1. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80094 by fonex_86 on October 20, 2007 at 12:01 am

From a fellowship I was forced to attend (the topic was Love, 1 Corinthians 13):
"God is Love, and Jesus is part of God, and so only those who know Jesus can Love(TM)."
"Non-Christians can be patient, nice, kind, caring, etc., but since they do not know Jesus personally, they cannot Love(TM)"
At no point did the speaker (nor the other people) try to define what is this "Love" they were talking about. Standard Christian bullshit.

Of course they'll never admit that atheists can act as morally as them, that would make their Holy Spirit(TM) pretty much superfluous.

2. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77547 by fonex_86 on October 9, 2007 at 3:43 pm

I'm somewhat disappointed in how poorly Sam has written this response. As others have pointed out, no sane, rational, intelligent person would choose the second question to ask the president. Why bring up atheism when it has no relation to the issue at hand? It's exactly what dyed-in-the-wool fundies would do. But if the discussion eventually gets to the point where a discussion of beliefs is relevant, then why not? It seems you're starting to play with straw men here, Sam, and I really don't like it. You are right, of course, that there is the danger of "atheist fundies" (for lack of a better term), but you are really doing a great disservice to the majority of rational and intelligent atheists by tarring us all with the same brush.

In fact, much of the criticism I have received of my speech is so utterly lacking in content that I can only interpret it as a product of offended atheist piety.

What kind of responses, Sam? PZ Myers's? Ellen Johnson's? No, Sam, theirs made more sense than yours.

Is it really possible that PZ Myers and Ellen Johnson think I was recommending that we stop publicly criticizing religion or that I am hiding my own atheism out of "shame and fear"? I would not have thought such a misreading was possible, given the contents of my speech and my rather incessant criticism of religion in my books, articles, and lectures.

Not possible? This pathetic attempt to wriggle out of your rotten ambiguous speech is honestly making me sick. If you think it was impossible, why admit that it could be "misunderstood" in the first place? What else would we think when you tell us to "go below the radar"?

Wake up Sam, many of us are not as dumb as you think.

3. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73546 by fonex_86 on September 25, 2007 at 8:29 am

C'mon people, let's not further satisfy the attention-whoring cravings of a certain troll-like poster here by rewarding it with a response.

I think you all need one of these.

4. A problem for Israel's farmers: The seven-year hitch

Comment #73543 by fonex_86 on September 25, 2007 at 8:16 am

SilentMike,

Are you sure it's just "on paper"? I knew some Israeli kids back in 2001, and from what they told me, they had little choice about it. Have the rules changed since then, or did they just have a flair for the dramatic?

For people who believe in an all knowing all powerful god, they sure take him for an idiot.

I couldn't have said it better. This story reminded me of Richard Feynman's experience with a couple of dolts who asked him about electricity only to know whether it's kosher or not to use the elevator on the Sabbath.

Barking mad!

5. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70840 by fonex_86 on September 17, 2007 at 4:04 am

I believe religion has done more harm than good...

Indeed.

...and whereever religion is you will see division, poverty, ignorance and suffering.

Let's see...

Wherever there is religion there is division, poverty, ignorance and suffering.

Ah. Much better =D

6. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70132 by fonex_86 on September 14, 2007 at 7:36 am

Cornwell does, however, start to get sucked in to Dawkins's fact-based approach.

Yeah, we don't want facts that contradict our warm, fuzzy beliefs in the Invisible Sky Daddy or the Flying Jewish Zombie!

Keep the delusions coming...!

And religion... simply isn't about facts.

Well, at least he got THAT right...

Quite how you capture it in a book is a challenge that most religious writers fail to answer.

... most...??? I'd say all of them fail -- after all, how DOES a drug addict capture the "glimpse of transcendence" bestowed by a healthy dose of crack?

In the meantime, Cornwell has done an excellent job in providing a book that should, in an ideal world, be sold taped to every copy of The God Delusion as an essential corrective.

Isn't it the other way around? Fleas are fleas are fleas, after all.

7. Rational Atheism

Comment #64903 by fonex_86 on August 22, 2007 at 9:11 am

Thor and everyone else dissing me,

I'm so, so happy for you, who live where you can freely express your (dis)beliefs without fear of social, financial, or physical death.

I'm also glad that you seem to live in a very religiously and culturally diverse environment, no doubt enforced by the freedom to (dis)believe.

So maybe you could give me a break, because where I am your "moderate, sensible" theists simple don't exist, or are an endangered species.

For the past 5 years, I have been a civil person (despite my many rants here) to many religious peers, only to receive scorn. For my honesty, I have been rewarded with distrust. For my civility, I have received mockery. For my atheism, I have come close to that social and financial death you all are so safe from.

Some of you claim that my offensive approach has no merits. I dare say that you are gravely mistaken. I have successfully undone the religiousness of several peers, and a great part of it was owed to my in-your-face attitude -- many of them had never had their faiths challenged before, so my attitude was very much a slap in the face for them.

So you may go on agreeing with Dr.Shermer, wrong as he is, afraid to call stupidity for what it is.

And before you get all over me again, I know that it's not a matter of fear. Perhaps he's been drinking too much lately.
==========

We have to attack bad ideas. But we ought to be mindful of what we might be asking people to give up. If we seem to be asking them to chuck their community, friends, family, that's too much.

Why so? I did, and am still doing it.

8. Rational Atheism

Comment #64796 by fonex_86 on August 21, 2007 at 10:58 pm

1. Anti-something movements by themselves will fail. Atheists cannot simply define themselves by what they do not believe. As Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises warned his anti-Communist colleagues in the 1950s: "An anti-something movement displays a purely negative attitude. It has no chance whatever to succeed. Its passionate diatribes virtually advertise the program they attack. People must fight for something that they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil, however bad it may be."

IMHO, this is semantic nonsense, especially the last sentence. What do you people want to achieve? Why, the rejection of an evil, of course!

2. Positive assertions are necessary. Champion science and reason, as Charles Darwin suggested: "It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which follow[s] from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science."

We've tried this for hundreds of years. It's nooooot workiiiiiiiiing.........

Time to start shelling them back.

3. Rational is as rational does. If it is our goal to raise people's consciousness to the wonders of science and the power of reason, then we must apply science and reason to our own actions. It is irrational to take a hostile or condescending attitude toward religion because by doing so we virtually guarantee that religious people will respond in kind. As Carl Sagan cautioned in "The Burden of Skepticism," a 1987 lecture, "You can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who don't see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it."

As much as I respect Carl Sagan, I must say... BULLSHIT! It's precisely this sort of attitude that has given those religious charlatans so much false credibility! We should call MORONS for what they are -- faith-intoxicated, turd-brained, head-up-their-ass FUCKING IDIOTS. Offensive? You bet your ass it is!

4. The golden rule is symmetrical. In the words of the greatest conscious ness raiser of the 20th century, Mart in Luther King, Jr., in his epic "I Have a Dream" speech: "In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrong ful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline." If atheists do not want theists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto theists the same.

Is this guy serious? We atheists have been prejudiced in a negative light IN SPITE of our lack of misconduct! That's what PREJUDICE is, goddamn it! Screw this!

5. Promote freedom of belief and disbelief. A higher moral principle that encompasses both science and religion is the freedom to think, believe and act as we choose, so long as our thoughts, beliefs and actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others. As long as religion does not threaten science and freedom, we should be respectful and tolerant because our freedom to disbelieve is inextricably bound to the freedom of others to believe.

Finally, something I (somewhat) agree with..

Really, this article has begun to erode my respect for the good Michael Shermer..

9. Sikh girl will convert for a place at Catholic school

Comment #64498 by fonex_86 on August 20, 2007 at 9:34 am

Come on guys... WWJD?

Cast the demon out of her?

10. Artificial Life Likely in 3 to 10 Years

Comment #64497 by fonex_86 on August 20, 2007 at 9:32 am

That's not the argument. Notice how intelligent design isn't called supernatural design. I only argue that life reflects an intelligent force of will. I believe this Will to be the God of the Bible, but for the purposes of this argument, the above statement is irrelevant. This experiment still demonstrates the necessity of intelligent involvement in the creation of life.

Hey fuckwit, get a brain, or get lost. I'll tell your mom you're skipping potty training.

How the fuck does this experiment "demonstrate the necessity (my emphasis) of intelligent involvement in the creation of life"? If anything, it shows that all you dim theist pricks can do is whine about how weak, dumb, and useless the human race is. Wasn't it some smart-aleck priest who said that humans could never create cells? Then we do, and those turd-brained imbeciles whine about something else. Go take your god of the gaps to the toilet, where he belongs with the rest of the turd.

Dammit, people (I'm not even sure I should call him that) like BD really tick me off.

11. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63877 by fonex_86 on August 16, 2007 at 1:42 pm

As I said above I believe in Reincarnation and Karma. We are all living in this temporary hell called Earth because of mistakes we have made in previous lifetimes. We will never see or speak to God but being a perfectly just God, He has placed the answers to the questions we have out there. It is up to us to take full responsibility to find them. No Savior or Redeemer can do it for us.

*wipes eyes in disbelief and widens them to check they're not malfunctioning*

*initiates rolling motion on floor coupled with unstoppable laughter*

*wipes tears from eyes*

*becomes conscious of sick feeling in stomach*

Reincarnation -- in your previous life you must've been an ostrich. I guess sticking your head in the sand is a hard habit to break, eh?

Karma -- ah. You must've been an ATHEIST ostrich! Tsk tsk tsk, naughty ostrich! Now you become what you deserve: homeskooled god-botherer!!!

RAmen.

12. Amnesty to defy Catholic church over rape victims' abortion rights

Comment #63082 by fonex_86 on August 13, 2007 at 4:39 am

Even in countries where the law permits abortion for rape victims, women who seek the operation can encounter a wall of obstruction. In Peru, a 17-year-old girl discovered that her foetus had anencephaly - meaning that it was going to be born without a brain - but a doctor refused to allow her access to an abortion. She was compelled to give birth and breastfeed the child for four days before its died.

I'm not easily brought to tears, but... oh dear..

What a sad and repugnant story. I can only hope the poor girl survives the trauma she was forced to experience.

In the Sante Fe province of Argentina, a social worker told the organisation Human Rights Watch about a woman who went into hospital after having an unsafe abortion and was bleeding badly. "A doctor started to examine her, and when he realised, he threw down his instruments and said: 'This is an abortion. You go ahead and die'."

This loathsome swine of a doctor deserves to be hanged -- he's most certainly not human.

And THEY call us evil heathens! Disgusting.

13. Richard Dawkins, TV evangelist

Comment #62871 by fonex_86 on August 12, 2007 at 5:27 am

_J_,

While we're on the subject (though still rather off-topic), what do you think of the title of the article itself?

I mean,

Richard Dawkins, TV Evangelist

is not exactly unambigious, IMHO. It could mean:
1. RD is an evangelist for TV, or
2. RD is an evangelist for whoknowswhat ON TV.

Obviously the second one is what Lynch meant. Then again, English IS my second language, and language has never been my forte, so.... oh well.

14. Richard Dawkins, TV evangelist

Comment #62862 by fonex_86 on August 12, 2007 at 3:24 am

Richard Dawkins, TV Evangelist.

Gordon Lynch, Brainless Twat.

Evangelist "subculture" my arse! Where I am, they are THE Christian culture, and they have plenty of labels for those who disagree with them!

joel-T,
How do you define "militant"? The American Oxford Dictionary states:

militant adjective -- combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods : an uprising by militant Islamic fundamentalists.

By this definition, I have seen absolutely NO SUCH THING on this site. Pardon us if some of us seem rather "confrontational", but I am simply fed up with all the BS from those brain-dead twats called faith-heads.

15. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #61366 by fonex_86 on August 5, 2007 at 1:01 am

Wee Flea,

You say,

- Easy. If I write a letter and it is then copied by ten different people who place the copies in different places and then the original is lost. However I get eight of the ten copies and they all say the same thing. Logically it is not a problem for me to recognize that I have the original text although I may not have the original document.

Unfortunately, the NT is not that simple. First, it is a collection of letters, copied separately by different scribes of greatly varying skill during different periods of time and at different locations. Second, even the earliest records of the NT letters we have now are dated at about 2nd century AD -- nearly two hundred years since the originals were written. Those documents we have aren't even direct copies from the original -- they're copies of copies of copies of... you get the point.

As for your second reply,

- Basically we have 5,000 extant ms of the NT in that period and yes they are remarkably accurate. What do you know about the level of accuracy of manual copying of documents in the period?

I wonder, what are your sources for these figures? My info comes mainly from several theology books I read a couple years ago (forgot their titles and authors, tho), lecture notes from friends in seminaries, and popular theology books such as Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus.

Nearly all of my sources agree that there are many discrepancies, omissions, and additions in the surviving manuscripts. Examples abound of scribes rebuking their predecessors for changing a manuscript's wording (while making other changes themselves).

You must realize that the occupation of scribe (or copyist) requires a certain degree of literacy to ensure an acceptable level of quality in document reproduction (and even then human errors can, and are bound to, occur). However, it is known all too well that before the industrial revolution and the invention of the printing press, literacy rates among the masses were dismal. To make matters worse, in its early stages, Christianity was comprised mainly of people from the lower classes of society.

There is also clear evidence that many scribes knowingly altered the text to suit the prevailing social, economic, and political views of their day. How, then, can you justify your complete belief in the inerrancy of the NT?

16. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #61029 by fonex_86 on August 3, 2007 at 11:29 am

Lauregon,

Your post reminded me of something PZ Myers was talking about...

Christianity: The belief that some cosmic Jewish Zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

Talk about fables.

17. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60902 by fonex_86 on August 3, 2007 at 5:28 am

Wee Flea,

Just wanted to ask, do you absolutely, 100%-ly believe in the validity of the New Testament as the prime source on Jesus' teachings for Christians?

If you do, how do you reconcile your belief with the facts:
1. that not one original document of the constituents of the New Testament has ever been found, and
2. that, given the level of accuracy of "manual" (by-hand, letter-by-letter) copying of documents in the period 1st century AD to 4th century AD, the oldest copies of the New Testament we have now are exact replicas of the original?

If you don't.. then you must really be bored with your theist friends :D

18. Fears Grow Over 'Mega Mosque'

Comment #57144 by fonex_86 on July 18, 2007 at 11:41 am

People, as a citizen of a country in which Islam is a majority, I can back Fanusi's claims regarding what muslims are being taught by their imams, mullahs and the sort in your "friendly neigborhood mosque". And forget about "Undercover Mosque" -- there's nothing undercover about it where I am right now. They preach the crap at the top of their lungs, backed by several megaphones droning their prayers in everyone's ears 5 times a day.

19. Brainwashed children plead to die as martyrs in Red Mosque siege

Comment #54645 by fonex_86 on July 8, 2007 at 10:53 am

............ I'm speechless.

Eerie as this may sound, I used to be ready to die like those kids. Only difference is that I was a xian. *shudders*

Poor kids, what a waste of human compassion, creativity, ingenuity, ... and life.

When will the madness end?

20. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #54626 by fonex_86 on July 8, 2007 at 8:02 am

Robert Maynard,

Your post got me thinking, can religion be "reformed"? If it can, how does this "reformation" go without the religion itself losing at least part of its identity? I used to think that a religion's identity, or unique attributes, is crucial to its sustainability.

Moreover, Islam teaches violence against non-believers -- what's to stop fundy mullahs and imams from labelling a "progressive muslim" an infidel, and turning many fundy AND moderate MAINSTREAM muslims against such "progressivists"?

Xenocratic,

Sorry to hear that you've given up your "discussion" with Fanusi -- you both made good points despite your excessive ad hominems and misdirected insults.

I agree with you that the US is a "good idea poorly executed", and it has, as a country, directly and indirectly harmed other countries to further its political and economic agenda. I also agree that Israel is [[[ message censored due to tasteless comment ]]].

However, Fanusi also has a point: even if the chaos in the Middle East was not caused by Islam, the carnage has certainly (at least in part) been fueled and/or justified by religious conviction. While some undoubtedly do use religion as a camouflage for ulterior motives, some don't -- while others use financial, social and cultural issues as cover for religious agendas too.

I wish you would continue your debate, do so without the name calling, and without spewing acid at us relatively innocent bystanders.

But perhaps I'm asking for too much :P

21. Evangelicals See Dilemmas in G.O.P. Field

Comment #54618 by fonex_86 on July 8, 2007 at 7:16 am

Many of those interviewed said Mr. Huckabee's past life in Christian ministry lent him immediate credibility.

How the heck can a person whose past profession entails weekly mugging, spouting nonsense, inciting hatred, sowing mistrust, and being a complete arsehole when it comes to logic and science be deemed "credible" ?!? (Not to mention his current profession >_<)

All those xian wackos deserve a good smacking.

22. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #54113 by fonex_86 on July 5, 2007 at 12:05 pm

Xenocratic,

What's your problem? My first post, which only mentioned how YOUR behaviour reminded me of some other chap elsewhere, most certainly does not deserve any of the acid you've been spouting.

In fact, I think most people would agree that your comments are much more demeaning than my own, what with the "idiotic" and "anti-intellectual" bullshit you seem to love to shill out from that sweet little mouth of yours. What, you smokin' the ganj now?

You seem to have a communication problem -- nowhere did I even INDICATE that I do not acknowledge the evils of the west. All I said was that you seem to be putting way too much attention to it. I really think you should ease up on the booze man, it seems to be getting to you.

23. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #54086 by fonex_86 on July 5, 2007 at 9:15 am

Xenocratic,

I seem childish? Excuse me, I'm not the one calling other people names and accusing them of "ad hominems" (which YOU have done more often than anyone else here).

While I may agree with some of your points, it is completely clear to me that you are placing way too much weight on the West's past/current sins -- which either means you're deluded, fanatical, or simply retarded.

Without fear of "Western" retaliation, the muslim extremist elements would have taken over my country faster than you can chalk up another of your psychotic posts.

HunterZolomon's post actually shows that you don't even research your quotes before posting them. How ignorant can you get? All it takes is a couple of seconds with Google, nitwit!

What a pr*ck.

24. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #53906 by fonex_86 on July 4, 2007 at 3:52 am

Xenocratic and Davin06 seem like some other nut elsewhere who argued that Allied forces in WW2 are more 'evil' than Hitler's SS.

Sorta like, "looky looky the yanks killed ten civilians!" while behind him some lunatic jihad just blew himself and 100+ others to kingdom come.

Was gonna write more about the Al-Qaeda, but gordon's post sums up my opinions quite nicely.

25. Look Forward to Anger

Comment #53731 by fonex_86 on July 3, 2007 at 12:38 am

Whew! First post in months....

Anyway, this Rage Boy(TM) stuff is nothing new to me: the city I live in is next door to one of their largest base of operations in my country.

I think Christopher Hitchens is right about how the media tend to exaggerate Islamic lunacy/fanaticism and the size of their ranks, but it would still be a grave mistake to label those jihad nutjobs as fringe elements.

Yes, most moderates don't go around bashing nightclubs, bars, and restaurants. Nor do they burn houses, execute non-Islamists, or throw stones at passersby not sporting an untrimmed goat beard or ninja costume. But many whom I've met turned a deaf ear and a wicked glance everytime the discussion gets to their oh-so-beloved prophet.

Moreover, many moderates are X-haters, where one may replace the X with xian, jew, evolution, atheist, freethinker, and - uhmm - XXX. So yeah.... um... they hate a lot of things. Funny thing is, most of them don't know why they hate all those things -- most were indoctrinated since childhood.

For example, how bad do they hate evolution? So bad that most undergraduates in my country, even those majoring in biology, have no clue as to how evolution really works -- they just hate it 'cause it's "atheist stuff". Guess who designed our national biology curriculum? Moderates. Pretty modern and liberal ones too, at that.

Man I'm getting a headache just remembering all that...

26. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #35652 by fonex_86 on April 28, 2007 at 5:46 am

vinelectric,

Thank you for continuously misreading my posts and showing who among us is the greater asshole.

27. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #35609 by fonex_86 on April 27, 2007 at 8:32 pm

Vinelectric,

I support both the British Heart foundation and the Royal National Institue of the deaf. What true colours do you think I'm waiting to show them?

What are you trying to say? My mother didn't know of their "true colours" before they showed it, and since I don't know you, how the f*ck am I supposed to know?

Ideas in the Koran plain nuts? Maybe, but with your call for total war I think you're crazy too.

Read my post again. I'd appreciate it if you stop bad-mouthing me like that. Where the hell did I "call" for total war? I was only saying that those numbskulls are really giving us less and less choices. I live in a country with a large muslim population -- in fact, they're the majority -- and I know what they teach their children in their schools, homes, and mosques. They are taught that christians are infidels, that atheists are demonic, and that evolution is a mortal sin. They are taught to purge these things, while their teachers intentionally leave the specific meaning of the word "purge" as vague as possible.

I wouldn't be so crass as to call you crazy, but you do seem pretty bloody ignorant to me.

My point is that selective application of religious teachings happens all the time as people are at least smart enough to realise that strictly following behaviour prescribed in their holy texts is just no longer acceptable by today's moral standards.

So? What are those "smart enough" doing to stop the actions of those who aren't? NOTHING! They even condone it to a degree! I've seen Islam murderers get 10 months in prison, while some other non-muslim gets 5 years for robbery!

Did you know that every Ramadhan here, the local fundies would march around the city and trash any place they deem "immoral"?!? Do you know that when they fast, they force other people to fast as well, or eat in a closed place, where they cannot be seen by the fasting? A gigantic load of dog shit if there ever was one.

Speaking about dogs, these people abhor them -- to them it's a sin to be licked by a dog. WTF?!? I'd rather be licked by a dog than by fucked-up religious fundies!

Dammit!

==END SECOND RANT==

28. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #35393 by fonex_86 on April 27, 2007 at 3:54 am

Vinelectric,

There are ideas in the Koran that just don't fit in the modern world.

Some of them don't just not "fit in the modern world", they're plain nuts.

But charity restrictions towards unbelievers? Sorry mate but you've made that up...

Many muslims are know are very charitable -- indeed, were it not for muslims supporting my mother's family, I wouldn't be here now.

The problem, however, lies in their motivation behind their charity. To make a long story short, those muslims eventually showed their true colors when they tried to force my mother and her sister to wear headscarfs and began rambling on about how wonderful it is to be a woman in Islam. Charity indeed.

But that toilet business is uncalled-for bigotry.

I see you have a tad of an affection for the word. You see, the proper word here would probably "insensitive" or "crass". Please stop calling other people bigots, especially when most of their views on Islam can be readily verified by living for a month or two in Islam-infested regions of the world.

I'm telling you, Islam isn't receiving enough of the hatred it truly deserves. Day by day, I'm seeing less and less alternatives to total war against Islam, even those who are "politically correct" would label as "moderate".

If you are interested in the ridiculous, harmful, crass, disgusting, fucked-up opinions and actions taken by these arseholes, I can provide you with a truckload.

Sheesh.

==END RANT==

29. We aim to misbehave

Comment #35098 by fonex_86 on April 26, 2007 at 7:44 am

I was going to open a can of whoop-ass to Fanusi Khiyal, when I noticed you had already made a good rebuttal, Fishpeddler.

Hey Fanusi, where exactly do you live? Your statement that atheists are "in no danger of persecution" is simply bollocks. I live in a country where atheism isn't even recognized by the state. That is, if you don't believe in god -- or specifically, if you are not a believer in one of the few religions endorsed by the state -- you are NOT legally a citizen, and god help you should the authorities get a whiff of you.

That is if the Jihadists/Islam fundies don't get you first.

Damn.

30. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #34699 by fonex_86 on April 25, 2007 at 12:33 am

How do we reply? An ad hominem response would be to remark that when the Church had the upper hand it was happy to persecute, imprison or behead non-believers and fight crusades against other religions. Now it has lost its boss status it simply asks us to keep our opinions to ourselves (but still wants laws to criminalise us for mocking its pretensions).

Hmm, isn't this more of a statement of fact, rather than an argument?

31. 'The Day They Kicked God out of the Schools' & Rebuttal

Comment #34221 by fonex_86 on April 23, 2007 at 2:31 pm

weefree,

Why do you think that the lecturer's statement is illogical?

Even though speaking out, in this case, may not be the best course of action, I doubt silence is any better. For one, we must remember that there are many who would fall for the AFA's ludicrous arguments, and many religious movements would probably seek to gain momentum from this event.

We need to speak out against these scumbags. Decades of silence hasn't worked anything for us.

Besides, it's not like we're yelling this at the victims' families or anything. Nor are we trying to gain from this tragedy, unlike the first vid.

32. 'The Day They Kicked God out of the Schools' & Rebuttal

Comment #34153 by fonex_86 on April 23, 2007 at 11:35 am

The first video was mind-numbing, stupid, offensive, and in general an insult to human dignity and intellect. I could not bear to watch it any longer after the first minute.

Brian Coughlan's response was excellent. I particularly liked that quote from an atheist professor from the very campus where the tragedy occured. It's so true, it's scary -- we, as pattern-seeking animals, tend to see patterns where there are none; we seek to make sense out of senseless things.

If it was known for a fact that god(s) didn't exist, then the more asinine among us probably would have invented one anyway.

33. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #33989 by fonex_86 on April 23, 2007 at 1:57 am

Atheists are under attack these days for being too militant, for not just disbelieving in religious faith but for trying to eradicate it. And who's leveling these accusations? Other atheists, it turns out.

Religions are under attack these days for being too militant, for not just demonizing rational nonbelief but for trying to eradicate it. And who's dismissing these accusations? Ignorant fools like Greg Epstein.

Hey Epstein, wanna switch places for a while? I'd like to see what you think of religion after a week of living in my shoes, you f*ckwit.

Damn I hate ignorant pricks..

34. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #33807 by fonex_86 on April 22, 2007 at 12:40 am

While I do not think a father should be permitted to circumcise his 12 year old son when the son does not want it, I do not think it is child abuse to have an infant circumcised. I think there are hygienic and medical reasons to have it done.

Can you please point at some of these hygienic and medical reasons? Certainly they don't exist just because you think they do... right?

I had my son circumcised because 11 months before my son was born, my uncircumcised 53 year old father died of penile cancer.

I'll throw away part of my lung, then, since my grandfather had lung cancer -- the less lung tissue, the less risk of cancer..!! Uh... right?

Almost no one who is circumcised ever gets penile cancer.

Again, any references to back this up?

It was a very horrible way to die. So those of you who say there is no medical reason to have it done are wrong.

Well, you'd better have something to back up your claim, because you're one hair away from labeling a lot of medical professionals as "wrong".

I think there is also a reduced risk of disease transmission under certain circumstances. I do not regret my decision and my son has suffered no ill effects from it as far as I can tell.

Again, please stop "thinking" for the rest of us, and give some references. Regret is your own business, but "as far as I can tell"?!? My goodness, it's not a matter of "ill effects", it's a matter of not respecting your son's right to decide whether or not he wants part of his dick cut off -- and the most sensitive part of it, too!

I also had a childhood friend who died a few months after her mother of a very virulent hereditary form of breast cancer. Her widower is faced with the horrible task of having to discuss with their two daughters the choice of possible prophylactic removal of their breasts when they become teenagers. Not all tissue removals are based on religious or cultural beliefs. Evolution does not produce perfect bodies or there would be no evolution.

Your friend's case is a rare and special one, and should not be taken as a general indicator.

If foreskin were so useless, it would have disappeared, or at least would have been for the most part removed by natural selection. The fact that it is still quite intact pretty much says something about it.

I'm truly sorry for your son. I only hope he will be able to live with the fact once his mind is mature enough to comprehend it.

fonex_86

35. Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxford

Comment #33461 by fonex_86 on April 20, 2007 at 8:31 am

What is truly scary is the thought of people like this poster; these are people that are completely and totally frightened of someone / anyone who professes a belief in God, or presumably anything else they may believe – but cannot prove.
...
Now I ask….. who is to be feared…….?

People like YOU, The Spaghetti Monster, who make spurious claims regarding people who you know absolutely nothing about.

Seriously, how the f*ck do you judge someone as "completely and totally frightened of someone / anyone who professes a belief in God" from, what, a single goddamn post alone?!?

36. Against God

Comment #32067 by fonex_86 on April 15, 2007 at 12:23 pm

You would have it both ways. The terror of hell is too much for you yet you say the problem with religion makes you feel good. Which is it?

No, no, no. bitbutter isn't the one who wants it both ways. It's the theists, who are arguably among the best cherrypickers in the world.

Some people are religious exactly because hell is such a terror.

Others are religious because of the prospect of watching their hated ones roasting in said hell.

Still others claim that god wants everyone to be saved, and conveniently ignore the concept of hell so artistically depicted in the bible (and later grotesquely exaggerated by the church).

I could go on and on about theists, but I think this is enough ranting for now.

37. Against God

Comment #32065 by fonex_86 on April 15, 2007 at 12:16 pm

Simple. The 'limitation' of reason is that it doesn't seek to tell people what they want to hear.

Quite, reason doesn't always lead you to thoughts that make you feel good and apparently reason can't satisfy those who experience a 'yearning for something more' (eh. self evidently :)).

So I guess that puts McGrath "beyond all reason".... =D

This week the preacher at the church I go to (I hesitate to call it "my" church) was seen clutching some book by McGrath and planning to make a sermon based on it next week. I guess I'll just "come down with flu" again...

Is a there a term for someone who doesn't care if there's a God? Apatheist?

Wasn't the more common term among us atheists (as I understood it) "practicing agnostics"? =P

38. Against God

Comment #32050 by fonex_86 on April 15, 2007 at 10:50 am

But perhaps a confident, evangelising atheism based on reason just doesn't seem reasonable to many people now. "The naive atheist seems to believe that a sophisticated seminar in godlessness is all that is required to eliminate religion, showing a grateful people that they can be liberated from an oppressive and debilitating illusion," writes Alister McGrath in his book, The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World. "What atheists don't get is that people actually like their faith, and find it helpful in structuring their lives, and actually believe it's true." Western culture, he says, has "long since recognised the limitations of reason".

I wonder what McGrath considers to be the "limitations of reason", because I have absolutely no idea what the **** he's talking about here.

And that's the main problem for atheist evangelisers: just because something isn't true doesn't mean it's not real.

And that's the main problem for christian evangelisers: just because something is true doesn't mean it's real.

Just because all those atheists(unreal) seem right about the bible, doesn't mean that their criticisms(unreal) are real. Nay, it's the Devil(real), I say, the Devil! Repent or thou shalt be banished into the Lake of Fire(real) along with the Fallen One(TM)!

39. As Religious Strife Grows, Europe's Atheists Seize Pulpit

Comment #32014 by fonex_86 on April 15, 2007 at 8:13 am

Believeing in God does not make people poor or indeed less well educated than you.

My experience:

Believing in god (and shouting on a pulpit about it) can make you filthy rich.

Believing in god (and reading his word for 5 minutes, followed by 4-5 hours of frothing-at-the-mouth communion with him) also makes you think you're smarter than people who have studied certain subjects for 20+ years.

Sorry cheshirecat.

40. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31988 by fonex_86 on April 15, 2007 at 6:00 am

Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Science says Ratzinger's brain too narrow to explain creation.

Science also says that Ratzinger's brain has far greater capacity than the bible.

Ratzinger and all of his followers claim that knowledge of god comes from the bible.

Science then concludes that Ratzinger's god is even smaller than his brain.

Ratz.

41. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #30515 by fonex_86 on April 8, 2007 at 9:32 am

ghostbuster, please check your inbox.. thx.

42. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #30507 by fonex_86 on April 8, 2007 at 9:06 am

Logicel,

There are none. Moreover, there can't be any, since:
1. My country does not recognize atheists.
2. There are murderous fundamental Islamists here who would literally slit our throats.
3. The false equation atheist=amoral holds a firm grip on the minds of people here.
4. Atheists here are such a minority that very, very few, if any, dare to confess their (un)religious views -- and even then only in tight academic circles.
5. You know you're in deep shit when you're in a physics department and your dean/dept. head and lecturers openly profess their discontent with evolution, cloning, nuclear power, etc, and the rest of the class just nods in agreement.
6. You also know you've one foot in the grave when your univ promotes its annual Youth Camp (a xian event) as "the campus' biggest annual event".

briancoughlanworldcitizen:

Thanks for your offer, I really appreciate it, but internet speeds here are so damn lousy that it often takes me more than a minute just to upload comments such as this one. Perhaps we could converse by email instead?

Dammit, I know I'm screwed up, but who can I see? Every psychologist/psychiatrist I've seen has always given advice that involves religious claptrap!

43. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #30456 by fonex_86 on April 8, 2007 at 5:26 am

Chris Davis,

There's also a sense in which the passage from moderate to extremist is flower-strewn by the more conventionally devout. Initially, unusual levels of religiosity are encouraged and rewarded. The encouragement continues all the way up to the point where piety suddenly becomes classed as fanaticism. How is even the fanatic himself supposed to make sense of all this? He probably doesn't need to - at the terminal stages of this delusion, the Bible need be the only trusted source of information, and it has nothing but encouragement and succour for the fanatic.

Thanks for bringing that up. You know, when I think about it, the truth is that I have had the privilege of observing this very sad transformation in my own xian family.

When I was only a boy, I used to read books on dinosaurs and evolution at home without any fear of punishment whatsoever. In fact, it was my parents who bought them for me, because I liked them so much. It all began when we started having regular night prayers. Then, some years ago, my parents started banning comic books in the house. A few months after that, no music except religious xian stuff. Now, every day, we wake up to Don Moen/Hillsong music, pray at 5 AM, again at 7 PM, have bible studies every Wednesday and Friday... you get the idea.

Now their church is getting to the point where the madness reaches new heights: they're actually making plans to make kids watch Mel Gibson's Passion, make me teach at some dumb creationist institute they're building (I blatantly rejected),..... god only knows how long I have to keep this charade going.

You see, they (my family and the congregation) doesn't know I'm a nontheist -- not yet. I'd be committing social and financial suicide to proclaim my lack of belief. Believe me, I've tried; judging by the amount of venom I had to take when I was only expressing doubt, they just might burn me at the stake if I confessed my lack of beliefs.

So, again....

Somebody... anybody... HELP ME!

44. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #30383 by fonex_86 on April 7, 2007 at 11:52 pm

Hey, it's a challenge alright:
Try stoning your neighbor for going shopping on Saturdays...!!!

On a more serious note, this is really another example of cherrypicking: Jesus said that he came not to demolish the OT, but to "fufill it" (note the vagueness of this term). So why don't xians abide by Leviticus? The standard response I get is that Jesus has fulfilled the OT, therefore it's no longer necessary to follow all those laws.

Now I could go into a long and winding refutation of that claim, but I prefer a simple counter: Then why do you still bother with the "Ten Commandments"? Isn't it also OT? Isn't it supposed to be "fulfilled"? Given the xian's reverence to the 10C, most are utterly shocked when asked something like this.

Some of the more educated xians would then respond by saying that it is superseded by the Golden Rules of xianity. This is simply false. The Golden Rules are given by Jesus in positive form: they tell you what you should do, instead of what you shouldn't. The weakness of this positive form is that it does not entirely encompass the whole 10C -- it leaves loopholes.

For example, take "Do unto others..." If you're a religite, and you think, "I'd rather die than not believe in Jesus", then you, through the positive form of the Rules, would be justified in killing an atheist.

All this, without even getting to the fact that the 10C usually cited by the xians isn't really the 10C written on the two tablets at all...! For the real 10C, written on two stone tablets, read Exodus 34. FYI, the 10th commandment reads, "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother' milk." Sweet =D

45. Crucifixion 'makes God into a psychopath'

Comment #30156 by fonex_86 on April 7, 2007 at 5:11 am

... one level even more dangerous than the religious wingnuts.

Unless those "religious wingnuts" are your parents, your siblings, your colleagues, and just short of 99.99% of the people around you.

Someone please help me!

I fear for my life.

46. Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Comment #30088 by fonex_86 on April 7, 2007 at 12:09 am

When you hear or read people like Richard Dawkins, you have to admit the force of many of their arguments. Religious people do often say extraordinarily indefensible things about their faith, and can be astonishingly evasive or confused. Very few of us (certainly not I) can competently maintain the standard arguments for the existence of God against a determined onslaught.

Mr. Moore, the most astonishing thing about Prof. Dawkins is how well he maintains his composure against a determined, irrational, frothing-at-the-mouth defense of the existence of god provided by some half-assed pseudo-philosopher. I would have either slammed their head against the pavement or made them eat my shoe.

You probably know some people with high IQs. You may even have met members of the Royal Society. Does it strike you, brilliant though they are, that they have a deeper understanding of truth, beauty and all that you need to know about life than the rest of us?

Yes, it does strike me so. Have you ever watched Cosmos, Mr. Moore?

The Victorian Prime Minister Lord Salisbury once criticised Roman Catholicism for being "an excellent religion for peasants and women". But what sort of a religion would it be which was not excellent for peasants or women (who made up about 90 per cent of the world's population in Salisbury's day)?

And what sort of a belief system is it that asserts the superiority of Richard Dawkins, Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford, over the woman who toils in paddy fields, or the child who begs in the dirt, or the prisoner in his chains?

And what sort of dim-witted numbskull would assert that the beggar child is superior in evolutionary knowledge to the Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford?

This article reeks of "just because he's educated doesn't mean he's smarter than me!" While I have my own doubts and reservations when it comes to the effectiveness of current educational/academic systems, only someone with an arse for a head and shit for brains would make such a blasted comparison.

Mr. Moore, I do agree with you on one point, though: Atheism does not warrant intellect -- as you are a brilliant example of an imbecile.

47. Creationism debate continues to evolve

Comment #29834 by fonex_86 on April 5, 2007 at 4:36 am

Mikado,

Have you read/watched Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel? It addresses the question of why are there such huge gaps (economic, social, technological, etc) between the various civilizations. I would reiterate its points here were it not for the fact that I have almost forgot them, having watched them 2 years ago.

NoLongerHaveBelief,

I am an ex-theist, with full recollection of what I used to believe, so I daresay I somewhat qualify. I asked my mentor at the local Bible Study, and he replied, "those children suffer because of sin; our sins have corrupted the land, and now they must pay the price for it." Believe it or not, I swallowed it whole -- until I left the Bible Study, and started thinking for myself.

In my opinion, those (theists) who realize the folly in such answers would have their faith significantly shaken, and their rationality awoken, which is probably why we don't see it happening very often -- they already know that too much consideration into these matters might shake their faith, hence the delightful ignorance.

Like they say, "Ignorance is bliss" -- to which I add, "yeah, until the shit reaches your nose."

48. Creationism debate continues to evolve

Comment #29584 by fonex_86 on April 3, 2007 at 1:37 pm

Hmm, maybe the US should consider exiling him to a particular country in SE Asia, where I am: here religious fundies flourish and most biology teachers skim evolution in 5 minutes or less -- teaching it only because the national curriculum orders them to.

49. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29550 by fonex_86 on April 3, 2007 at 11:19 am

i love that people think that i MUST give a definition of what postmodernism is, or i else i am either a waste of time, or have no idea what im talking about, or am a postmodernist in disguise.

i love that people think that i MUST give a definition of what a jackass is, or i else i am either a waste of time, or have no idea what im talking about, or am a jackass in disguise.

I hereby second nine9s' definition of jackass: september.

50. The God Debate

Comment #29348 by fonex_86 on April 2, 2007 at 3:47 pm

Jeezus Cripe!

Did this wacko ever study his own religion properly? Even Aquinas acknowledged that "prayer" was nothing more than "opening oneself to god" (whatever that means), and not the "sending or relaying of a message to god"!!

That was in the 13th century, you bloke!