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 annabanana


501. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132994 by annabanana on February 25, 2008 at 1:54 pm

wyattroberts, no I don't think any of the books have any viable arguments against Richard Dawkins because Richard uses logic for all of his arguments and I have found all of them to be logically sound (as have many others). Have you ever read The God Delusion? If you haven't, I would suggest that you do. Even if you don't agree with it (although, I think it would be mental acrobatics not to agree).

I'll grant you that television isn't always the best source for the truth, however, I think that we would hear about the evidence somewhere along the way before we had to read an obscure book.

502. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132984 by annabanana on February 25, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Disneyland? Damn...there goes my vacation...

503. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132978 by annabanana on February 25, 2008 at 1:38 pm

What has sparked your curiosity about what atheists have to say? I am curious about your 'curiousness', wyattroberts.

504. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132974 by annabanana on February 25, 2008 at 1:33 pm

wyattroberts, there are many, many books who refute Richard Dawkins, et al, but it seems that almost all of them present the same arguments repeatedly. Some of us have read some of them and we simply tire of repeating the same rebuttals to the same arguments. This is why we tend to dismiss new books so quickly.

Also, if suddenly there were some irrefutable evidence for theism, it would be all over the news. We wouldn't need a book to tell us about it.

505. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132951 by annabanana on February 25, 2008 at 12:49 pm

It's the Papa Smurf edition.

506. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132943 by annabanana on February 25, 2008 at 12:33 pm

Whaaa....?

507. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132931 by annabanana on February 25, 2008 at 12:14 pm

adonais, I totally agree. I wasn't saying that their arguments are anywhere near being correct, but that it seems like there must be some theist school somewhere that says "ok, these are the standard arguments against atheism. They also have standard rebuttals, but their arguments don't change, so we don't need to change ours, either."

MPhil, I'm 59 inches (4'11 or 1.49m). So no worries, I'm not wasting away.

508. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132919 by annabanana on February 25, 2008 at 12:02 pm

standard rebuttals

I think this is part of the problem. The theists have a standard set of arguments which they all know and use and most atheists have a standard set of rebuttals that go along with each of the arguments and so it seems to the theists that they can continue to use the same arguments because we tend to use the same rebuttals. They think their arguments must have equal merit as our rebuttals.

509. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132912 by annabanana on February 25, 2008 at 11:54 am

You're right, jimbob, I've got no chance of being a threat to someone when I'm this small...I better start eating...

510. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132907 by annabanana on February 25, 2008 at 11:51 am

Chapter 5 - The problem of wicked atheists. Stalin, Hilter, Mao and Pol Pot.

I think I know why they keep repeating these well-refuted arguments: they are sure that if they keep repeating it, one of us will get pissed off to the point that we DO act like Stalin, et al towards all of the theists and then they'll have proved their point. No? Okay, that's all I've got.

511. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132896 by annabanana on February 25, 2008 at 11:38 am

Yes, all 98 lbs (44 kg) of this little atheist is a threat to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of all those theists out there. [/sarcasm]

WTF?

512. Richard Dawkins on five of his favorite books

Comment #132894 by annabanana on February 25, 2008 at 11:31 am

1. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (since Steve says I can't have them all)
2. Oryx and Crake - Margaret Atwood
3. The Master and Margarita - Bulgakov
4. Slaughterhouse V - Kurt Vonnegut
5. Lord of the Flies - William Golding

513. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #132890 by annabanana on February 25, 2008 at 11:19 am

Please understand that Darwinism is a religion, and it does not tolerate any dissent.


This is the most ludicrous thing I've heard all day.

514. State Approves Evolution As 'Scientific Theory'

Comment #129665 by annabanana on February 19, 2008 at 12:43 pm

the revision had been made to "placate" people who disagreed with the standards.

Why, in the name of the FSM, would we want to placate any of these morons?

Adding the term "scientific theory" before the term "evolution" was a modified proposal at least one board member called a compromise

This is super annoying since it is re-affirming the misrepresentation of the meaning of the word "theory".

515. Cutting Edge: Baby Bible Bashers

Comment #129516 by annabanana on February 19, 2008 at 8:44 am

Brian, you've been missing lots of debates with Fanusi. I know you must miss him so. I'm glad that you've come to comment again!

516. Potentially Habitable Planets Are Common, Study Says

Comment #129514 by annabanana on February 19, 2008 at 8:43 am

Science is the only area they offer in grad school?[/sarcasm]

517. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129513 by annabanana on February 19, 2008 at 8:39 am

Szymanowski,

In TGD, like Bonzai and Steve have been discussing, Richard talks about how children are prone to assigning purposes to things and that they are almost innately theists. Without the traditions and ceremonies of particular religions pervading the minds of children, it may be that the belief in a god does NOT vary from region to region. This is why we need a study, perhaps like this one.

518. Potentially Habitable Planets Are Common, Study Says

Comment #129503 by annabanana on February 19, 2008 at 8:23 am

Epinephrine...I meant to tell you that I like your new avatar. It's much less menacing than the other one. You look like a normal human now. ;-)

519. Potentially Habitable Planets Are Common, Study Says

Comment #129500 by annabanana on February 19, 2008 at 8:14 am

Bartending school, eh? Why on earth do you want to know that?

520. Potentially Habitable Planets Are Common, Study Says

Comment #129489 by annabanana on February 19, 2008 at 7:50 am

Yes, I would expect so. I've yet to figure out what or when I'm going to do. I need to get some lab experience before I go to graduate school, it seems. I was supposed to volunteer at a program here, but the professor has been very lax about getting back in touch with me.

521. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129479 by annabanana on February 19, 2008 at 7:30 am

Well, all the more reason why it is a poorly worded sentence...IMHO. :-)

522. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129471 by annabanana on February 19, 2008 at 7:14 am

Justin Barrett, a psychologist who has been quoted in support of arguments by both the atheist Richard Dawkins and his critic, Alister Mc-Grath . . .

Thanks for pointing this out, Richard. I think the wording of the sentence is a bit confusing as I read it like SteveN did, as well. Maybe she could have said "Both atheist Richard Dawkins and his critic Alister McGrath, a Christian Theologian, have quoted Justin Barret, a psychologist who says of the study:..."

523. Potentially Habitable Planets Are Common, Study Says

Comment #129467 by annabanana on February 19, 2008 at 7:08 am

Yes, Steve. This is why we haven't experienced a pandemic of bird flu since the virus would have to cross the bird-human barrier probably multiple times before it became an issue.

I was/am looking into graduate school for microbiology/virology. :-)

524. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129455 by annabanana on February 19, 2008 at 6:48 am

I would have thought that the fact that there is such a discrepancy in belief between, say Sweden and the USA, or between 18th Century England and modern-day England, that the 'nature or nuture' question has an obvious answer. Why are they throwing money at such a redundant topic?

I think that perhaps you are confusing belief in a supernatural deity with the particulars of different religions. It is obvious that "nurture" outweighs "nature" in this sense, but I don't think it's as obvious as the central belief, belief in God. There was a section about this in TGD, remember?

525. Potentially Habitable Planets Are Common, Study Says

Comment #129452 by annabanana on February 19, 2008 at 6:43 am

I think that life will be found to be widely disperse, seeded from these naturally forming molecules, many varieties, viruses, rna, dna.

I don't think they'll be finding viruses floating around as it seems that the origins of viruses are misplaced pieces of DNA that are specific to a small group of organisms that are usually fairly closely related. This is why we don't get viruses that our dogs and cats and plants have, but can contract things like bacteria and parasites. I'm sure that what I've given is a bit of an over-simplification, but I just wanted to point that out. ;-)

EDIT: I should have said "misplaced pieces of DNA or RNA" as it can be either...

526. Atheists An Increasingly Outspoken Minority

Comment #129443 by annabanana on February 19, 2008 at 6:27 am

Anyone else a little nervous that the Lows label their children as Atheists?

The article doesn't say how old the children are. They could be teenagers who've made their own decision. Also, the journalist could have just made this assumption. There isn't a quotation anywhere that says anything to the effect of "we are atheists and our children are, too".

"I don't know whether there are more atheists or we've created a culture where it's safer for people who have struggled with faith, or don't believe in God to be more forthright and honest about that," said Bishop Mark Hanson.

He obviously hasn't been to the Bible Belt.

527. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #128391 by annabanana on February 16, 2008 at 10:29 pm

Peacebeuponme,

As I admitted earlier, I think it is my achilles heel. It is sometimes frustrating when I feel that I try to make well thought-out, rational arguments and someone just retorts with "you're just naive". It's also something I've been battling my whole life, not just on the site. I don't know if I would say that everyone who has called me naive was necessarily losing the argument, so to speak. In one instance it happened to be someone I respected and who had valid points, but we were coming from very different areas (geographically) and so I don't think he nor was I wrong; we simply had differing perspectives.

I suppose it doesn't help, either, that I sometimes engage in less-than-intellectual, silly chit-chat depending on the thread. If someone were to peruse through my comment history, there might be quite a few of the silly comments surrounding the deeper content.

Not that anyone wanted to know all that. ;-)

528. Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology

Comment #128341 by annabanana on February 16, 2008 at 6:54 pm

Quill,

China's emissions are spiraling ridiculously out of control and their environmental laws are far behind ours. We are by no means the "worst" environmentally and more and more people are starting to take more actions here to solve the problems. Even Canada's environmental laws aren't as strict as the U.S. (well, as far as Air Quality is concerned, anyway).

529. Inventor Doesn't Dare Say 'Perpetual Motion Machine'

Comment #127669 by annabanana on February 15, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Prankster,

Epinephrine was referring to the comments he made about me, not about the machine for the troll part at least.

530. Inventor Doesn't Dare Say 'Perpetual Motion Machine'

Comment #127658 by annabanana on February 15, 2008 at 1:50 pm

I tend to agree that we should ignore him, Steve. I imagine that his comments about me have elicited similar feelings to those which you experienced in response to DavidJMH's comments.

531. Inventor Doesn't Dare Say 'Perpetual Motion Machine'

Comment #127637 by annabanana on February 15, 2008 at 1:32 pm

Which of course have all been edited to something less crude. You'll have to look at the blockquotes on my postings and quetzcoatl to see what he really said.

532. Inventor Doesn't Dare Say 'Perpetual Motion Machine'

Comment #127634 by annabanana on February 15, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Before his latest bout of physics, he was busy making crude comments about me...

533. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127624 by annabanana on February 15, 2008 at 1:21 pm

I'm just following along at this point since I'd really like to let the guy have it, but I feel that the higher course of action is to ignore him...

534. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127621 by annabanana on February 15, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Diacanu, you should come over to the perpetual motion thread...

535. Inventor Doesn't Dare Say 'Perpetual Motion Machine'

Comment #127602 by annabanana on February 15, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Actually, I was so confused about the negative perception of the PEREPITEIA generator.

I just love to hear people explain why something doesnt work when they really don't have a clue.


This is a bold-faced lie. The first comment he made was a nasty comment about me. I wasn't one of the ones who was harshly criticizing it. I simply expressed a general interest in the idea. If he had come here and was wondering why people perceived the PEREPITEA negatively, his first comment wouldn't have been a chauvinistic comment about me.

536. Inventor Doesn't Dare Say 'Perpetual Motion Machine'

Comment #127577 by annabanana on February 15, 2008 at 12:43 pm

Common, what was the point, she obviously does the faculty. The poor thing probably posts comments like that to help justify the cause and to reduce the guilt.

[sarcasm]gee, how did you know ThermoThug? How very perceptive of you. I didn't realize how obvious it was that I must screw around with everyone in my office being that I'm a young female.[/sarcasm]

For the love of the FSM, what is wrong with people?

537. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #127526 by annabanana on February 15, 2008 at 11:23 am

No you're right Quetzcoatl. I shouldn't be making such assumptions. I suppose it's just something to which I'm particularly sensitive. Achilles heel, or something like that.

538. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #127520 by annabanana on February 15, 2008 at 11:17 am

Yes, sidfaiwu, that's why I said it was just anecdote. :)

Mango, in the past on this site, those who've called me naive have usually associated it with something like also calling me a "sweet young girl" or some such thing which could only have resulted from them seeing my avatar. You weren't the one, however, who called me naive in this thread.

539. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #127503 by annabanana on February 15, 2008 at 10:53 am

Also, others have agreed with me on this thread...I'm not standing alone in my thoughts.

540. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #127493 by annabanana on February 15, 2008 at 10:45 am

Mango,

I would never have brought this up had other posters not commented on my avatar before. I'm an atheist and I'm not ashamed for people to see what I look like. There are still people who are chauvinists in this world. I've experienced it on a daily basis. Please don't assume that I'm just playing "the gender card". I don't come here and make simple one-line remarks; I explain my reasoning.

I explained in detail why I told the author to "shut up". Epinephrine contends that it is helpful to present a problem if the masses are denying it. I don't think we are denying it. Ever since Bush instituted "no child left behind" there's been an uproar. Recently, when Miss Teen South Carolina made some horribly egregious geographical errors, the entire country was embarrassed. Most people aren't denying that there is a problem. I'm saying someone needs to offer a solution. Just complaining isn't doing us any good when we already know we've got issues. More from the article suggesting no offering of solutions:

Ms. Jacoby doesn't expect to revolutionize the nation's educational system or cause millions of Americans to switch off "American Idol" and pick up Schopenhauer.

I also replied, in detail, to my reaction to elfinabout. (Epinephrine, I was not dismissive of elfinabout... "I'm not contending that you don't have some valid points"...I simply had a problem with the seemingly sweeping generalizations he was making)

And in comment 17, I WAS JOKING.

Also, you can associate my optimism with naivety if you'd like, but some of the more progressive thinkers like Benjamin Franklin were more optimistic than pessimistic. I believe (if I'm remembering correctly) he termed himself "party of hope".

541. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #127440 by annabanana on February 15, 2008 at 9:44 am

Mango, this comment suggests to me that she doesn't really do anything but complain in her book:

Ms. Jacoby, whose book came out on Tuesday, doesn't zero in on a particular technology or emotion, but rather on what she feels is a generalized hostility to knowledge.


Not to mention, I said "from the article..." and in case you didn't catch the subtleness of that phrase, that means I have yet to evaluate the book for myself, but judging from the synopsis of it in the article, it seems that she is offering no sort of solutions. I maintain my opinion that general pessimism is not helpful. Optimism and the thought that you can actually make a difference usually leads to a difference being made. Lamenting is just that; lamenting for the sake of it. "Woe as me, everyone's stupid." This wasn't a rude, off-the-cuff dismissal. I actually do tend to think about what I say, believe it or not.

elfinabout, you have an outsider's point of view; I have an insider's point of view. I'm not contending that you don't have some valid points, but I think you've taken it a bit far. Your assertions are presented as if they are fact and you call them "patently obvious" when this is only speculation. You also make it sound as if Americans are forced to do the things you are suggesting. Last time I checked there were a good many people who eat only organic, whole foods, worked out a lot, and were reasonably educated. So, I have a problem with your sweeping generalizations.

EDIT: If I had a dollar for every time I'd gotten called naive on this site...

I genuinely wonder what the response to my comments would be like if my avatar were something genderless or even a picture of a guy...

542. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #127422 by annabanana on February 15, 2008 at 9:01 am

sidfaiwu, as an American, I've never been under the impression that smart=unattractive. As a matter of fact, I've always had the impression that it was a double whammy! Of course, that's just anecdote.

Although, I will say that most people seem to assume that I'm young, naive, and stupid when they first lay eyes on me. Oh, the plights of being attractive.

543. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #127412 by annabanana on February 15, 2008 at 8:52 am

elfinabout, maybe calm down with the conspiracy theories?

544. Map reveals extent of human damage to oceans

Comment #127405 by annabanana on February 15, 2008 at 8:48 am

Hmmm...I thought it was obvious that we had impacted the world over. I hope someone will conduct a better study, however, if this one is indeed questionable. But I'm pretty sure taking trash out on a barge and dumping it into the ocean because you don't have anywhere else to put it is obviously going to have some negative impacts.

545. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #127402 by annabanana on February 15, 2008 at 8:40 am

I hate this kind of pessimism. I don't think it does any good to continually lament the present times in such a way. I'm not sure if this is a good analogy or not, but it reminds me of this study I read about that people who think that "everything gives you cancer" don't bother to live healthy lives and thus end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy. From the article, it seems that the book is just a long-winded bitch-fest. If you aren't going to offer some sort of solution or be part of a solution, then shut up.

I would also like to add that collective human knowledge and technology have advanced rather quickly over the last century or so. Is it really that big of a surprise that some people are going to have a hard time keeping up?

546. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #127355 by annabanana on February 15, 2008 at 7:27 am

Reverend, It's the equivalent of a guy from the "Bible Belt" driving a big truck...more than likely he's compensating for something... ;-)

547. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127352 by annabanana on February 15, 2008 at 7:23 am

ah yes, thanks Philip...it sounded sort of like you guys were playing monopoly, but then Steve said something about diagonal and that's when I knew I was lost.

548. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127346 by annabanana on February 15, 2008 at 7:11 am

No rebuke...just wtf...you Brits are strange people (assuming that most of you actually are Brits)

549. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127342 by annabanana on February 15, 2008 at 7:05 am

hmmm...it seems that great minds think alike, al-rawandi...[sarcasm]it must be fate[/sarcasm]

550. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127337 by annabanana on February 15, 2008 at 7:01 am

WTF?

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 | Next