1. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162577 by aznxscorpion517 on April 17, 2008 at 5:00 am

The lead singer of The Killers is a Mormon. Not sure about the other members of the band.

Although, even so, I doubt they would want their reputation "expelled" by being a part of this crap.

2. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160695 by aznxscorpion517 on April 14, 2008 at 9:39 am

And people complain about China and their human rights? They boycott the damn Olympics? They need to look elsewhere for things to protest.

3. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160690 by aznxscorpion517 on April 14, 2008 at 9:33 am

What the hell is this lunacy? This is disgusting. This is almost unreal. The most disturbing and saddest part of it all is that it actually is real....

4. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #138080 by aznxscorpion517 on March 3, 2008 at 9:35 pm

I find it interesting that 4 days earlier on March 4th, Dr. Tim Keller is going to be at Berkeley in the same auditorium Richard will be, only he will be presenting his book The Reason for God. He'll supposedly be answering questions as to why God created hell and why there is so much suffering.

5. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #138027 by aznxscorpion517 on March 3, 2008 at 6:52 pm

Richard should come to San Francisco! Berkeley is close by but that event starts so late!

6. Pakistan blocks YouTube over blasphemous video

Comment #133133 by aznxscorpion517 on February 25, 2008 at 4:37 pm

So that's what was going on yesterday. I was wondering why I couldn't access the site.

This abuse of power over free speech must be stopped! They want tolerance eh? That's funny when Islam is an antonym of tolerance.

7. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128569 by aznxscorpion517 on February 17, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Once the fundies find out that these implants make them more intelligent they will want them to combat atheism. When they realize that a side effect to getting an implant is atheism, they will cry again just as they now cry about abstinence, etc.

8. Bill Maher on Larry King Live

Comment #127649 by aznxscorpion517 on February 15, 2008 at 1:43 pm

GSP: "I assume you are still living in the social-darwinist days. Just because some group of people die because another group is entirely filthy does not in any way add value to the filthy group."

What are you talking about, GSP? I was making an example that being healthy won't automatically make you immune to disease. I am not saying the westerners had value. I'm saying medicine has value if they wanted to live.

Taking the idea that being healthy doesn't automatically make you immune plus the idea that living organisms can unexpectedly encounter one another gives me the reason to think that modern medicine has value.

9. Bill Maher on Larry King Live

Comment #126116 by aznxscorpion517 on February 12, 2008 at 1:21 pm

k1mgy,

You said, "And without the bible we would have no morality."

I assume you mean we don't need to be exposed to disease to be immune to it. While that is possible. Just being naturally healthy will not make you immune to everything. I see no reason to believe so.

The Native Americans were not immune because they were isolated from westerners, if I remember correctly. That means they had no choice in the matter. They started getting sick because their immune systems have never encountered such pathogens. I think of it as natural selection. Whereas two isolated groups of the same species will eventually become two different species and no longer be able to reproduce. In this case, it would be isolation between the immune system and the pathogens, eventually making them no longer friendly with each other. (Of course they are never friendly but I think you get the idea.) I'm no expert though so if there are inaccuracies, please do tell me, anyone.

The Native Americans obviously hunted, giving them exercise, and ate organic foods, which gives me no reason to believe that they were all unhealthy. There were also no nuclear plants back then. I would seem that according to GSP and Maher that most of them should have been pretty healthy. Yet, their suffering was evident from pathogens they contracted, which according to some here, shouldn't have happened.

Comparing disease to the Bible is not a good satirical analogy. (Did i say that right?)

10. Bill Maher on Larry King Live

Comment #125720 by aznxscorpion517 on February 11, 2008 at 11:10 pm

I'm all for living a healthy lifestyle. However, I see no reason why you can't be the healthiest person in the whole world and still not get a disease or some kind of illness that needs medical treatment. Sure you might be less likely to get certain complications but that in no ways puts you off disease or illness.

I have never thought about modern medicine as a way to eradicate disease off the face of the planet. I don't think that is the goal of medicine. Sure, we'd like it to be true, but most people would realize it is not a realistic goal. We lessen suffering and help save lives by using medicine. The only problem I can see is over population.

If we let evolution take its course without us helping ourselves with medicine, people will die for the immunity of our children. If you don't have a problem with that, you must know that the fact that if we allow all disease to continue to thrive, it will still be around and can still always mutate and make a comeback just as it does now. It'll always be around, leading to again, the only problem being over population that I can think of.

11. Bill Maher on Larry King Live

Comment #125674 by aznxscorpion517 on February 11, 2008 at 8:14 pm

GSP,

Do you not support vaccinations and modern medicine? I'm not talking about companies and them putting money over human wellbeing, just usage of medicine.

From what you say, I get the feeling that we should never use any medicine and instead diet well and exercise to get a healthy immune system so we never get any illness. I assume that you do know a large portion of illnesses are related to our genes and that some diseases cannot be avoided no matter how healthy you are? Does Bill Maher or you really believe you can be immune to any illness by just having a healthy immune system?

Antibiotics are necessary. They should not be abused, of course. However, if you had a tooth abscess like Steve said he had and like what I had recently, what would you do? It is possible to get a tooth abscess unexpectedly (areas that cannot be cleaned for whatever reason). If the bacteria reaches your blood stream you can die. What would you do? Not take antibiotics? Apparently, Bill Maher wouldn't. He said he only used to. He said he is now healthy and doesn't need to. But think again, it doesn't matter sometimes if you are healthy. Not needing medicine is one thing but refusing to take it because you think it makes you unhealthy?

Bill said the problem is not the germs, it's us. That is where he is going a bit weird. We won't be immune automatically if we are healthy. Why do you think the Native Americans started getting sick when westerners arrived? They weren't immune. How do we get immune? Vaccinations, so we can fight off weakened versions of the virus. If we are exposed to it naturally we will probably die.

From what you say, it seems like you want people to die in order for our descendants to evolve through natural selection and gain immunity to current disease.

12. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #108386 by aznxscorpion517 on January 6, 2008 at 5:16 pm

Could someone repeat what argument Sam Harris countered by using that hilarious Elvis analogy? I watched this a while back but can't seem to recall and get it working this time.

Thanks.

And I do remember that eyebrow raise. It was quite funny.

13. Can Atheists Be Parents?

Comment #107613 by aznxscorpion517 on January 4, 2008 at 8:24 pm

Yes, the article is from 1970. However, the fact that it is possible to not be surprised that this could happen in the world today is really scary.

14. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107604 by aznxscorpion517 on January 4, 2008 at 8:00 pm

etny (comment 67),

Sam Harris has talked about his views about Eastern Religions in his books, one of them is Buddhism. It is clear his books and his ideas apply to all religions. He has said in a CSPAN BookTv lecture that Buddhism is just more open to science than other religions, probably making it less "dangerous". But nonetheless still irrational giving us no reason to believe in reincarnation.

His talks about happiness and "spirituality" are often misunderstood. He has said he uses the word "spiritual" because he doesn't know a better word and tries to refrain from using it. I really don't know why some atheists have trouble with this. Richard and Dennett have said they agree with him in the 4 Horseman Video that we should not rule out that there might be ways of achieving happiness that are not obvious to us that maybe the religious have already found because their religion made it easier to achieve this state (ex. Buddha). Sam has said repeatedly that because things like meditation are usually associated with religion, that atheists and others usually dismiss things like meditation too quickly.

15. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105870 by aznxscorpion517 on January 2, 2008 at 2:51 am

I'm not sure if you guys are particularly debating on something Sam Harris believes but I don't think that is his view. I think it is a simple view that he has presented here. Of course it leads to complications but the concern he has is simple. This concern appears to be that he understands that nature could very well end our existence in many ways. It could be almost instant, long term suffering, etc. I think he wants people to realize that if we can help us survive then we should do so (ex. Vaccines in the past). It could be as simple as using a hybrid car. I don't think he is one of those "crazy environmentalists."

This talk of "super humans" do seem to be going too far in the future. I think Sam is talking about genetic engineering to remove certain things that may cause too much suffering such as horrible diseases. I can understand the distrust that this technology comes with but I also have the feeling that it will happen despite what we think. If it does go horrible, I wouldn't want to be a part of it either. But it all seems inevitable that the tech will be used and there MIGHT be bad that follows like other technologies have caused horrible things in the past as well before we realized the wrong in the use of it. Perhaps our technology is a step up in the possibilities of prolonging our survival but is still and always part of "nature" not being our friend.

Sam Harris does NOT believe in reincarnation as far as I know. I think his talks about the mind are what discredits him because of people misunderstanding him. He seems to use the word "spiritual" because he doesn't have a better word for it. All he is saying is that there MIGHT be a way to achieve human happiness that might not be automatically visible to us. And that people like Jesus or Buddha might have already got this happiness because their religious views eased that process. He's explaining that this idea, because it is usually associated with religion, is usually automatically discredited. All he is saying is that we should not overlook the possibility of achieving happiness in other ways (ex. meditation). Dan Dennett and Richard have said they agree with him to not rule out this view from their Four Horsemen Convo.

16. What Your Brain Looks Like on Faith

Comment #99799 by aznxscorpion517 on December 17, 2007 at 2:53 pm

Man-Crush! Well, he is pretty damn great. lol I hope this project of his goes far and gives us some startling new information on how the mind works.

17. Keith Olbermann talks about the Romney 'Religion' Speech

Comment #95568 by aznxscorpion517 on December 8, 2007 at 3:43 pm

If he really did say "religion of secularism" than I am appalled, shocked and disgusted. How can a candidate for The Presidency of the USA NOT understand what SECULAR means?

18. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93333 by aznxscorpion517 on December 2, 2007 at 6:27 pm

This person is another one who thinks Richard said teaching religion to children is child abuse. He's said many times and has mentioned it again and again that he means LABELING children as religious is child abuse.

19. Egypt mufti says female circumcision forbidden

Comment #52297 by aznxscorpion517 on June 26, 2007 at 4:39 pm

So it takes a little girl's death for these religious heads to realize female circumcision should be forbidden?

I'm not sure if it does but if it says it should be done in their book and they are not doing it, then are they not defying the will of their god? If so, I think they should be scared but of course they probably aren't. They think they know how their god thinks. They think their god will let this thing slip. And you know what? They will think they are correct that their god will let it slip because nothing will happen. Why? Because their god doesn't exist. Basically, they can preach what they want.

They think they know how their god thinks = They create the rules = Their religion is man made.

20. The Stupidity of Fox News is Truly Beyond Belief

Comment #52296 by aznxscorpion517 on June 26, 2007 at 4:30 pm

Atheists like Richard Dawkins are PUSHING their ideas into the general public? Does this guy think hard enough?

All these New Atheists are doing are selling books. If you don't want to buy it then don't. It's not the same as evangelicals knocking on your door and telling you you'll go to hell if you don't join them. Or pushing your beliefs on to others through politics.

This guy needs to think straight and realize the side he is on might be a hypocrite.

21. God Hates the World

Comment #51933 by aznxscorpion517 on June 25, 2007 at 3:10 pm

I am pretty much speechless at that last part with the little girl.

Richard was right. I had a hard time watching it. I watched it for the end and so should others. They will then know what's going on in this world today.

22. Bush Vetoes Measure on Stem Cell Research

Comment #51045 by aznxscorpion517 on June 21, 2007 at 9:04 am

It'd be ironic when someone close to him suddenly becomes ill and would benefit from stem cell research. What would he support then?

23. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50879 by aznxscorpion517 on June 20, 2007 at 9:36 am

Tedwak,
I am not saying that cherry picking is worse. I am merely saying that again, Chris Hedgse as a moderate is defending religion and in the process defends fundamentalists to a degree. ie, saying religion is not the problem.

As for his view of Christianity. I'm saying that he should question his own beliefs and try to see that it seems as if he's not a Christian at all. Should he be defending religion? Or something else?

24. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50654 by aznxscorpion517 on June 19, 2007 at 8:39 am

I'm prety sure he made it up himself. He seems to defend religion because he is defending HIS version of Christianity. It would make sense that he would make up his own claims for this position.

His claim doesn't give any truth to the idea of religion. This debate was more about politics and ideas like someone said earlier.

25. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50652 by aznxscorpion517 on June 19, 2007 at 8:14 am

Yeah, Chris Hedges kept saying he was there and saw and stuff like that. He only needed to say it a few times but he said it so much that it made it seem as if that automatically makes him more credible than research polls without question.

The moderator--or at least he supposed to be a moderator--did seem a little biased. It did seem like a two on one. I think he almost spoke as much as Hedges did in the later parts if not more.

Hedges still fails to realize what Sam Harris said about how people act in violence out of despair and poverty but it matters what they believe along with the despair they have. Sam Harris said something along the lines of a despairing, impoverished Jain would not lash out violently, whereas a despairing, impoverished Muslim would.

26. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50630 by aznxscorpion517 on June 19, 2007 at 6:38 am

Mr. Hedges talked about how it's tribalism and not religion that cause these acts of violence. What he ignores is that it's religion that justifies these actions. He thinks religion is not the problem but tribalism is. If you ask me, religion is a form of tribalism, is it not? Apparently his view of religion isn't, which I talked about earlier. He says that the Quran isn't a violent text and is tolerant. I hear people say it's horrible and he says it's not. Either way, whether or not it says those things people are killing each other because they believe something their book says. They kill in the name of their god for their belief of something whether it is in the book or not. Is that not a problem with the book? Their religion when they use it to justify their violence?

This is a great quote from Steven Weinberg.
"(Religion) With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion"
-- Steven Weinberg

27. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50626 by aznxscorpion517 on June 19, 2007 at 6:22 am

I'm also getting pretty annoyed with Chris Hedges position. I haven't even heard the whole thing yet and it's already getting to me. It's because it's very clear that he is defending HIS OWN version of god and religion. HIS view is not the WORLD view which is where the problem lies. AND HEDGES, who seems to believe he knows what Christianity really is, he must be asked if he is a TRUE Christian. Why? Because like what someone else said, he doesn't follow the scriptures literally. Aren't the people who follow the scriptures to the bone the REAL Christians? So are you Mr. Hedges, a Christian at all? Are you cherry picking like many others?

I say the Biblical literalists are probably the TRUE Christians because the Bible is either true or it's not. There can't be a middle ground. God, if he exists is supposed to be omnipotent and perfect. That means he can't make a mistake in the Bible. Therefore, it has to be all correct. He can't make a mistake and say "Oops, sorry about the homosexual thing". Because he can't make a mistake in the first place. And if Hedges claims to follow what he says are the true form of Christianity, aka his view of Christianity. We must ask, who is he to know what true Christianity is when he is disregarding the Biblical text which he only sometimes follows.

You may ask me well, who am I to judge that literalists are the TRUE Christians too. Well, the Bible is the ONLY real evidence that supports Christianity and horribly BAD evidence I might add. So is that not what you should follow to the bone? Again, is God not perfect? The book is either true or not. Either you follow it or you don't. Why are you cherry picking? Does that mean you don't think God is perfect like he says he is in the book that is HIS WORD? I think that is a good enough reason to think those who take the Bible literally are the TRUE Christians.

If Mr. Hedges isn't following all of God's commands why does he believe in Christianity at all? Must you cherry pick the Bible to be a good person? Doesn't that make you not a Christian if you don't follow everything God says? Is there a good reason you believe in a god, Mr. Hedges? And again, are you really a Christian?

28. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50054 by aznxscorpion517 on June 14, 2007 at 7:01 pm

They think giving the right for women to abort a child caused by RAPE or to prevent health problems is traitorical to defending human rights? Immoral?

That is disgusting.

I can't think of anything other than religion that would say such a thing.