Comments by notsobad

Comment #83199 by notsobad on October 29, 2007 at 9:05 am

As for calling people who want others to take responsibility for their decisions 'inhumane' and 'immoral', take for example drug addicts.
Someone broke two times into my garden house and stole some equipment, probably drug addicts (the police even said they knew who "operates" in that area). And some socialists dare tell me that it's because there aren't enough rehab centres or that it's because they were unfortunate in the past and the society didn't take care of them. Bullshit!
This is not humanism or compassion, this is blackmail. Give them money or else they will steal it. Cure their addiction caused by their own decisions or they will steal and damage your property. Blackmail it is and nothing else.

I've also noticed (and not here particularly) that people with socialist views like to talk about helping others ... when it involved someone else's property.
There was a news post about an owner who after three years of tolerating people who lived in his houses but paid no rent called in a security firm and booted them out. Immediately, the comments section was full of people saying how inhumane that was and how the right of the people who were kicked out were stumped on. However, when others and I asked these "humanists" how many people they had sheltered for free in their lives and what about the rights of the owner who just protected his property (he, for example, still had to pay property taxes despite receiving no rent), there was indeed no answer.

752. AAI 07

Comment #83196 by notsobad on October 29, 2007 at 8:49 am

steve99,
then say what you understand under 'equal opportunity'.

You mentioned Paris Hilton, which was quite pointless. First, she was also able to earn millions for her "music" and "acting" so is not living just by using the inherited money. On the other hand, you have a lot examples of singers and actors who earned millions but started broke.

And while not everybody may have an equal opportunity to end up rich and successful (and not everybody wants to in the first place), almost everybody has the opportunity to achieve a relatively high standard of living, which is what we are talking about here.
Of course, disabled and such deserve to be taken care of by the rest of the society, but people who ruined their lives - and often lives of others - do not. Giving them money and things for free will never make them change their destructive way of living.

753. AAI 07

Comment #83184 by notsobad on October 29, 2007 at 7:57 am

epeeist,
I wrote about European countries and not the US or any other country, for that matter - non sequitur and/or pointing to another wrong.
Also, the fact that the US is doing poorly does not excuse what the European countries are doing - two wrongs don't make a right.

754. AAI 07

Comment #83167 by notsobad on October 29, 2007 at 6:24 am

You're born equal not given equal.

You have equal opportunity, not entitlement to equal distribution.

Oddly, given the context, probably the only societies where this is true - where people are really born equal and have equal opportunity, are true communist societies. But that works by limiting opportunity.

If someone favors Communism, then it follows that you rather like someone else taking care of you like the religious like god taking care of them.

I don't favour communism personally. But that is the only social system that I can think of that provides the true equality of opportunity you seem to favour.

steve99, what are you talking about? Communism won't let an idiot be a chemical engineer; however, it would let an idiot have the same standard of living as the engineer.

755. AAI 07

Comment #83037 by notsobad on October 28, 2007 at 4:35 pm

I knew I should have expanded my answer because someone would come with a sound-bite saying this :)
China has a communist, totalitarian government.

Totalitarian I can go with. Communist is false.

You really need to do some reading to know what the basis of communism is and what kind of society it proposes.

Ah, the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. You should know that one by know since it's often used by theists.
Yes, China cherry picks and alters the Marxist original idea and we should all be glad for that.

The basis of communism is utopia, which is not possible because of - and again you should already know that - evolution (people are different) and survival of the fittest (competition). It's that easy.
Oh, and I lived in a communist country so no need for recommendations to go read about communism.

Regarding socialism, the level it reached in Europe is sick and cannot support itself.

Have a look at how much the USA borrows compared to Europe and then justify that statement.

Non sequitur, two wrongs don't make a right...

756. AAI 07

Comment #82802 by notsobad on October 27, 2007 at 5:01 pm

Thank you for your straw man arguments. I'll try to address at least some.

What planet were you raised on that you ended up with such a naive viewpoint toward homelessness and substance abuse? You need to read up a bit on Psychology, poverty, the cycle of abuse, and addiction.

I've studied psychology and regularly buy every issue of the local homeless magazine. I also worked with the disabled and know quite a lot about special education through my mum, who has worked in it throughout her whole life.
Addiction is in most cases freely chosen despite all the available knowledge in the Western world.
I have never said anything close to "Bad things happen to bad people. Good things happen to good people. Since I'm a good person, bad things can never happen to me." Actually, if you read some of my forum posts, you would know that shit happening to anybody is one of my most practical reasons to oppose the Christian theory of just and loving god.
So your hasty generalizations were not appreciated and you comparing my reasoning to religious is comical.

Corylus, your hasty generalization was also uncalled for.

You appear to see these people as a waste.

Again, I never said anything close to this. I said that homeless are usually responsible for their own fate (in the Western world) and that I wouldn't support random ones by just giving them money for nothing.
I don't mind them as long as they don't limit others' freedom, which I apply to everybody else. I'd help the ones that actually want to change something about their lives and are not only interested in a couple of quid for another drink or drug.

757. AAI 07

Comment #82792 by notsobad on October 27, 2007 at 3:40 pm

Nor do the homeless who have healthy limbs but cannot bother to work.

yeah, it's really easy getting a job when you're homeless....

Someone with healthy limbs should not become homeless in the first place! I can understand position of some homeless people, but in most cases, they are clearly responsible for their situation (alcoholics and such). I will gladly donate to orphanages or educational charities but would not give a cent to a beggar.

China has a communist, totalitarian government. However, it also has a somewhat limited free-market economy and is probably the most capitalist country in the world, as the already mentioned non-existent welfare suggests.

This is obviously self contradicting. How can a communist country be the most capitalist country at the same time?!

Who said communists cannot cherry pick their ideology as well?
Have you never heard of Deng Xiaoping and his economic reforms?

758. AAI 07

Comment #82786 by notsobad on October 27, 2007 at 2:59 pm

China is communist

No it isn't

I knew I should have expanded my answer because someone would come with a sound-bite saying this :)

China has a communist, totalitarian government. However, it also has a somewhat limited free-market economy and is probably the most capitalist country in the world, as the already mentioned non-existent welfare suggests.

==

Regarding socialism, the level it reached in Europe is sick and cannot support itself. I am all for public education, and basic welfare, which should help the really unfortunate, like children born with genetic disorders. Smokers getting cancer after ignoring known issues throughout their whole life do not belong to this category, for example. Nor do the homeless who have healthy limbs but cannot bother to work.

759. AAI 07

Comment #82689 by notsobad on October 27, 2007 at 8:45 am

Replacing religions with socialism or strong welfare is a bad idea.
Communism is founded on the same idea to target people who can't or don't want to think for themselves and replace religion with a similar system, minus the supernatural.

First, having decent government support for people is not communism. Secondly, to claim that Chapman is wanting to replace religion with a similar system is just not true. All he is saying is that in countries with poor welfare and government support for people in times of need, people turn to the churches. In a strong democratic society, we need systems to support our fellow citizens. If we don't provide it, the churches and other religious organisations will fill the gap. We see such a problem in the UK, where people often think that 'faith schools' provide a better education. Improve the general education system and there will be less demand for such institutions. This seems perfectly reasonable to me, and is hardly communist.

I never said that socialistic government and strong welfare automatically lead to or equal communism. And I never said Chapman suggests so. China is communist and has almost non-existent welfare system. On the other hand, Nordic states have strong welfare and have never had communist regimes and I can't imagine them having ones.

I'd like to see the society move from irrational thinking to rational thinking directly but maybe strong welfare is the fastest way to lower influence of religions, and should be used as a transitory state.

760. AAI 07

Comment #82656 by notsobad on October 27, 2007 at 6:09 am

Replacing religions with socialism or strong welfare is a bad idea.
Communism is founded on the same idea to target people who can't or don't want to think for themselves and replace religion with a similar system, minus the supernatural.

761. Don't write off religion - it can be the key to a stable family

Comment #82653 by notsobad on October 27, 2007 at 5:36 am

Acleron,
I wouldn't call every atheist a rational being. Heck, many communists were and are atheists.

However, an atheist cannot be a fundamentalist because atheism only says 'I don't believe in gods' = 'I don't believe in something there is no evidence for', and it is not a belief system or a religion.

762. Don't write off religion - it can be the key to a stable family

Comment #82550 by notsobad on October 26, 2007 at 5:12 pm

"If you accept Dawkins's characterisation of religion, you'd probably agree. Religious parents, to him, are Mr Dogma and Mrs Bigot"

He repeatedly says that this is not his view anywhere he can. Next time, try to actually read his opinions instead of opinions of a demagogue writing about him, which you became now too.

"Isn't it curious that we tolerate the stereotyping of religion in a way we'd never abide with race, religion or gender?"

This sentence illustartes how confused the author is (notice the double use of 'religion'). Not to mention the weasel wording 'we'..

763. What's Good About Religion?

Comment #82473 by notsobad on October 26, 2007 at 12:12 pm

"This is our way of seeing how God created the universe and they want to make as strong a statement as possible that truth doesn't contradict truth; that if you have faith, then you're never going to be afraid of what science is going to come up with.
"Because it's true."

..pure delusion

764. Eugenie Scott on Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism

Comment #82048 by notsobad on October 25, 2007 at 3:33 pm

USA_Limey, here you go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M31mkLp3jWQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_quRZ_ALMo

765. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81992 by notsobad on October 25, 2007 at 2:01 pm

D'Souza sure likes to masturbate his poor ego and where else to go than "fair and balanced" Faux News.

Anyway, thanks, decius, for the link.

766. '55 'Origin of Life' Paper Is Retracted

Comment #81990 by notsobad on October 25, 2007 at 1:55 pm

They also accept evolution now. All these organized religions are becoming a big parody of themselves every day now.

767. Science and Religion BOTH make faith claims

Comment #81758 by notsobad on October 25, 2007 at 6:17 am

Theocrapcy, don't turn this into semantics debate, because that's one of the last hiding places of theists in debates.

For practical reasons, when debating religion, meaning of the word faith should be 'believing in something there is no evidence for'. This is after all the meaning the Bible itself and the Catholic Church (the first church/denomination, yes?) gave it.

768. Eugenie Scott on Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism

Comment #81742 by notsobad on October 25, 2007 at 5:52 am

USA_Limey,
you do realize that this site and its admins do not equal 'atheist history'?

769. Eugenie Scott on Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism

Comment #81679 by notsobad on October 25, 2007 at 3:05 am

Even talking about it any more is giving those idiots too much credit.

770. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81447 by notsobad on October 24, 2007 at 6:26 pm

It's pointless to debate people like D'Souza, period.

People who listen to him are not going to prefer reason and logic to fallacies, wishful thinking and sweet lies.

771. Prejudicial concerns

Comment #81172 by notsobad on October 24, 2007 at 10:27 am

And not just religious, any others.

772. Catholic condom ban helping AIDS spread in Latam: U.N.

Comment #81171 by notsobad on October 24, 2007 at 10:26 am

Isn't this the survival of the fittest?

773. Cheney and Obama: It's Not Genetic

Comment #80839 by notsobad on October 23, 2007 at 7:19 am

We are all related to everything alive on this planet, more so if there even was a creator.
Ironically, it's the theists that often act like they are superior to all other forms of life.

774. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80552 by notsobad on October 22, 2007 at 6:26 am

Why does Hitchens even want to debate a creationist? pointless

775. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80463 by notsobad on October 21, 2007 at 10:52 pm

In addition, Dinesh D'Souza is an ID advocate. Debating such kind of idiocy is beyond pointless.

776. Devil of a problem

Comment #80460 by notsobad on October 21, 2007 at 10:46 pm

Project Ark to save devils :-)

777. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80459 by notsobad on October 21, 2007 at 10:43 pm

Christianity has nothing new to say.
It's pointless to watch Christian apologists after you saw a few already because still have the same lame arguments. For that matter, it's pointless to watch the same atheist speakers debate with them.

778. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #80333 by notsobad on October 21, 2007 at 11:11 am

idolatry ...?

779. Does fundamentalist religion cause the rejection of evolution? or is it the other way around?

Comment #80305 by notsobad on October 21, 2007 at 8:54 am

Counter-intuitive?
No, it never was to me.

It can be counter-intuitive to people who were brainwashed into believing in irrational claims and god did it explanations.

And, of course, the straw-man evolution presented by creationists (ancestors of monkeys, eye and other complex organs created by chance) is counter-intuitive.

780. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80024 by notsobad on October 19, 2007 at 2:43 pm

Riley, there are thousands of religions and within those religions thousands of interpretations. It's funny when a single theist tries to speak for others or even a majority.

781. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80016 by notsobad on October 19, 2007 at 2:26 pm

"noteworthy Christian"

That's comedy in itself. Is that like another name for "true Christian"?

782. God's honest truth?

Comment #79976 by notsobad on October 19, 2007 at 11:45 am

First of all, it's important to realize that both science and scriptures cannot be true.

I realize that the fundamentalists and the fundamatheists think this is so, but the vast majority of Christians (the religion with which I am most familiar) do not.

Provide sources:
-that scriptures and religious dogmas do not contradict science
-that "the vast majority of Christians do not" think so

Either resurrection is possible or not.

That's much more of a philosophical position than a scientific one.

What does that even mean? Are you saying resurrection didn't happen?

Either we were created or are a result of evolution. Etc.

False dichotomy (read Ken Miller for example).

Isn't Ken Miller a proponent of evolution? Doesn't he actually speak against creationism, thus saying that the creation story is not compatible with evolution?

Thus it's not possible to teach both scriptures as if they were true and real knowledge.

I realize you're irrationally attached to this dogma, but most of us aren't.

Again, provide sources:
-that this is a dogma
-examples where the scriptures not only don't contradict science but actually improve it
-that most people support your opinion

Shouldn't values be taught even before a kid enters school?

I can't imagine anyone with parental experience saying something so silly. I still work to instill values in my children every day, and I only have one left at home.

First you say that it's silly to teach values before kids enter a school, which doesn't make sense considering the Christian indoctrination, and then follow with a non sequitur.

Shouldn't proper education give basics upon which values are created and/or reinforced using critical thinking instead of indoctrination?

The idea that education can be somehow values-free is a myth (as the Jesuits and the Maoists well understood, for example).

I never said that education should be values free. Actually, the sentence you replied to says that it shouldn't!

783. God's honest truth?

Comment #79948 by notsobad on October 19, 2007 at 7:59 am

Why should a state allow private schools to teach irrational beliefs instead of critical thinking, proper science and historical facts?

I have no argument with the idea of the state mandating that certain subjects be taught, especially where governmental funding is involved. My disagreement is with the authoritarian idea that parent-funded private schools be prohibited from teaching more than the curriculum demands and from imparting values the parents wish imparted to the students.

First of all, it's important to realize that both science and scriptures cannot be true. Either resurrection is possible or not. Either we were created or are a result of evolution. Etc.
Thus it's not possible to teach both scriptures as if they were true and real knowledge.

Second, what do you mean by values? What values could possibly be taught by teaching fairy tales as if they were true? Shouldn't values be taught even before a kid enters school? Shouldn't proper education give basics upon which values are created and/or reinforced using critical thinking instead of indoctrination?

Still, you haven't told me whether you are a libertarian who is against this law out of principle or just a theist.

784. Atheistic Denomination Struggles To Fill Void Left by Founder's Death

Comment #79851 by notsobad on October 18, 2007 at 6:04 pm

Interesting story.
Nusmus, what are you raving about?

785. God's honest truth?

Comment #79837 by notsobad on October 18, 2007 at 4:56 pm

Sinbad,
private schools still have to follow many rules to be recognized as schools by the state. Often, even private schools still receive subsidies from the state.
One of the main rules is obviously curriculum. Why should a state allow private schools to teach irrational beliefs instead of critical thinking, proper science and historical facts?
Are you a libertarian or just a theist?

786. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #79466 by notsobad on October 17, 2007 at 10:43 am

Yes,
delusion is a very precise term.

787. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #79416 by notsobad on October 17, 2007 at 8:13 am

The author,
knowing that you can and are going to die has many logical functions.
It's ironic to doubt this on this website since fear of death is one of the main factors in religions.

788. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #79408 by notsobad on October 17, 2007 at 7:53 am

This was magnificent. The originality of D. Dennett is in practicalities of faith and lack of it he addresses.

789. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79384 by notsobad on October 17, 2007 at 6:22 am

I too thought of Rowan Atkinson and Mr. Bean specifically when I saw McGrath.
Just watch Mr. Bean goes to church (to stay on topic): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFw2LxKB4i4

790. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79203 by notsobad on October 16, 2007 at 12:45 pm

Alister McGrath has nothing new to say because Christianity has nothing new to say.

Even these new hippie Christians cherry-picking the Bible to the max, worshipping the god of the gaps cannot offer anything that hasn't been torn apart by reason and practicality already.

791. Report on Hindu god Ram withdrawn

Comment #78997 by notsobad on October 15, 2007 at 6:26 pm

Russell Blackford

You indeed have a very valid point but that's exactly what others here are saying too.
These theists don't want to protect it because of reasons you mentioned but because of irrational beliefs.

792. Report on Hindu god Ram withdrawn

Comment #78978 by notsobad on October 15, 2007 at 4:00 pm

"Hindu hardliners say the project will destroy what they say is a bridge built by Ram and his army of monkeys."

That's literally laughed out of court.

793. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78870 by notsobad on October 15, 2007 at 6:49 am

"he must be complex"

Funny, another Christian "scholar" said god doesn't have to be complex.
And they both said we didn't define their god, which is not surprising if the Christians cannot even come to the same conclusion on the most basic attributes.

794. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78677 by notsobad on October 14, 2007 at 8:58 am

It's quite a funny piece of writing, mainly because this guy implies that an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient being that created everything is being "unfairly portrayed." Surely such a being would do something more about it than send people like Rowan Williams if it cared.

I also find it funny how these "new" Christians try to redefine the meaning of the word 'faith', against the meaning the Bible gives it!
The Bible clearly states that faith is supposed to be irrational and with no evidence. The writers of the Bible knew well that irrational and blind beliefs will be the best way to get a bunch of blind followers.

795. Fox News Attacks 'Godless' Free Thought Radio

Comment #78537 by notsobad on October 13, 2007 at 2:11 pm

War on God? War on religion?

These people always have to declare war on everything (war on drugs, war on poverty...) and assume others are equally moronic.

796. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: abandoned to fanatics

Comment #77822 by notsobad on October 10, 2007 at 5:49 pm

Why do the Americans only have "leftie" and "conservatives"?

They don't. So your premise is incorrect.

I obviously didn't mean 100%, but it's true for an overwhelming majority.
Similarly to religious labels, some people want to simplify their lives by just going with either the Democrats or the Republicans and cannot think for themselves. Even a libertarian candidate - Ron Paul - took the Republican label to get at least some attention.

797. 'Dirty War' priest gets life term

Comment #77819 by notsobad on October 10, 2007 at 5:41 pm

The Christian god obviously doesn't give a shit who represents him.

798. Migrations influenced immune evolution

Comment #77712 by notsobad on October 10, 2007 at 9:00 am

That was just god reacting in real time.
/ID nut

799. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: abandoned to fanatics

Comment #77711 by notsobad on October 10, 2007 at 8:59 am

Why do the Americans only have "leftie" and "conservatives"?
I never said anything about atheists having to be left (or right for that matter). But I noticed that just like with many other things, the Americans always have to divide everybody into sides, parties, factions, etc.
You can be "right wing" and not be a neo-conservative like the AEI is. Or you can just think that these labels like left and right are only for the label-minded (to paraphrase Carlin).

800. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: abandoned to fanatics

Comment #77582 by notsobad on October 9, 2007 at 7:01 pm

American Enterprise Institute includes such people as Paul Wolfowitz (visiting scholar) and Lynne Cheney, Dick Cheney's wife.