51. Believe in God Spray

Comment #36217 by Dog Boots on April 30, 2007 at 2:04 pm

Why wasn't this posted in time for Richard's birthday?

52. Scene Caused by Christian Group at NYC Stage Show

Comment #35952 by Dog Boots on April 29, 2007 at 1:15 pm

Stupidity rarely impresses me anymore, so I was more amazed with Mike's handling the situation. Their attack was premeditated while he was unprepared. I can't imagine how the situation could be handled any better by a human being with it's two arms, two legs etc. Not looking like a fool for a single moment, keeping his cool the whole time. I don't think I've ever seen anyone win a fight more convincingly that that, ever, too bad many people won't appreciate it because it didn't involve a fist fight or an automatic weapon.

Simply exemplary!

53. Brian Lehrer interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34421 by Dog Boots on April 24, 2007 at 2:34 am

"I take it you weren't listening to the first part of the show"

...priceless!!

54. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33237 by Dog Boots on April 19, 2007 at 4:50 pm

I think the most important points for Richard to remember and deal with (considering the forum and audience) are:

- to establish that atheists are not immoral (which is backed by statistics - f.inst. studies correlating crime and belief among countries)
- to explain that believing in evolution in no implies encouraging "evolutionary"/selfish/cynical/what-have-you behavior or politics
- and not to confirm Fox' viewers' image of an "Oxford snob" and generally try not to lose his head, which is probably easier said than done when faced with Papa Bear.

I think these kinds of things are the most common misconceptions about atheists among Fox viewers. And when you think about it, it's perfectly understandable why one would be afraid of atheism, if that's your understanding of it. They need to see that there's nothing to be scared of.

55. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32665 by Dog Boots on April 18, 2007 at 12:52 am

About the whole buying or not buying/boosting sales thing - how about waiting to see if the book has any success without us first. Then make a decision.

As for the excerpts: Geezz....

Excerpt

#1: "High entertainment value"!?!? This guy should seriously think about writing when he's not high as a kite. I'm sure Michael J Fox will find great comfort in the "entertainment value" while waiting an unnecessary extra 4 years for a cure.

#2: Good that makes two of you. Anyone with real credentials on the subject?

#3: Again, Douglas: wait till you're sober. When your god "misbehaves" it's the same as the "mysterious ways" argument, which it is important that everyone recognize is the worst out of all possible arguments. You admit that it doesn't really fit the evidence, but go ahead believing in it anyway. You just call it "god misbehaving". Weak.

#4: This is like when people try to defuse a situation on a message board by overusing smileys. A friendly moron is still a moron.

56. Richard Dawkins at The Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival

Comment #28361 by Dog Boots on March 29, 2007 at 12:46 am

Religion being malign isn't Richard's strongest point - it's not one of his points at all! It's his MOTIVATION. His point is that religion is most likely untrue.

Everybody seems to be confusing this.

57. Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare!

Comment #27871 by Dog Boots on March 27, 2007 at 4:58 am

Let's not forget the lady in the middle of the segment. She starts out the series by saying something like (from memory): "in this program YOU will be in the juror's seat. You'll be presented with nothing but the pure facts. No opinions or biased suggestions - just the facts".

- and look at her now, a few minutes into it.

As for the peanut butter guy, there are two possibilities: he's either dishonest or unbelievably stupid.

58. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #25061 by Dog Boots on March 10, 2007 at 1:12 am

I could have used a few more examples of animals that he had not seen behaving as something else...

59. Atheists Take On Religion

Comment #24146 by Dog Boots on March 5, 2007 at 2:56 am

Even though it was a pretty irrelevant metaphor, I was pretty with the speed at which Dan Barker turned it around with that remark about the forest being dry, right at the end. He looks very promising - I'm looking forward to seeing more of him in the media.

60. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21574 by Dog Boots on February 10, 2007 at 1:01 am

Boy, that was a lot of text for no point at all. What is his point? That neither part can prove anything? That's not new.

Anyway, if anyone wants a forum signature theist-style (meaning quoting someone out of context), you can now use:

"Belief in God is just for those who are mad, bad or sad." - Alistair McGrath

:o)

61. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #20848 by Dog Boots on February 6, 2007 at 7:05 pm

I have also written a short objection and want to encourage all others to do the same.

62. Root of All Evil? Discussion

Comment #20499 by Dog Boots on February 3, 2007 at 10:44 am

"So now you're arguing for polygamy?"

Actually, I would have loved to stop Charles Whats-his-face right there.

What's wrong with polygamy? Isn't actually pretty stupid that society sets rules like that? Where's the harm?

I sure as hell wouldn't want it, neither for my self or my girlfriend, and neither would she, I know, but why should the government decide? If all involved parts agree, I can't see the harm.

I guess what I'm arguing is an abolishment of marriage as a legal issue, more than legalization of polygamy... I bet, in Charles' head, it's just "polygamy is bad", and he has never once sat down and thought about why this is...or really isn't.

63. Root of All Evil? Discussion

Comment #20370 by Dog Boots on February 2, 2007 at 3:21 am

I forgot who, but someone in the studio uttered the phrase: "unquestioned science". What on Earth is that? People obviously haven't got a clue about what science is.

"God = Love"? - she'd make a great new-ager.

"Richard doesn't believe in love?". Crikey! Check out it size of that strawman! Whooo-hoo!! Wha'a beauty! (best Steve Irwin impersonation)

"Mr. Dawkins, can you stop your heart at will and start it again?" - what an incredibly inept piece of reasoning. I, along with Avi, suspect that Richard's eyes must have been exploring the limits of their sockets at the time. Mine were.

I thought that Avi Lewis guy was really good! Quick to come up with the right questions in exactly the right spot. I wish Richard was given a bit more time, though.

64. The New Atheists

Comment #16315 by Dog Boots on January 6, 2007 at 3:36 am

We need a language award on this site, like the James Randi Educational Foundation's site has.

I would nominate klmgy for his or her very entertaining comment a few comments up from here.

"How frigging convenient" is exactly right!

65. Richard Dawkins on The Sunday Edition

Comment #13437 by Dog Boots on December 17, 2006 at 5:02 pm

Boy, that was frustrating. Neither Tony Benn nor any of the hosts understood any of Richard's perfectly clear points. They were simply not following, stuck in a debate at a floor or two below the discussion Richard was trying to have, which would've been interesting.

When, during the sentence: "You're cherry picking Bible verses", you're being interrupted by: "But let's just focus on the New Testament", the debate is worthless within the time frame given.

Oh how I wished for an extra hour added to the debate time, to allow Richard to rent a clue for them.

66. Beyond Belief 2006 Videos

Comment #8970 by Dog Boots on November 23, 2006 at 3:24 am

Wow. Nice reminder that these guys really know what they're talking about. So much knowledge humanity has gathered in lots of different fields.

It really makes religion look even more bleak: "...in Rev. 12:10 we learn that...blablabla..."

67. Beyond Belief 2006 Videos

Comment #8868 by Dog Boots on November 22, 2006 at 3:25 pm

A gold mine. Great link. Now I know what to do the next few days of spare time.

One thought after seeing a couple of hours: The debate is not as friendly as I'd have imagined...

68. John Safran vs. The Mormons

Comment #8159 by Dog Boots on November 20, 2006 at 2:41 pm

Laughing Out Loud

About time someone did that. I brought the idea up a few weeks/months back on James Randi's forum, and people weren't too optimistic. At least not the Americans on there. Several thought it would be no less than dangerous - seems about right.

Still good fun, though.

I'm really curious about that "This is inappropriate, take us off your list!"-guy. Does he say that to all the others in the same way, or only because they're pushing atheism?