Comments by notsobad

651. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #93742 by notsobad on December 4, 2007 at 4:40 am

"I will keep this book away from my sons."

That sums these hypocrites always acting like they have the moral and rational ground up.

652. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93593 by notsobad on December 3, 2007 at 3:50 pm

When someone starts with, "the communists were atheists and muss murderers," remind them that communism is a totalitarian ideology similar to religions without the supernatural part.

Tell them that you are against all irrational and totalitarian ideologies (well, if you are), which includes communism, Nazism, etc.

Also, suggesting that Nazism in itself and specifically Nazi Germany were atheist is beyond ridiculous.
Hitler's words:

The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany means the acknowledgment of the National Socialist state by the Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism is hostile to religion is a lie.

653. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93561 by notsobad on December 3, 2007 at 1:45 pm

Logician said it for me.
And Louise, your experience didn't have to be personal.

Are you really so mentally impoverished that you cannot imagine it is possible to feel sympathy for another person without actually having found yourself in their situation?

On the contrary - I have sympathy with you. It must be easier going through life with such a black and white vision.

654. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93529 by notsobad on December 3, 2007 at 11:39 am

One of the things I find interesting about Mr Dawkins's article is the evident contempt he feels for Mrs Tarrant, a woman who was obviously very hurt by her husband's infidelity. He sneers at her in what seems to me a thoroughly nasty way.

Mr Dawkins is always expressing sympathy with feminism, and I'm always a bit suspicious of male feminists. In this article it seems to me he has revealed his true colours. What he really thinks is that women should just put up with their husbands' philandering like Hilary Clinton, rather than stand up to them, like Mrs Tarrant did to her husband. So much for his feminism. you don't have to scratch the male feminist very deep to reveal the male chauvinist pig.

Louise

You obviously have some negative experience with infidelity in your life. That's not a good reason to offend others just because they want an open discussion about it.
Maybe you need to learn how to find suitable partners.

655. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93335 by notsobad on December 2, 2007 at 6:34 pm

Observing such a principle seems now to be widely regarded as an outdated religious eccentricity, but it deserves mention, at least, in guidance to young people, as a lifestyle option with health benefits.

Sydney Norris

London SW14

Sounds nice in theory, but it doesn't work.

Teenagers who take virginity pledges -- public declarations to abstain from sex -- are almost as likely to be infected with a sexually transmitted disease as those who never made the pledge, an eight-year study released yesterday found.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48509-2005Mar18.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7232643/

656. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93313 by notsobad on December 2, 2007 at 4:32 pm

Yet the fact remains that the atheism of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens is a brutally intolerant, proselytizing faith

The fact remains?
So ad hominems and straw men are facts now? And "their" atheism is faith?

657. A New Flea in Town!

Comment #93302 by notsobad on December 2, 2007 at 4:01 pm

The idea it's OK to call someone a flea because they wouldn't have published the book if it wasn't for someone else is ridiculous. Are all the people who write books discussing or criticising the works of any scientist, philsopher, social theorist, novellist etc. a 'flea'?

You are the one calling flea an insult.

658. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93275 by notsobad on December 2, 2007 at 2:58 pm

I am having trouble with RD's apparent assertion that lying about sex is generally OK.

I am reminded of a Republican who was telling me it was OK for Bush to lie to us about Iraqi WMD, because there were good reasons to invade the country that were too subtle for the voting public to understand.

Lying to protect your personal matters that are nobody's concern is quite different from lying about invading a country.

659. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93248 by notsobad on December 2, 2007 at 1:55 pm

Brutally intolerant??

Did I miss the story in which Dawkins wanted to crucify a person who allowed kids to name their teddy bear Darwin?

660. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93232 by notsobad on December 2, 2007 at 1:12 pm

Sexual infidelity may or may not be a 'sin', but it is hurtful and destructive to a relationship, and that's a good enough reason for not doing it.

If there is sexual infidelity and the other partner disagrees with it, then the relationship is not worth keeping in the first place, don't you think? And the relationship deserves to be destroyed for the sake of both partners and everybody else such a relationship may damage.

Love with a stranger is only more exciting if you have the immature mind of a Julie Burchill.

This is the kind of bullshit thinking this article is all about.
Can you demonstrate why and how it is immature?

If you are a grownup, then you know that sex with the person you really love is the most exciting kind of love that there is.

Did you mean "then you know that sex with the person you really love is the most exciting kind of sex that there is?"
If so, that's what the article says too (except for the grown-up bragging).
However, it submits that you can love more than 1 person at the same time.

661. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93185 by notsobad on December 2, 2007 at 11:45 am

roach
If the article was just saying "to each his/her own" when it comes to sex, all I can say is thanks but everyone already knew that.

Really? Where do you live I may want to move there :)

---
BTW, I've misclicked and accidentally flagged Comment #91920. I apologize.

662. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93142 by notsobad on December 2, 2007 at 10:02 am

@notsobad

You are right, I got carried away.
Strike out "Faithfulness". One can be a very faithful polyamorous;) The other issues remain, however.

What other issues?

663. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93138 by notsobad on December 2, 2007 at 9:51 am

Souza didn't answer a single question - from Dennett or audience.
When asked about Norway and other countries with low levels of religiosity but high levels of human development, he started to talk about atheism leading to Nazism and wars in the 20th century - for like 5th time in the debate.

He is a preacher and should debate another preacher from a different religion.

664. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93081 by notsobad on December 2, 2007 at 6:34 am

But I will raise them, I hope, with a sense of moral rectitude, that includes notions such as faithfulness and "monoandry" (then, happens what may), which Richard seems to want to dispose of

Another who didn't get the article.

665. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #93076 by notsobad on December 2, 2007 at 6:09 am

villageidiot,
NO

http://images.google.com/images?q=ratzinger+palpatine

666. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #92626 by notsobad on December 1, 2007 at 1:38 am

A fat guy in a golden robe living in a palace said what?

667. Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin

Comment #92624 by notsobad on December 1, 2007 at 1:37 am

'Poll finds many people are idiots'

668. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92304 by notsobad on November 30, 2007 at 9:01 am

I have no personal objections to any mutually consensual behavior between two people. But I know that many people would be miserable to the point of suicide if they felt pressured into accepting an open marriage situation.

If atheism seems linked to polyamory, it's not going to be popular.

That's a non sequitur since nobody suggests that anybody should be forced into polygamy.
Actually, polygamist religions with forced marriages are criticized.

669. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92302 by notsobad on November 30, 2007 at 8:55 am

Many animals will kill young that aren't theirs. Why? It could be to remove the genes from the competition, to free a nursing mother for sex... but it happens. Huimans aren't the only brutal ones, though we're animals nonetheless.

Vengeful behaviours are documented in apes, and I believe in crows as well. I suspect that vengeful behaviours are much more common than we believe in the animal kingdom, it's one of the most effective strategies out there, I'd be surprised if evolution ignored it. Look at the winners of prisoner's dilemma - they all operate roughly on a "tit-for-tat" basis, the essence of cooperation and punishment.

Yes, animals do a lot of things we consider nasty, but people are no better than this. But unlike other animals, people usually don't need this kind of behaviour to survive.
And there are of course different point of views on what vengeful means. Vengeful behaviour in apes can just easily be what we call justice. There is a difference between jailing a murderer and castrating a partner who doesn't find you attractive any more, which some people see as justice too.

Okay. You think that we should not give free rein to our feelings of jealousy, right? It's good if we control ourselves. And I think you would say that jealousy is a natural emotion? So what would you like to call this phenomenon that shouldn't be called 'rising above nature'? Rising above human nature?

How about we just called that phenomenon controlling yourself? Do you need a noble name for it to feel like you do something special?

And at what stage does the fucked up bit that makes us worse than animals come in? Is that before or after the rising?

in between

670. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92274 by notsobad on November 30, 2007 at 7:31 am

keith,
you don't see this kind of revengeful behaviour and desire to harm others in other animals in the first place, so saying that by not being like that we rise above nature is silly.
And where did I say anything about brute selves? Saying animals are brute is just another 'people are better than animals' fabrication. It's the old religious bullshit.
Without god -> soulless animal -> brute immoral creature

671. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92262 by notsobad on November 30, 2007 at 6:40 am

notsobad: your Vulcan-like logic is laudable but not practical for us Terrans.

I said mostly. And not practical? Please, is the 'The War of the Roses' (the film) scenario more practical?
Also, what's more rational and admirable than showing that you are better than the lying partner and don't need to inflict harm just because the other side did and that you can "rise above nature" this way?
(Above nature is in parentheses since there is no such a thing, and such phrases only serve people to delude ourselves that we are somehow better than other animals (or not animals at all), while we are actually the most fucked up species there is, hands down.)

672. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92241 by notsobad on November 30, 2007 at 5:59 am

Yes, but anger is mostly stupid and makes matters worse so what's the point?

673. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92229 by notsobad on November 30, 2007 at 5:25 am

Your follow-up statement doesn't clarify what I think is the main fault of your article, which is that it's normal to be angry when a vow of monogamy has been broken. Mrs. Tarrant was lied to and made a fool of by her husband, no? She was not engaged in a pre-established open relationship, so your use of her to make your point strikes me as heartless and haphazard.

There is a difference between being angry and being vindictive and mean. Eye for an eye again. What different is she from him if she is capable of the same behaviour?

674. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92217 by notsobad on November 30, 2007 at 4:35 am

Even many American atheist here didn't get the article, which just shows how sexually repressed the Americans are in general.

And you can guess which country in the world has the highest divorce rates. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_div_rat-people-divorce-rate/AFR)
And you can guess which US states have the highest divorce rates. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923080.html)
Not only that - atheists have the lowest divorce rates.
(http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistfamiliesmarriage/a/AtheistsDivorce.htm)
And of course, all the main Republican presidential candidates talking about Christian values, the Bible and Jesus all the time are married for the second time (Giuliani was married three times). There is nothing wrong with that, but this is the level of hypocrisy only deeply religious people can achieve.
And these facts are of course the best defence against any apologist who would like to use this article to preach.

On the other hand, this repression also gave us all the kinky shows and comedians.

675. Boy dies of leukemia after refusing treatment for religious reasons

Comment #92038 by notsobad on November 29, 2007 at 6:17 pm

I don't understand how they can consider a 14-year old delusional poorly educated person a mature minor. Did he compare him to Bush or what (cheap shot, eh)?

676. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92033 by notsobad on November 29, 2007 at 6:10 pm

And what's up with the "religious apologists will love this article because..?" Who cares?
It's not like they played by the rules of a honest and rational debate till now.

... I don't think we can lump atheists into some kind of mass group that does anything in lock step. Actually we as a "group" are less likely to do anything en-masse, maybe because we as a "group" are more free-thinking than solid religious drones, er.. faithful. Being an atheist isn't something you pick out of a hat because then you have the authority to do something which puts you at odds with others.

Being an atheist has more to do with you NOT doing something, in this case believing in supernatural entities that take care of you because of faith. It's not even really a lifestyle any more than lumping all people who hate lasagna into a group that is inclined to believe other things together as well. Are alasagnists more likely to vote republican or advocate the overthrow of drug laws? No, we just happen to be people who don't have faith in invisible fairies who grant us entry into Irish Heaven.

Very true except for the republican part since all the candidates are professional Christians there.

677. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92004 by notsobad on November 29, 2007 at 5:11 pm

If you truly cared about them, you wouldn't mind that person finding a more ideal partner (at least from their POW).

Well of course I'd mind.
Getting dumped sucks fucking donkeys.

Of course you would because you just lost something. It's good to be a little selfish after all :)

The best practice - and this is evolutionary IMO - is to move on anyway.

And people who keep repeating that the other person cheats and lies and breaks trust should ask why people keep lying and cheating instead of being honest with their partners. Isn't it exactly because of these selfish morals this article criticizes?

678. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91977 by notsobad on November 29, 2007 at 4:27 pm

The most jealous people usually think 'someone used my stuff' and 'I can't fuck her/him anymore.'
They don't really care about the 'she broke a sincere promise' part.

I'd think "well, if I were good enough, she wouldn't need the other dude, so she obviously don't want/need me anymore. *shrug*".

Exactly, it's a delusion to interpret jealousy as caring about the other person.
If you truly cared about them, you wouldn't mind that person finding a more ideal partner (at least from their POW).

The woman whom he offers as an example of behaving poorly was not "jealous" -- she was lied to and made a fool of by her unfaithful husband.

He lied, which is condemnable, but why would she try to do something mean to return the favour? The old eye for an eye?

679. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91970 by notsobad on November 29, 2007 at 4:14 pm

I think sexual jealousy is natural and usually an indication of how you feel about a person.

It is an indication of how you feel about a person - yourself. The most jealous people usually think 'someone used my stuff' and 'I can't fuck her/him anymore.'
They don't really care about the 'she broke a sincere promise' part.

680. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91956 by notsobad on November 29, 2007 at 4:00 pm

Clinton was the best president the U.S. has had since J.F.K

That's not saying much.

What I'm saying, and I believe I'm not alone in this, is that it is still wrong to sleep around once one has chosen to commit oneself to an exclusive relationship. That's all.

I have a problem with the dishonesty part too, of course. But nowhere in the article is it encouraged.

681. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91942 by notsobad on November 29, 2007 at 3:30 pm

Sexual jealousy is of course a very selfish act. And too many people take it too seriously, probably because they are insecure.

As for Clinton, presidency is a 24-hour job so Limey's complaints sound silly. It's not like he didn't finish his daily task because of it. When I first heard of the Lewinsky thing, I was thinking 'good for him,' especially when I saw Hillary on TV, yuck. Later I found out that he has a generally bad taste in women.

Well here we have it: RD has just given ammunition to those who believe that there can be no morality without a God. And that science cannot tell us how we should live our lives.

The point of the article is that opposing sexuality is not part of (good) morals in the first place.
No wonder Americans are so sexually repressed. Here is a funny story:

Teenagers who take virginity pledges -- public declarations to abstain from sex -- are almost as likely to be infected with a sexually transmitted disease as those who never made the pledge, an eight-year study released yesterday found.
Although young people who sign a virginity pledge delay the initiation of sexual activity, marry at younger ages and have fewer sexual partners, they are also less likely to use condoms and more likely to experiment with oral and anal sex, said the researchers from Yale and Columbia universities.
Among virgins, boys who have pledged abstinence were four times more likely to have had anal sex, according to the study. Overall, pledgers were six times more likely to have oral sex than teens who have remained abstinent but not as part of a pledge.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48509-2005Mar18.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7232643/

So you see, religion does not poison everything. It produces a lot of young girls that like anal and oral.

682. This Friday: Debate between Dan Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #91721 by notsobad on November 29, 2007 at 4:48 am

I would much rather like to see a direct head-to-head debate, point by point, instead of 25 minutes of this and then 25 minutes of that, at the end of which nobody remembers anything of what was said - just a vague feeling of how it felt at the time and much of that could have been altered completely, if a counterpoint was made on the spot - the second that the original argument was presented.

I concur. We basically know positions of both (reason and practicality vs preaching) so we should skip that part.

683. This Friday: Debate between Dan Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #91606 by notsobad on November 28, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Dennett's belief in belief is exactly what preachers like Souza need to be told.

684. Turkey probes atheist's 'God' book

Comment #91489 by notsobad on November 28, 2007 at 12:43 pm

Free promotion, yay.

povl400,
wait till the court decides before generalizing.

685. Megachurches Add Local Economy to Their Mission

Comment #91488 by notsobad on November 28, 2007 at 12:41 pm

Can't people just find interests not based on lies and pretensions? Insecure much?

686. Discover plagiarism at the Discovery Institute

Comment #90939 by notsobad on November 26, 2007 at 6:22 pm

Lying and stealing for Jesus.

Reminds me of the IDiots who altered Attenborough's programs in the Netherlands.

687. 'Muhammad' teddy teacher arrested

Comment #90930 by notsobad on November 26, 2007 at 5:25 pm

Don't forget that similarly ridiculous laws and cruel punishments were normal when the Clergy (co)ruled in Europe so it's not a coincidence.

celestial_T,
Muhammad was a real person (you can visit his tomb) that started the Islam con.

688. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90794 by notsobad on November 26, 2007 at 11:39 am

So does this guy always calculate Pi when he works with it, or does he have faith that it didn't change?

That is NOT what he is talking about. He is discussing things like the dimensionality of space, the numbers and types of particles and so on.

I know but my example serves to illustrate how badly the article is written (intentionally or not). There is only that much you can require the reader to decode from your writing.
Also generalizing this specific field to all of science is misleading.

689. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90727 by notsobad on November 26, 2007 at 8:05 am

So does this guy always calculate Pi when he works with it, or does he have faith that it didn't change?

690. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90435 by notsobad on November 25, 2007 at 6:13 am

science is based on faith too, nada nada

boring

691. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90433 by notsobad on November 25, 2007 at 6:09 am

So the whole "Thou shalt not kill" was negotiable again and Blair figured God wouldn't object this time?

"Mr Blair is a regular churchgoer who was confirmed as an Anglican while at Oxford University, but has since attended Mass with his Roman Catholic wife, Cherie, and is expected to convert within the next few months."

speaks volumes about how ridiculous religions are

692. Study: Babies can tell helpful, hurtful playmates

Comment #90032 by notsobad on November 22, 2007 at 12:48 pm

"Its a fantastic new discovery, and its also another piece of evidence to add to the already substantially large pile that indicates morality is indeed an evolutionary trait, or at least partially."
Social skills, not necessarily morality.

Bonzai, that wasn't funny, nor logical. All 3 adult "classes" you picked prefer the helping ones even though maybe for different reasons.

693. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89556 by notsobad on November 21, 2007 at 5:04 am

People sure take Internet discussions too personally.

694. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89433 by notsobad on November 20, 2007 at 5:32 pm

Mr. Dawkins,
not just Islamic culture but also in Christian communities in Africa, since the tradition is older than those religions.

695. Are Scientists Playing God? It Depends on Your Religion

Comment #89370 by notsobad on November 20, 2007 at 1:05 pm

"Many Europeans, as well as leftists in America," Dr. Silver says, "have rejected the traditional Christian God and replaced it with a post-Christian goddess of Mother Nature and a modified Christian eschatology. It isn't a coherent belief system. It might or might not incorporate New Age thinking. But deep down, there's a view that humans shouldn't be tampering with the natural world."

Hence the opposition to genetically modified food.

This is isn't about "tampering with the natural world" and "a post-Christian goddess of Mother Nature", but about unpredictable consequences of such behaviour. Most people opposed to genetically modified food obviously don't have problems with tampering that has proved to have positive results, such as (certain) medicine and animal breeding, or stem-cell research.

696. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89300 by notsobad on November 20, 2007 at 8:40 am

We are either subscribing to the meaning of this site, placing confidence in its speakers, seeking secularisation in place of superstition, hoping sacred turns secular, protecting those in religiously-inspired danger, putting the occasional penny where our mouths are

- or we are not.

1 cent or 20,000 dollars. Just do it.

The rest of you - shut the fuck up and pay something, you whingy gobshites. Pay now, philosophise later.

Best,
Styrer

What a demonstration of religious (totalitarian, absolutist...) behaviour, minus the supernatural.

697. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89075 by notsobad on November 19, 2007 at 4:34 pm

briancoughlanworldcitizen, no, it's not just you. Righteousness and tendency to preach is not exclusive to theists, apparently.

698. Religious scholars mull Flying Spaghetti Monster

Comment #88929 by notsobad on November 19, 2007 at 7:25 am

"In short, is an anti-religion like Flying Spaghetti Monsterism actually a religion?"

The question is pointless. The main purpose of the FSM is to show that all religions are based on no evidence and are thus equally silly.

699. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88927 by notsobad on November 19, 2007 at 7:21 am

Nobody still explained why she works for a neo-con think tank in the States.

700. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #88197 by notsobad on November 15, 2007 at 7:44 am

If the 'theory' part pisses them off, fuck them.