Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by upsidedawn


1. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170011 by upsidedawn on April 27, 2008 at 9:08 am

I see it more like calling a pet a family member.
I beg your pardon...our dog is a family member. ;-)

2. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170005 by upsidedawn on April 27, 2008 at 8:54 am

We have different ideas of what constitutes a friend.
True, friendship means different things for different people.
So I do consider lover and friends to be vary different relationships.
Maybe having a sexual partner and friend in the same person is kind of like multi tasking.

3. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170001 by upsidedawn on April 27, 2008 at 8:48 am

Steve, I think that's one of the reasons we women hold our relationships with gay men so dear. We both have a lot of the same experiences with men.

4. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169996 by upsidedawn on April 27, 2008 at 8:35 am

Mine's lasted 29 years so far.

5. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169991 by upsidedawn on April 27, 2008 at 8:27 am

the girls I am attracted to I am not interested in being friends with
Amazingly enough, you can actually have a sexual relationship with a woman and also have her as a friend.

6. Beware the Believers

Comment #154782 by upsidedawn on April 3, 2008 at 5:44 pm

Oh. Thanks for the link, Goldy. Good grief--and here I thought it was going to be something unique, but instead it reads like the Miss Manners of blow job etiquette.

7. Beware the Believers

Comment #154747 by upsidedawn on April 3, 2008 at 4:45 pm

annabanana:
"Pretty Lady" and her Christian blow jobs
annabanana or someone else, now I'm dead curious: what does this refer to? What's the difference between a Christian blow job and, say, an atheist blow job?

8. Who wants to kill the elderly?

Comment #153324 by upsidedawn on April 1, 2008 at 11:44 am

Well, I'm certainly no genius, but "I think you are wrong," would definitely just be my opinion, and not in any way a condemnation of you.

9. Who wants to kill the elderly?

Comment #153309 by upsidedawn on April 1, 2008 at 11:21 am

One might be offended by someone's opinion. Yet that still doesn't make the opinion a condemnation.

10. Beware the Believers

Comment #152757 by upsidedawn on March 31, 2008 at 1:16 pm

agg, it was posted on the front page originally, however for some reason, it isn't there now.

11. Fleabytes

Comment #140951 by upsidedawn on March 9, 2008 at 7:15 am

Steve Zara: Does anyone have any ideas about the motivations of so many of the theists who post here?
I wouldn't presume to attribute this motivation to all theists who come here to post, but more than one acknowledged ex-theist on other forums has disclosed that engaging in fervent debates with atheists and agnostics was a way of attempting to bolster waning faith.

12. New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?

Comment #117190 by upsidedawn on January 28, 2008 at 11:50 am

Would it be fair to call a guy who follows dogma a son of a bitch?

13. Loneliness Breeds Belief in Supernatural

Comment #116142 by upsidedawn on January 25, 2008 at 3:47 pm

Well, I will say for myself, I do believe in dog.

14. Heath Ledger Death: Baptist Group To Protest At Memorial

Comment #115767 by upsidedawn on January 24, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Another good reason to keep the toilet seat and lid down is if you have a dog.

I think that the Mythbusters guys showed that the toothbrush became contaminated no matter what was done to protect it. Including the control toothbrush that they kept in the kitchen.

15. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108266 by upsidedawn on January 6, 2008 at 11:08 am

for heaven's sake, don't let anybody here catch you seeming to actually believe in the eternal soul or the subconscious, demon possession or repressed homosexuality.
Or verily, the Rational Thinkers will shit upon you from a great height. And there will be weeping and wailing, and gnashing of teeth in UpsidesawnLand, yea even unto the seventy-seventh randomly mutated generation.
Thanks Richard. I may be safe, then, unless something I say is misunderstood, which, of course, is possible. And I don't expect to be answered readily here, as I'm only an occasional poster, so not familiar to people.

I like that you and others are revealing yourselves, names, pictures and all. If I had lots of brilliant things to say, I'd go ahead and do so myself. I enjoyed how Steve Zara seemed to be doing a slow strip tease over the months in revealing his face. The first time I saw his most recent picture, I had a brief thought that maybe Dan Dennett's son was posting.

16. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108173 by upsidedawn on January 6, 2008 at 7:05 am

It's as if you were in agony with a dental abscess and I had some strong pain relief I could give you, but instead I chose to tell you that I had a dental abscess once too, so I know what you're going through. Very helpful.

One of my daughters has heavy period pains

You just know a Christian would tell you that God is doing you a bigger favor by making you stronger in enduring the pain. (vomit)

17. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108166 by upsidedawn on January 6, 2008 at 6:48 am

Is it unacceptable on this site to use "Freudian" as an adjective, such as in the above article ("Freudian sense of the term") or in another way I myself have employed it (Freudian slip)?

Even if Freud was a ridiculous old poop, people know exactly what you mean when you use those kinds of expressions.

However, I'm eager to be educated on why I should avoid them, in order to satisfy the wishes of the language police.

18. Changing my Mind

Comment #106751 by upsidedawn on January 3, 2008 at 11:53 am

Oops. My Freudian slip is showing.

19. Changing my Mind

Comment #106736 by upsidedawn on January 3, 2008 at 11:29 am

...it does irk me that people assume a petard is a noose of some kind rather than an explosive

I apologize for the digression, but upon looking up "petard," I became fascinated by the entymology on Merriam-Webster online:

"Middle French, from peter to break wind, from pet expulsion of intestinal gas..." etc.

Wow--that gives whole new meaning to "hoist on his own petard." Thanks GrumpyMax!

(Of course, I posted this before reading other comments beyond that.)

20. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104825 by upsidedawn on December 29, 2007 at 2:50 pm

Anecdotal example #2088: I have a close friend with a young adult family member who is a diagnosed schizophrenic. It had been an ongoing battle to get this family member to keep regular doctor visits and take prescribed meds for the condition. They are regular church goers in an evangelical religion, and were acquainted with a pastor who proposed casting out demons. So my friend actually went along with the pastor's suggestion to have an exorcism for this family member.

As it happens, it did have a placebo effect, and for a time returned this person to normal behavior. But it didn't last, and my friend went back to treatment by traditional medicine.

21. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100183 by upsidedawn on December 18, 2007 at 11:04 am

I don't feel the antipathy that some here have expressed for the interviewer. To me, his demeanor and questions actually made for an interesting interview, and allowed the professor to make his case quite well, and with passion. In that respect, it was a good match of interviewer and interviewee for appealing to the common viewer.

22. Let us kill all the teddy bears

Comment #95113 by upsidedawn on December 7, 2007 at 11:19 am

Mark Morford's column today is highly entertaining:

God commands you to read this

23. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #95016 by upsidedawn on December 7, 2007 at 7:13 am

If I were the parent, I would add a question: "And why are you telling me this?"

24. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92483 by upsidedawn on November 30, 2007 at 3:43 pm

Clear or not, and whether or not it was a good thing for the atheist movement, this article certainly has provided us all with a fabulous debate topic here. It's been a great discussion! (Not that it's over yet).

25. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92479 by upsidedawn on November 30, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Yes, that may have been one of his points, but he didn't make it very clearly.

26. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92427 by upsidedawn on November 30, 2007 at 1:20 pm

birthmachinebaby--

How about:
c) honestly addressing your change of heart with your marriage partner?

It's not easy, and it's still painful, but it is another--and better--option.

27. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92419 by upsidedawn on November 30, 2007 at 1:05 pm

I was actually trying to explain my initial reaction to the article--I, an atheist. If I would have that kind of emotional reaction, I can only imagine how theists would react. We don't want to scare them away, we want them to listen--at least those who are beginning to try.

Even though my husband and I are monogomous, both of us are intelligent and aware enough to know full well already that it's human nature to be sexually attracted to others. We don't need someone to help us realize that.

28. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92368 by upsidedawn on November 30, 2007 at 10:58 am

I'll admit that when I first read the article, I felt dismayed to sense from it that the professor was suggesting that, if we were logical and right-thinking, we would welcome open marriages with no qualms. I had an immediate visceral reaction that I didn't want my own marriage to be like that, so therefore I must be a failure as an atheist or rationalist. A couple of comments posted have suggested that those of us who enjoyed and supported monogamy for ourselves (nobody posting here has said they expect it of others) have been influenced by religion to feel the way we do, with the implication that our reaction is therefore flawed.

I was glad to read in the professor's subsequent post that he himself occasionally struggles with his own feelings of jealousy—that he admits to experiencing that emotion himself. I believe it was Beth who mentioned that so many of us were responding to the article emotionally, but in fact, Dr. Dawkins himself seemed to have written the article as an emotional reaction to his distaste for "Tarrant's horrible wife," and the way society seemed to side with her. I don't know this story—perhaps Mrs. Tarrant is thoroughly unpleasant, and perhaps the extremes of her revenge are distasteful. But the use of "horrible" to describe her seemed to me a clear emotional reaction. The professor has a right to an emotional reaction, and it humanizes him. I just wanted to point out that we were not the only ones responding emotionally to something. We are in good company with Dr. Dawkins.

29. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91927 by upsidedawn on November 29, 2007 at 3:02 pm

Ah, so this article is him bragging then.
;)

Ha! Well you know, Diacanu, I laughed aloud when I read the second post from L D Miller, "Is RD trying to tell us something here???" because that's exactly what I had wondered.

30. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91916 by upsidedawn on November 29, 2007 at 2:49 pm

I'd be lucky to get the first chick, as if I'm gonna be on the hunt for more.

But I'm absolutely certain that the professor would not have a problem in the world finding other opportunities, without even trying.

Including some of us here, who are otherwise monogamous...

31. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91890 by upsidedawn on November 29, 2007 at 2:08 pm

He screwed around ON THE JOB and IN THE OFFICE.

He should have been fired no question.

Well, he was found out to have done so. That was his problem, right?

Because for sure there've been lots of people who have screwed around on the job and not found out. There will have been rumors about it, too, but no pursuit of it, so the people involved won't suffer any consequences.

Honestly, I understand why companies have rules about it, but personally I don't care if someone else does it at work.

32. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91881 by upsidedawn on November 29, 2007 at 1:52 pm

Just to cast my "vote," I agree with dgr8test97, Lana, and ubermensch. I am uncomfortable with the article for the reasons they have indicated.

33. Mitt the Mormon

Comment #91222 by upsidedawn on November 27, 2007 at 5:01 pm

When I visit my mormon relatives in Utah...I am always creeped out. The whole state has this creepy-conforming-cultish feel to it. I wouldn't want to live there.

I get that same vibe when I'm in Utah. But then, these days, I get the same feeling when I visit my hometown in the Bible Belt.

Interesting that Utah is The Beehive State. That always makes me think of "hive mind."

34. Golden Compass author hits back

Comment #91138 by upsidedawn on November 27, 2007 at 11:50 am

Well, as they say, there's no such thing as bad publicity. There'll be lots of people who will see the movie and read the books just to see what all the fuss is about.

35. Sunday School for Atheists

Comment #90720 by upsidedawn on November 26, 2007 at 7:58 am

I'm all for it as long as the kids enjoy participating and want to go. But all I can think about is the drudgery of having to give up my free weekend time attending Sunday School every week as a child. It didn't matter that I bought into the religious crap as a kid. I still hated having to get dressed up and go to Sunday School and church.

36. Romney's Mormonism is fair game

Comment #90148 by upsidedawn on November 23, 2007 at 7:07 am

Is that where the expression "Talking out of my ass" comes from?

37. The Turning of an Atheist

Comment #85174 by upsidedawn on November 5, 2007 at 8:29 am

Imagine having parents who operated a Christian bookstore for many years. Out of a sense of familial duty more than anything else, I tried to read the boxes of material they sent me. The effect it had on me was to cause me to shake my head and wonder if the writers' intent was to exclude anyone with an IQ above, say, 130 from religious faith, what with page after page jammed with fallacies and unsupported assertions as numerous as they were glaring.

I sincerely appreciate your comments, Teratornis, but I just wanted to insert a little of my own frustration here with the idea that we have to be above a certain IQ number to understand the fallacies of religious belief, and to reasonably choose atheism for ourselves. Speaking only for myself—although based on averages, there must be lurkers who agree—I don't know my IQ score, nor have a desire to learn what it is, but I have always assumed that mine is smack dab in the middle of average, based on my ability or lack thereof of grasping scientific and mathematical concepts. I struggle with much of it, and eventually come to understand some things, even as others still elude me and would require a great deal more study. Yes, atheists on the whole may represent the higher end of the IQ scale, and I'm relieved to have those with such sharp minds fighting the good fight in the public arena, but we average Joe and Jane Atheists can grasp and appreciate all the arguments detailed in, say, Richard Dawkins' books, as well as mourn the shameful manipulation of Anthony Flew.

(As another anecdote, a close relative of mine, who, to my great sorrow, became a fundamentalist Christian in adulthood, proudly reports an IQ score in the 140s from one of those on-line IQ tests.)

38. The New Atheists on Organized Freethought

Comment #83053 by upsidedawn on October 28, 2007 at 6:05 pm

Yes, drbreakfast--a definition similar to what you devised was completely what I was expecting when I looked it up out of curiousity a couple of days ago. So when I read the actual definition, I was ready to fire off a message to them. Wonder how they would respond. Wonder if it's worth the trouble... Eh, maybe. If I decide to, and the response is interesting enough, I'll post it here.

39. The New Atheists on Organized Freethought

Comment #82567 by upsidedawn on October 26, 2007 at 6:37 pm

I apologize for the sort-of-off-topicness, but I just wanted to thank ridelo and cebolla for providing still other annoying definitions of "atheist." Does anyone have access to the OED? I'd love to know the OED definition.

40. The New Atheists on Organized Freethought

Comment #81944 by upsidedawn on October 25, 2007 at 12:32 pm

It really annoys me that the Merriam-Webster On-line dictionary defines "atheist" as "One who believes there is no diety." Grrrr.

41. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist

Comment #81868 by upsidedawn on October 25, 2007 at 10:12 am

It's anecdotal, of course, but when I revealed my lack of belief to a close friend, the one question she asked me was, "Aren't you afraid of what will happen when you die?"

42. If you don't accept the supernatural, you obviously think life is depressing, meaningless and cold

Comment #81765 by upsidedawn on October 25, 2007 at 6:36 am

My experience is that such comments are a last resort for the theist. They're actually talking about the utility of belief in God rather than the truth of the belief itself. They've already made the implicit assumption that "ignorance is bliss".

And they're not really saying "YOU must live a cold, meaningless, empty and unhappy life", what they're really saying is "if I abandoned God, I think I would live a cold, meaningless, empty, and unhappy life" - somewhat like the oft-repeated "I don't know what I would've done without God in my life. He's helped me through some really tough times."

oisha, I like your thoughts on this and other subjects. I too feel that many dismissive comments about atheism coming from the mouths of believers are actually evidence of their own doubts. The comment that is the subject of this section is a case in point: is the believer actually masking his own unhappiness by making this statement? It's useful not to take the bait as if you have to prove the presence of happiness, love, and meaning in your own life, but to turn the attention back on the originator of the statement. If he is signaling his own doubts with these words, he may actually be, even unconsciously, asking you to encourage him toward a route out of the fog of God delusion.

43. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist

Comment #81743 by upsidedawn on October 25, 2007 at 5:53 am

My feeling is that someone who uses this statement is trying to manipulate the atheist into justifying an atheist position. Therefore, it might be useful for us to use a response that turns the tables on someone who uses this statement, and offer a different interpretation of the word "faith" that throws the onus back upon the believer. To wit:

Many theists might say that they don't have the "faith" it would take to be an atheist because they are afraid of even considering relinquishing belief in a God. They're afraid of the consequences, so cling tenaciously to what they have been taught all their lives. So when they use these words, what they actually mean is that they don't have the courage to be atheists. Of course, those of us who have finally acknowledged our lack of belief in God, or who have never believed in the first place, know that it doesn't take courage to live our lives free of that superstition, any more than it requires courage for a believer in God to maintain disbelief in Zeus.

[Oisha--missed reading your comment before posting! Think we're of like mind about this.]

44. A question of belief

Comment #80135 by upsidedawn on October 20, 2007 at 6:28 am

This seemed quite balanced. However there is the tone, and even the suggestion ("We have arrived at a moment where doubt is having its day - and for a time, atheists are coming out of hiding"), that this is temporary.

[By the way, how does one submit articles for posting here? I found an article that seems wonderfully appropriate for the site--I think it would stir much debate--and sent the link to contact@richarddawkins.net, but have yet to see anything.]

45. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #55771 by upsidedawn on July 12, 2007 at 7:40 am

DeLan,
At the risk of being accused of being nothing so loathsome as a "fan" of Professor Dawkins, I offer you this excerpt from his book Unweaving the Rainbow:

"After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life. Within decades we must close our eyes again. Isn't it a noble, an enlightened way of spending our brief time in the sun, to work at understanding the universe and how we have come to wake up in it? This is how I answer when I am asked—as I am surprisingly often—why I bother to get up in the mornings. To put it the other way round, isn't it sad to go to your grave without ever wondering why you were born? Who, with such a thought, would not spring from bed, eager to resume discovering the world and rejoicing to be a part of it?"

I appreciate his suggestion that the mysteries of our universe and our search for meaning in our own lives is a source of joy, not of distress.

46. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #55615 by upsidedawn on July 11, 2007 at 5:38 pm

DeLan writes:

RD writes, "Why would Wilson 'naturally assume' any such thing?" and then immediately answers his own question by saying that it would be reasonable to assume just what Wilson assumes.

No, he doesn't. Rather than suggesting you reread that section, here it is (emphasis mine):
"Reasonable, perhaps, to assume that I would pay some attention to the evolution of religion, but why base a critique on an evolutionary perspective, any more than on Assyrian woodwind instruments or the burrowing behaviour of aardvarks? The God Delusion does, as it happens, have a chapter on the evolutionary origins of religion. But to say that this chapter is peripheral to my main critique would be an understatement."

47. Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

Comment #55186 by upsidedawn on July 10, 2007 at 8:02 am

Studies demonstrate unequivocally that men are far more interested in short-term casual sex than women. In one now-classic study, 75 percent of undergraduate men approached by an attractive female stranger agreed to have sex with her; none of the women approached by an attractive male stranger did.

I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with this, having not read the study mentioned. But I remember that the first time I heard of this study, I wondered at the accuracy of concluding that the reticence of the women to accept the advances of the attractive male indicates their disinterest in casual sex. There's certainly a chance that at least some of the women were stymied from pursuing a sexual encounter through consideration of the possibility of being physically hurt by a male stranger, something that men, on the other hand, don't commonly have to fear from female strangers.

48. Brian Lehrer interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34476 by upsidedawn on April 24, 2007 at 7:18 am

Mjwemdee, I also was interested in Brian Lehrer's mention of second children being less obedient, so I looked up the name Dr. Dawkins mentioned, Frank Sulloway, who studied and wrote a book, Born to Rebel, about personality as it relates to birth order: http://www.sulloway.org/borntorebel.html