will regard the psychotic, misogynistic barbarity of their predecessors with the same shame and a wish to put it behind them as Christians feel towards the inquisition.
5. Atheists to celebrate at Darwin Day in Coconut Creek
Comment #123311 by Glacian on February 6, 2008 at 11:44 pm
I apologize if my response to you was too harsh, Steve; I just get miffed to see what looks like a misunderstanding of a misrepresentation - a sort of double smack in our faces for planning this event. Indeed, you can only go by what the article says, but I will defend that that articles in here aren't to be taken at face value by pointing out that a large portion are stock bullcrap, and are seemingly intended to be shredded by us. This one isn't so obvious - for good reason; it's not clear to me that it was intended to misrepresent us so much as it simply doesn't convey the information the way we'd prefer it to be done and which portrays the event in a more favorable and less atheism-subsumed light.
I don't know, am I the only one who doesn't find it to be particularly offensive or critical of atheists, but simply sounds more like someone writing about them from the outside, who perhaps doesn't possess a pronounced understanding of how to tread carefully in the way we are represented to the public? That is, they wouldn't have any vested interest in doing so, but simply in writing whatever piece they intended to write, whether it would meet our approval or not. I would imagine, for instance, that if I wrote about people from another culture, I might very well unintentionally state some things that would upset them, without doing so, and it'd be more a result of lack of familiary than intentional malice.
Comment #123135 by Glacian on February 6, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Ravi Zacharias: "It is only the Judeo-Christian worldview that gives the possibility of all of these worldviews free access to the marketplace"
...Yes, free inquiry, speech, and thought are only possible within the framework of a Christian worldview. What the hell universe do these people live in? Since when did Christianity become the "system" that allows us to express our own personal thoughts? Has this idiot even considered the very FIRST commandment? One glance at the Bible completely counters this idiots claims and seriously tarnishes his credibility. What imbecilic rubbish.
7. Atheists to celebrate at Darwin Day in Coconut Creek
Comment #122592 by Glacian on February 5, 2008 at 2:34 pm
As one of the organizers of the event (I am president of Center for Inquiry at Broward Community College), I must say it is alarming and disheartening that so many people took this newspaper article as the gospel truth on the matter. Several folks commenting on this article have unfortunately allowed their assumptions to get the better of them.
The fact is, the expectation of about 200 people is what we expect as far as the public showing up is concerned - I have no idea about how many volunteers from the local groups will show up to aid in the event (The Broward Atheists, CFI Ft. Lauderdale, and my unmentioned group, CFI at BCC), but let me state for the record: This is not a gathering of atheists, we do not intend any explicit promotion or association of atheism with evolution or Darwin.
The event is not about promoting or associating atheism with evolution, but about promoting science and evolution. The atheists will be the volunteers and organizers at the event, but the event is intended for the public - we have flyers, and they're even going to, advertise on the radio. It is not an atheist congregation as the article implies and most of the comments - like Steve Zara's here - are based on false assumptions they've simply decided are true about this situation and gone and ran with their conclusions based on faulty assumptions.
As little a problem I'd have for associating the two or promoting atheism, the fact is, that isn't what this event is about. Jeanette Madea, one of the main people in charge of this event, has sought explicitly to ignore any sort of religious debate - for instance, we have no plans to discuss ID or creationism or anything of that sort, but rather have a forum to simply talk about science, period. The event isn't about promoting atheism, but exclusively about promoting science.
8. Pope says some science shatters human dignity
Comment #120424 by Glacian on February 1, 2008 at 4:05 pm
"from conception until natural death"
So I take it the pope has no problem with necrophilia?
9. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards
Comment #100508 by Glacian on December 18, 2007 at 6:49 pm
It's ironic that this is perceived as offensive by people who think the Bible, a book that endorses and contains vivid descriptions of slavery, incest, genocide, infanticide, jealousy, murder, destruction, and bigotry is the most beautiful, sacred thing on earth and that its prophet, someone who would willingly torture everyone who didn't believe he existed for all eternity, is the most peaceful, loving fellow to have ever existed.
Shouldn't WE be offended that rubbish like this isn't censored and put up on a high shelf where children can't reach it?
10. U.S. Congress Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith
Comment #98501 by Glacian on December 13, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Yes, well, AIDS is important, too. Don't see anyone making public claims of support and respect for it just because its widespread and has a huge impact on civilization.
11. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief
Comment #97463 by Glacian on December 12, 2007 at 6:20 am
"It may be a dim sense of the unreality of their beliefs makes militant atheists so vehement and dogmatic."
The irony! It burns!!!
How stupid does someone have to be to actually believe the notion of free will comes from Christianity? And this, the very religion that denies free will - okay...
God: Uou're free to do whatever you want...but you can't do this, and this, and this, and this, and basically anything enjoyable or that I've arbitrarily decided I don't like, or I'll torture you for all of eternity! And just to add icing to the cake, I'll build you in such a way that half these things you want to do you'll be biologically and psychologically predisposed to do, so you'll have to constantly suppress your desires and wallow in guilt your entire miserable life before I torture you forever. Or you can submit to my will and do everything I say without questions or doubt, without knowing for certain whether I'm going to reward you or toss you in the burner with the rest of the sinners anyway.
Yep. Sounds like freedom to me.
12. Atheists' sign sparks controversy
Comment #96330 by Glacian on December 10, 2007 at 11:26 am
Awesome. I think we should all make a concerted effort to do similar things in our local areas. My CFI group here is considering demanding that the county recognize the Flying Spaghetti Monster and insist on putting up some FSM displays publicly.
13. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope
Comment #93319 by Glacian on December 2, 2007 at 5:02 pm
So let me get this straight, despite all the other inspidly stupid things the Nazope has to say, without God, neither I, nor the rest of mankind, has any "hope"? Just what is this abstract, general hope? Hope, as far as I can understand it, seems to me to be context-specific; that is, it has to have reference to something. I have to have hope in
14. Does the Bible have a place in public schools?
Comment #61770 by Glacian on August 6, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Knowledge of the Bible may be all well and good, but I have my reservations; it being taught objectively "in theory" is not the same thing as in practice.
And anyway, shouldn't we be improving students' math and science abilities, skills that are actually useful and important? Knowledge of the Bible isn't particularly critical to accomplish anything in the world. Now I can get allusions in Moby Dick. Wow. As opposed to understanding physics, medicine, or biology? Sorry but appreciating literature isn't as important as getting a real education, and I'd rather read sci-fi literature anyway.
15. Don't eat at the Outback Steakhouse on Route 3...
Comment #59134 by Glacian on July 27, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Hey Corylus; thanks. But really they didn't quote me, they quoted other people who were supportive of the idea or who were clearly being sarcastic and then indicated that this was endorsed by Richard Dawkins, when it most definitely isn't - his opinion, as far as I know, is that the Bible is an important part of our culture and literature and should therefore be preserved.
It's an obvious example of cherry picking when you ignore the fact that the OT, myself, retracted any notions of burning bibles after it became obvious that it would be an incredibly foolish and harmful thing to do - obvious because the vast majority of the atheists who responded were strongly opposed to it. I let the Self-Righteous Response know just what I thought of their hypocrisy and PM'ed RighteousResponse with the following:
"Hello. This is Glacian, the starter of the Bible Burning thread. Assuming you read my initial post, you'll know that I had originally, about a year ago, considered the idea, but have since realized how incredibly harmful it would be for several reasons.
To burn any book, whatever your intentions are, is to be instantly associated with censorship and fanaticism. This was not, but should have been, painfully obvious to me, as it should be to everyone else. It casts the participant in an immature, hostile, and volatile light, and that is not reflective of who we, the atheist community, are. Personally, I can say that I am outraged at not only the behavior of so many Christians, but at the Bible itself, and the atrocious contents within. I don't think it has been had a positive impact on humanity; quite the contrary, and that is where my opposition to it lies. But that opposition ends with those ideas and those people who are harmful to the world - fanatics, and insane ideologies that create fanatics. It does not mean that I, nor any other atheist I've ever met, think we should be banning books, invading people's privacy, imposing our beliefs on them, or anything else of that nature.
in my mind, and as I went to lengths to explain, my purpose behind burning Bibles was to express intentional disrespect and disgust for the Bible; not to censor out the Bible. Such a suggestion is patently absurd, as the Bible is the most widely circulated book on the planet and is all over the internet. Furthermore, I agree with Dawkins that it should be an important part fo any child's learning, for its historical and linguistic impact on the world. If you actually sought Dawkins own personal opinions, you would know that he certainly does NOT approve of burning the Bible, and those posters who do represent only themselves, and the very person who began the forum - myself, was persuaded by the *overwhelming majority of responders* that not only was it a bad idea, but an absolutely horrible one.
You made no note of the fact that thread starter himself (me) recanted support for the idea and that the vast majority of those responding explicitly condemned it or sarcastically mocked the idea with obvious hyerbole. Burning churches? Nobody on the site supports burning churches, and anyone who does is a nutcase.
So in the end, do some of us think the symbolic destruction of the Bible is a useful idea? Sure. But what I have come to recognize, and what most already do, is that even if this idea appealed to us, it is the ignorance of religious believers like yourselves that would misinterpret and misunderstand our intentions, and paint us as violent, murderous militants out for your blood. Nothing could be further from the truth, and this dishonesty - this misrepresentation of the atheist community, is just one of the countless other times Christians have willfully ignored the facts put before them in favor of encouraging lies and stereotypes to suit their agendas, galvanize their supporters, and justify their beliefs.
By the way, good job disabling comments on your video; way to scream about the imagined censorship of the Bible, only to stifle talk that gets critical of you in the very same instance. Hypocrisy at its finest."
16. Don't eat at the Outback Steakhouse on Route 3...
Comment #59116 by Glacian on July 27, 2007 at 12:08 pm
obscured by clouds, the initial thread starter was me, the person with the stupid idea. It was/is indeed a stupid idea, hence why I recanted it. I initially defended it but it became clear that nobody else saw it the way I did. My defense was that my purpose was not to censor people or any of the myriad of other negative things associated with burning books, but rather to symbolize that religion doesn't deserve respect It obviously wouldn't be seen that way by virtually anyone else and if someone did burn bibles, they'd make themselves look like a jackass and the entire atheist community look like a bunch of fanatics.
In the end, the only two reasons I see it as a bad idea is because it will fuel the flames of people like this idiot and be used against us, and because virtually the entire atheist community recognizes that and thus doesn't support it, not because I think it's inherently wrong to burn Bibles.
17. Ditching God: Emboldened Atheists Are Finding Purpose In Coming Out Of The Closet
Comment #57937 by Glacian on July 22, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Locri, that doesn't sound like a great experience to me, either. I really dislike cliqueshness and always have. I'm actually a bit anti-social, but found the need for an atheist presence to make its voice heard on my campus downright necessary after seeing the club list and seeing that there were 6 or 7 religious groups.
18. Ditching God: Emboldened Atheists Are Finding Purpose In Coming Out Of The Closet
Comment #57875 by Glacian on July 21, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Ahh! It's great to see CFI getting some mention. I just submitted a petition to have my group approved at my college, Broward Community College, in Davie, Florida, as an official CFI group, so I'm happy to say I'm now president of a student CFI club myself.
We'll be sure to have plenty of events and activities for students and to work with our local CFI group too. CFI is great because they don't focus solely on atheism but promote science, reason, free thought, and all manner of associated issues we skeptics/atheists/agnostics/whatever-you-ares are concerned about.
19. Let us pray for the soul of Richard Dawkins
Comment #40403 by Glacian on May 14, 2007 at 8:38 am
A single surviving elephant would hardly be ideal for maintaning a near-extinct population. In any case, the piont of the initial hypothetical is to demonstrate that life has value relative to its rarity, and to put it more broadly could be phrased: Would you allow a species to go extinct, or to save the life of a single human being, if you had to choose one or the other?
I don't know what the typical response would be, but I'm afraid it might actually be common, perhaps near-unanimous, to choose that one human life over an entire species. I agree wholeheartedly - passionately, even - with Dawkins, if that is, in fact, his opinion on the matter - that the lives of endangered species, should their deaths threaten extinction, become more valuable than nondescript human life by virtue of their circumstances.
That humans place an infinite relative value of their lives over all other species appalls me and it is a notion that I feel should be abandoned.
One Human > 10,000 dolphins?
I don't think so. I wish people would wake up and start valuing biodiversity in and of itself.
20. Does God Exist? The Nightline Face-Off
Comment #40119 by Glacian on May 13, 2007 at 7:42 am
I'm just going to stick my neck out here and comment that I agree with a previous poster that Kelly's voice is far from ideal for public debates like this; I found it downright hard to listen to. And that's not a superficial concern, as one's presentation itself is nearly as important persuasively, if not more so, than the content of their arguments in a public arguments like this. I recognize that they're new to this medium of presentation and that Kirk and Comfort, while their arguments are completely retarded, are excellent public speakers (especially Kirk). However, several points during the debate, from what I heard, had me cringing.
Had I been up there, I'd be jumping all over the questions about where morality comes from. Again, though, I recognize that it's a different medium and one I'm not used to myself, and it's much harder to think on your feet and even speak before a live audience judging every movement you make and every word you say. But I don't feel comfortable vindicating them entirely; they need to work out their morality-for-atheists arguments, as they seemed ill-prepared for it.
I'm seeing that it appears I may have watched a biased, editted version of the debate, so I'll check out Youtube to look for their superior arguments and consider my feelings here further, but that's not really what concerns me. What concerns me is their presentation itself; manner of speaking, way of addressing the crowd, and the way they handle arguments - not the content of their responses, or the thought behind them, but the way they'd sound to a credulous, uninformed audience.
I applaud their effort and think they did pretty well, I'm only saying there is room for much improvement. Finally, I will note that the content itself also failed to live up to its potential. In these types of debates, it's possible for atheists to completely crush their opponents, yet here it seems to me that while they won handily, it wasn't much of a contest to begin with. They missed the opportunity not merely to win an easy victory, but to put a few extra nails in the coffin of religion.
21. Ted Haggard Is Completely Heterosexual
Comment #39866 by Glacian on May 12, 2007 at 6:31 am
That had my clapping out loud! I'm definitely going to be looking into more of this guy's work. Oh man brilliant rhyming and playing the audience, with the syllogism line.
22. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it
Comment #38269 by Glacian on May 7, 2007 at 11:12 am
I have to just add in a defense of Sam Harris's remark that we may need to kill people for certain beliefs. He is clearly referring not simply to one's (reasonably benign) religious beliefs, such as "God has six toes" or "Jesus plays golf on sundays", but beliefs like "All infidels who blaspheme Muhammad must be utterly destroyed, including women and children, and I will do so as soon as I am capable of carrying this out"; these people are as - no, MORE - dangerous than deranged sociopaths, if for several reasons:
They are equally deranged and beyon reason, equally committed to carrying out their atrocities, but have extra benefits - a great deal of support from an entire network of fellow terrorists, in addition to a worldwide apathy about even regarding them as an equivalent threat as isolated sociopathic murderers, as the public and media consistently sympathize with Islam itself, while ignoring the fact that it is the prime motivating factor for fanatical Muslim attackers in the first place.
People like this may not need to be KILLED, per se, but the kinds of fanatics bred by Osama's brand of Islamic extremism are such an extreme threat to society that I doubt Ms. Bunting would disagree that they have no place in society and ought to be removed from it for the safety of everyone else.
23. How multiculturalism is betraying women
Comment #36987 by Glacian on May 3, 2007 at 4:03 am
Harlon57, I believe you are drawing too much about my opinion of America from that comment. I live in the U.S. so why wouldn't I refer to it? Secondly, America has more than deserved itself a whipping for its complacency on religoius matters, allowing them to influence public policy for far too long.
Furthermore, my opinion of the U.S. is decidedly the opposite of "superior". I am much more a harsh critic of the United States than European countries, especially Germany, Denmark, Scandinavian countries, etc.; wherever Christianity isn't so prevalent. My point is that, EVEN HERE, that kind of thing likely would not be tolerated; that is to say, I don't think this type of beating would be as acceptable here in spite of America sucking as a post industrustialized country. And, of course, I could be wrong, but I haven't heard any reports of similar things in the U.S. yet.
The U.S. has massive flaws, and my biggest gripe with it is that, despite massive resources, we waste them away and fail to put our wealth to good use. Stupid wars, horrible education, huge obesity rate and lazy people, intolerance of gays and atheists, bad healthcare, apathetic voters and screwed up elections, rampant Christiamania, where does it end? If I had some money and spoke German, I'd probably move to Germany tomorrow. If anything, I consider the U.S. to be pathetically lagging in its ability to catch up with the European world, which is exactly *why* I'm so appalled at what's going on in Germany. To sum up my original comment, it would be "How is this going on HERE? this is the type of crap I'd expect of Americans".
24. How multiculturalism is betraying women
Comment #36836 by Glacian on May 2, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Beating one's wife mercilessly and threatening to kill her is deplorable in the highest degree; the fact that one's culture backs such behavior isn't justification for it, it is a mark against the culture itself!
This is shameful. I had thought most of Western Europe had progressed far beyond the United States, but this kind of absurdity would hopefully not be tolerated here. Multiculturalism is bunk; wrong is wrong, crime is crime; we may as well raise our children in isolation and then if they ever get in trouble cite it as their personalized culutural upbringing, and expect exemption from all culpability; Bah. Absurd.
Well you know what, us atheists, who lack any moral grounding, can't possibly be expected to be moral, right? So aren't we exempt from ALL wrongs, since we have no moral foundation? Any religious folk who simultaneously believe atheists have no morals and believe in this type of silly multiculturalism should be forced, by consistency, to accept that we atheists have the right to do anything we want. They won't, and this is simply an obvious case of special pleading on behalf of Islam, something they've demanded and, so far, with alarming success, received. It is past time we as a civilized world publicly denounce Islam and the Koran as the terrors they are for women, for civilization, and for freedom.
25. Just 120 Trillion Miles From Home
Comment #36166 by Glacian on April 30, 2007 at 11:34 am
My suggestion is to develop powerful AI in computers, so that eventually computer-beings can surpass pitiful human biological limitations. By replacing ourselves with machines, which are superior (Matrix, Terminator, etc.), "we" (we'd be dead, only robots would exist at this point) would have a much easier time colonizing other planets. Then again, robots wouldn't need such specific environments for life as we do, being superior and all. They'd have a lot more options of places to colonize.
26. Bill O'Remix
Comment #35148 by Glacian on April 26, 2007 at 10:47 am
When I see interviews like this I can only scratch my head in confusion that anyone could regard Richard Dawkins as being so acerbic, hostile, rude, and curmudgeonly towards religion. This caraciture they pretend he is, some kind of nasty, cynical-spirited party pooper out to rain on everyone's spiritual parade, is absurd. He appears in every interview I've seen to be calm, reserved, articulate, thoughtful, and generally exactly the type of person I'd want to have on the other side of a debate.
O'Reilly is, as he typically is, sarcastic and obnoxious in the extreme, nevermind that is his remarks are totally retarded. Throwing in with Jesus? It seems most of these interviewers aren't too interested in really letting Dawkins expound upon his points, though that's not atypical of short TV interviews like this for anyone anyway.
Comment #35039 by Glacian on April 26, 2007 at 4:09 am
Yes!!! It's about time someone articulated this long-standing feeling I've had. The constant irritation I feel when people accuse us of being "rude" and "offensive" and "going too far" drives me up a wall! Compared to what other minority groups have done to earn rights and recognition, we're TAME AS HELL!
They view us as even a bigger threat though. Whereas women and racial minorities hardly challenged religion, but primarily challenged the status quo and cultural norms (indeed inciting strong resistance), we challenge the very beliefs people have. It's obvious Christians and other religious folk view atheists who have no interest in "converting" others as dire threats. Religions make sure the anti-atheist program is deeply imbedded into their adherents, so much so that it has become virtually a cultural norm itself; after all, how many atheists refuse to label themselves as such merely because of the stigma, and pass it off under some questionable semantic veil?
But we won't become too outrageous. I think one of the main reasons, though a common mindset of reasoned discourse we share is undoubtedly a factor, is simply that women and blacks and others who fought for their rights were denied obvious, basic rights, like the right to vote. If we were denied the right to vote or marry, you can bet your ass I'd be flipping out and marching on Washington immediately, screaming and shouting and causing such a commotion Jesus would be shakin' in his sandals.
Finally, one more thing, and a note of distinction between us and those fighting for their rights. I don't see this movement as fighting for our rights; sure, I don't want to have my kids have to pledge to God in school, much less make any pledge at all to a stupid flag, but that's essentially an unimportant issue compared with the simple fact that we are concerned primarily with the overrall state of humanity. I personally care more about expounding atheism for the benefit of others than for my own benefit. It's the evangalizing ("good news") of atheism that's such a threat to others; the notion not only that we aren't a bunch of horrible closeted demons, but insist we are as productive or possibly even more productive than religious members of society is a major threat to the way things have been for most societies in all of recorded history.
28. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston
Comment #34813 by Glacian on April 25, 2007 at 10:44 am
Of course people are going to be finding these attacks on religion offensive, none of us should be surprised. That doesn't make it any less annoying to hear the same convoluted drivel come from apparently and otherwise intelligent people. We need to keep in mind that religion has convinced humanity for a few millenia now that "belief", insofar as it is religious, is automatically deserving of respect. This is the very first barrier we are confronting, and it is not one we should be surprised to find considerable and persistent resistance from...from all sides, scientists included.
I find the whole notion of consilience between science and religion totally absurd, as the very notion of faith flies in the face of scientific principles. That the moment science doesn't or can't confirm traditionally-held beliefs that were passed down long before science progressed as far as it has indicates that those beliefs must have some other justifiable, yet somehow unidentifiable, mysteries truth-nature is totally bogus, and scientists like Winston should no better. That such well-educated, accomplished scientists can have such facile beliefs is pathetic and shameful....but unsurprising.
29. Thanks for the Facts. Now Sell Them.
Comment #31997 by Glacian on April 15, 2007 at 6:52 am
"Can't science and religion just get along?"
No.
Religion makes claims incompatible with what we know about reality. Those claims either need to step up to the plate and show themselves to have scientific credibility (they won't), or the believers ought to concede that what they believe is a bunch of memetic, tradition-bound, culturally-transmitted garbage that's managed to survive a couple thousand years of human ignorance. They don't exist in seperate realms. The notion that God magically created all life is NOT a notion in a seperate realm, it's a notion about THIS reality. The notion that souls exist and when we die we'll be whisked away to an afterlife has had a NEGATIVE impact on society; and for all the good it's done, the best you could say is that it's offered comfort only by deluding people into believing bullcrap.
These articles are starting to annoy me a little less. This sounds like little more than a desperate plea for Dawkins and us atheists to "please go away!!!!" Maybe they really are getting afraid of us. Backfire? How is it backfiring? Non-belief is finally getting more public recognition than ever; it's just these fellas seem to think that's a bad thing. PZ Myers did NOT miss the point; all these attempts at reconciling religion and science are little more than appeasing religion by ignoring it and tightening up what we talk about publicly so as not to inflame their beliefs. The only reason these people have such strong convictions is that nobody's ever openly, publicly challenged them, and probably because they're in so much internal doubt to begin with.
I challenge you, all ye faithful, to stop whining and complaining about others "attacking" your beliefs, and face us, open, fair and square, before the public, in open dialogues, in open discussions. Face us. Because you will lose. You know you have no rational foundation for your belief. Apologetics is a smokescreen for hiding the failures of your religion, masquerading behind theological-semantic babble. And most of you know nothing of real theological arguments and the attempts to find reason behind faith, anyway. You just assert the regurgitated opinions of others because you're too afraid to think for yourself. Atheists are not here to harm you and tear your world apart; we're speaking out because you have been deluded, you have been raised, however well-intentioned, to believe things that are not true. It is through skepticism and scientific thinking that we recognize just how important it is to admit our errors.
In fact, I'd say, since becoming a scientific thinker, I've become more responsible, because now I am inclined to declare my errors where they exist in any facet of life. Christianity is a means of evading responsibility, and the biggest responsibility it helps you evade is the obligation to think for yourself.
Comment #31427 by Glacian on April 12, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Argh, I typed a long response then got an error and had it deleted. Anyway, I'm replying to TeaPotInOrbit:
I agree that anecdotes and a personal account of my own experiences is not sufficient to condemn antidepressants wholesale. My posts here were not intended as an argument against effexor; I would never mount an argument based on personal experience and anecdotes. My relaying of this tale is intended as little more than an anecdote - for whatever that's worth - to others. You can probably understand why I feel such a rancor for this medication, when I attribute my medical conditions to it. Further, I agree that it may be a confounding factor and not the complete cause of some of my conditions. For instance, in the case of my tinnitus, I have a medical history of frequent ear infections, perforated ear drums, and I had tubes put in my ears. Nonetheless, tinnitus is a documented side-effect of effexor, and several of the reports I've read make it clear to me that the medication is likely the source. The way all these problems arose within such a short span, and only during the taking of the medication, is an important consideration.
So, while I do have a personal grudge against the medication, I am not so blinded by that to not recognize that my case is likely very rare and extremely abnormal, and likely can be attributed to some unusual physiological issue that the creators of the medication can't necessarily be held responsible for, in the same way that performing routine surgrry can result in death for some, that doesn't invalidate the use of that surgery. It is likely the case that those who report on all these forums all these horrible side effects of taking medications are attributing every issue they have to it, much like chiropractors attribute every health issue to lack of spinal adjustments. However, among the rabble there are often are real issues that go unaddressed. In my case, both of my endicrinologists completely dismiss - wont' even discuss - the possibility that the cause of my hypongonadism was effexor. The outright dismissal I find to be a little annoying, and if that attitude were prevalent among doctors, then very real problems may go unrecognized. I don't know that this is the case, but it's possible that the sheer rarity of extreme side effects could be cause in itself for doctors doubting their existence and believing them to likely be due to other causes.
Antidepressants can be risky to use, and we need to be very careful in making sure they are properly tested and produced (that should be obvious with all medications though - but in particular ones well known for serious side effects) I was also very young when I was prescribed the medication (about 14), and was likely far too young; I did not have a seroius depression issue. So, another concern that is just as important as what these medications do is that these medications are prescribed properly and to the right patients.
Comment #31261 by Glacian on April 11, 2007 at 7:36 pm
TeapotInOrbit, it wasn't "highly efficacious" for me. It's screwed up my life so seriously that there's very little in the way of describing just how bad it is. How highly would you regard a drug that not only didn't help you, but had the opposite effect, and also resulted in apparently making you permanently unable to have sex? That these problems may persist for some people is a pretty serious issue with it. If there was some way around it, some way to reverse this damage, I may agree, but for every few hundred or thousands it helps, there are forums online with nightmare anecdotes of dozens of people who suffered from the drug as well. Perhaps the overrall good it has done for people is greater than the harm its caused (though I cringe to say as much), but I won't accept that claim at face value.
Comment #31199 by Glacian on April 11, 2007 at 10:34 am
John P, I've considered taking legal action but am not sure how to proceed. My friend's dad is a lawyer (personal injury lawyer, in fact) but he's not exactly keen on me so I haven't discussed it with him before.
One of the problems is that I am currently seeing two endocrinologists (I still need the testosterone medication, which pleasantly involves stabbing an intramuscular needle into myself regularly! Yippy for Effexor!) neither of whom believe that these problems could possibly have persisted for this long. I've had three MRI's, and several other tests done. I don't have any brain tumors, and have never suffered any serious head injury, yet somehow, my pituitary gland stopped functioning within 2 or 3 months of going on Effexor, and my sexual dysfunction happened within a week, and my tinnitus sprang up within a month or so of using it as well. Sexual dysfunction, lowered testosterone, and tinnitus have all been directly documented as side effects of effexor that supposedly go away after discontinuation. In my case it appears they didn't, even after several years. So, my two doctors don't believe it's even possible...I think the demonstrable fact that I have these side effects with no apparent cause (other than Effexor) speaks otherwise. 14 year olds don't spontaneously develop hypongonadism, sexual dysfunction, and tinnitus almost simultaneously.
As for how it affected me while I was on it, which I didn't even cover, it was an absolute and total nightmare. I became a zombie, I became suicidal, it suppressed my emotions (mostly positive ones, some negative), made me behave erratically, made me have an unusually fluctuating appetite (entire days of no eating, followed by binge eating), I would sleep 10-14 hours a day, I barely talked to anyone, I ceased all real physical activity, I was in this sort of mind-numb state, I would become irrationally infuriated over simple things like my mother asking me to go get the mail. In a way, I felt somehow lobotomized, like portions of my brain had been crudely removed. Thankfully, those problems disappeared within a few weeks of stopping the medication.
It was prescribed, I'm pretty sure, but a psychiatrist who was a total ass. when I called and said I was having problems with the medication and didn't want to take it, he basically said that that's his decision: I was to take Effexor, or to not bother coming to see him again. He had no interest in actually working on my problems, he just wanted me to pop a pill and get out.
Comment #31115 by Glacian on April 11, 2007 at 3:42 am
It makes me sick knowing they probably could have simply given me something else (or simply nothing), and these problems may not have arisen at all. I was not seriously depressed and looking back on it see no real reason why I was prescribed with the stuff.
Comment #31059 by Glacian on April 10, 2007 at 8:30 pm
I have been a victim of this horrible blight on humanity, Effexor. What good has it done for me? well, shortly after using it I developed permanent sexual dysfunction, and hypogonadism. My pituitary gland stopped working, and I stopped producing testosterone. Even after testosterone replacement therapy (with HCG) and multiple drugs (Cialis, Levitra), I still have virtually no sex drive, sexual function, capacity for orgasm, or response to sexual stimuli.
It's been over 5 years since I stopped taking the medicaion. I was 14 or so at the time, and I am 20 now. The symptoms persist. I have a girlfriend now that I've had for about 8 months and simply find myself incapable of developing the deep affection I feel ought to be there - we have an excellent relationship, but I can feel it viscerally, that somehow, my emotions are blocked, even after all this time. I also developed permanent tinnitus (ringing in the ears) while on the drug. Supposedly, these effects are supposed to go away. Well, in my case, they didn't. I still have many of the side effects years after discontinuining the medication. This drug has ruined my body and my mind and I despise it and everyone associated with it.
Comment #30970 by Glacian on April 10, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Is this definitely the real deal? Something about the video doesn't sit right with me.
Comment #30476 by Glacian on April 8, 2007 at 6:38 am
Where were the answers to atheists the title seemed to suggest would be here?
Neo-atheists? Haha - yeah, and they should have called the gay rights movements "neo-gays", as if they were some new type of gay, and that there weren't gay people all along, it was just that society had matured to a point where they could start coming out without fear of being massacred or ostracized en masse. There are no "neo-atheists"; many of us have been atheists our whole lives, or have atheist parents, atheist grandparents, etc. It's just become painfully clear at this point that if we don't start vocalizing our opposition and mobilizing as a group, that superstition and ignorance will overrun the world.
What these Christians fail to realize is that atheism has persisted as long as belief in God has, but that the *intolerant* nature of religious belief has forced them to remain silent for much of recorded history - upon pain of death. When they start realizing that THEY bear the responsibility of a dogmatic creed that does, in fact, demand the absolute execution, without equivocation, without hesitation, of all unbelievers, when they fess up to this truly being a part of their sacred texts, and condemn it as wholeheartedly opposed to everything the best of modern values have won for us, maybe THEN I'll start developing some modicum of respect for their retarded fairy-tale faiths.
37. Are You Right Eyed Or Left Eyed?
Comment #27751 by Glacian on March 26, 2007 at 2:05 pm
I am right handed. However, I was born with ptosis in the right eye (my eyelid was almost entirely closed and this was not fixed until years later, though personally I think it should've been done as soon as possible). It turns out, for some reason, my right eye is almost completely dormant; what I mean is that I see almost entirely out of the left eye, *unless* I close the left eye, and then, obviously, vision switches over to the right (keeping the left eye covered, my right eye quickly grows "tired", and my vision in it also isn't as sharp). Otherwise, I see only peripherally out of my right eye, even after surgery. One thing I notice is that holding the eyelid up higher (much higher than would be necessary to uncover the pupil completely, and even the iris) my vision becomes less focused on the left eye. I wonder why this would be, though I find these results interesting, it seems silly to me that it's like some great big discovery that people have "dominant eyes". I have one eye so dominant that the other is practically nonfunctional when its open; this isn't news to me.
Regarding reading speed, I am left-eyed, yet I don't read particularly fast, I may even read slow. I do, however, type over 100 WPM. My mother, left-handed (I don't know which eye she favors), reads exceptionally fast.
Oddly enough, my entire family is left-handed, except for my father and I. My brothers, mother, and several grandparents and uncles on my mother's side were all left-handed. It seems my oldest brother's baby is showing a preference for his left hand, as well, and his mother is also left-handed.
38. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included
Comment #20871 by Glacian on February 6, 2007 at 9:32 pm
So Europe is becoming Muslim and we aren't because the U.S. has strong Christians and they don't? What kind of retarded horsecrap is that? The Jewish woman was worse than the one who kept saying atheists need to shut up. No, I take that back. She insists we can't try to impose on her right to force ALL children, regardless of belief, to pray to God? WTF? How can people this stupid figure out how to breathe after birth? Someone mentioned something about one of these folks having a Pulitzer prize. I call for it being revoked. This obnoxious report is worse than condescending, it's simply insipid and stupid to have people totally ignorant of atheism discuss it.
Would it have been too difficult for CNN to contact American Atheists or some other atheist group and ask if they wanted to send a representative?
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
