Comments by Count von Count

51. Pelosi, Reid shunning Ten Commandments?

Comment #181598 by Count von Count on May 17, 2008 at 3:51 pm

I find it useful to bring up the things that these 10 commandments do NOT say:

-No word against child abuse/molestation.

-Nothing said about rape.

-No mention of respect for other cultures (isn't everyone supposed to be one of "God's children"?).

-Nothing about overuse of natural resources.

-Not a word about improving one's self or against being slothful. (Many of the "seven deadly sins" are left out of the 10 commandments, but this is because they were written long after the bible.)

-Killing is not OK, but what about torture, or violence in general? If I beat an stranger to within an inch of his life, inflicting permanent physical damage, and yet the person lives, is god OK with this? If not, why not mention it? If it is obviously bad, then why mention that killing is bad, since this should be even more obvious?

These are just some of the fun things to bring up when talking to fundies. Can you think of any others?

52. Bible Theme Park Faces Opposition in Tennessee

Comment #180734 by Count von Count on May 15, 2008 at 4:34 pm

...others are concerned about making money off the Bible.

Isn't the whole point of the Bible to make money off people?

53. 3QD interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #179153 by Count von Count on May 12, 2008 at 7:33 pm

Being the Count, I thought I should weigh in on this Roulette wheel question of Samir Nayanajaad. (In real life, I am a mathematician, but I do not specialize in probability theory.) I think AtheistJon has said nearly everything there is to be said, but I did want to mention just one thing. Samir Nayanajaad said,

In the case of the roulette question it would be better to bet on red after seeing 6 blacks in a row.

In fact, if you see a roulette wheel land on 6 blacks in a row, bet on black! Perhaps the wheel has a dent in it and is biased towards black. I don't suppose anyone would think of betting on red if the wheel had landed on black 1,000 times in a row.

54. The Stupidity of Dignity

Comment #179130 by Count von Count on May 12, 2008 at 6:13 pm

...it seems, that [Ruth] Macklin (the villain of almost every piece) was not invited to expand on her argument...

So I suppose this means the panel was ...

Ruthless?

Zing! Yes! Yes! Yes! [Slaps knee] Oh boy... my sides are splitting.

55. 3QD interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #178696 by Count von Count on May 12, 2008 at 12:03 am

First post!

Nice tie Richard! Interesting to hear some new questions in an interview. Unlike other interviewers, Abbas seems to know have gained some knowledge of RD before interviewing him. Abbas certainly seems intent about getting his ideas across however...

56. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172563 by Count von Count on April 29, 2008 at 6:15 pm

You know, this article does bring up an interesting point:

What is there were two Richard Dawkins?

What if there were 100 Richard Dawkins!? Maybe we could get the RDF to create a "Clone Richard" fund. Who's with me?

57. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #172551 by Count von Count on April 29, 2008 at 6:00 pm

Whether you enjoy Pat Condell or not (I do), if you're an atheist with a bit of a sense of humor, it is hard to watch his videos without a few knee-slaps, fist-pumps, and "Yes!"'s. Is this the DVD to convert your fundie friends? Perhaps not. Instead, this is the DVD to bring out when it is just you and your hard-core atheist friends, especially if they need any cheering up or cheering on.

Pat, you've made my day many a time. To chime in with PZ Meyers, preach on brother!

58. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172229 by Count von Count on April 29, 2008 at 11:12 am

DamnDirtyApe -
you should check out Eddie Izzard.

Thanks! I'm already a huge Eddie Izzard fan. Another great comedian along these lines is Bill Hicks. Check out his great "It Seemed So Plausible" video, along with everything else he's done. The man was a genius.

59. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172194 by Count von Count on April 29, 2008 at 10:28 am

Another note:

I think it would be quite effective to harp on the fact that Hitler was also a vegetarian (an "a-carnivore" if you like) and a painter, but no one claims vegetarianism or painting leads to atrocities. I've seen this point casually brought up, but I think it should be used much more often.

Does anyone know similar facts about Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot?

60. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172190 by Count von Count on April 29, 2008 at 10:23 am

It seems we might never shake these ignorant questions. Perhaps Sam Harris was right to say that the label "atheist" should be discarded. I've notice when I (quite proudly) tell people I'm an atheist, they often say, "Well, don't you believe in the possibility that there is a god?" At which point I must explain to them about massively low probabilities, "a-fairy-ism," and how the word 'agnostic' doesn't really sum it up.

Maybe it would be good antidote for articles like this if one were to say forthrightly that one is actually against dogma in any form, and that this (a posteriori) precludes the probable existence of gods.

61. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #170997 by Count von Count on April 28, 2008 at 8:14 am

Beautiful!

Perhaps this picture will help people to see why it is important to preserve these already endangered creatures.

Does anyone know where to get a higher resolution copy?

62. Yoko Ono sues over use of John Lennon videos

Comment #168634 by Count von Count on April 25, 2008 at 8:45 am

Who ever thought I would be rooting for Yoko?

(I do however think it is a little ironic that a song that asks us to "Imagine no possessions" is being sued over. Maybe it's ok if it's against someone working against a "brotherhood of man" like Ben Stein.)

Go Yoko!

63. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164816 by Count von Count on April 20, 2008 at 6:09 pm

BillG-

what basis do you delineate between the proper and improper applications of Darwin's theory?

Here's a quick answer. Apply Darwin's theories if you want to explain biology (or similar hereditary processes). Essentially everything else is an improper application.

Darwin's theories show us how things are. They are not to be taken as recommendations for behavior. (This is often referred to as the is/ought fallacy.)

64. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164792 by Count von Count on April 20, 2008 at 5:30 pm

Hmmmm:

Anyone care to explain the naturalistic basis for morality and compassion?

Sure! Read "The Selfish Gene!" Besides being a very eye-opening book, it is practically devoted to answering your question.

65. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #164486 by Count von Count on April 20, 2008 at 10:20 am

Vanitas et al.-

Welcome out of the closet. I just wanted to write a note about the "looking over your shoulder god" that seems to plague many of us unbelievers after we rid ourselves of a previous faith:

It goes away!

I was not raised religious, but when a pet died, my parents would say "he's with god now" supposedly to comfort me. My mom thought it was a good idea to pray every once in awhile, etc. Anyway, about ten years ago, after quite a bit of thought, I decided I was officially an atheist, and became much happier. However, I still felt the presence of something "looking over my shoulder," watching ever thing I did. I especially felt that there was a score being kept about my "naughty or nice" actions which would determine my fate in some afterlife, even though I didn't believe in that stuff!

Anyway, I am happy to say that after about 5 years, those feelings had completely faded. My guess is that it would take longer the more deeply your beliefs were a part of your life. Does anyone else have similar experiences about their "looking over your shoulder god" fading away?

66. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #164045 by Count von Count on April 19, 2008 at 1:03 pm

I didn't even bother to pray today...and I don't feel guilty about it, either

Congratulations Layla! I smiled a big warm smile when I read those words. Let's hear it for action rather than prayer and confidence rather than guilt!

67. Gods and earthlings

Comment #163477 by Count von Count on April 18, 2008 at 11:52 am

philiproulx-

As a philosopher, I'm okay with exploring this line of reasoning...as a scientist I find it very unnerving and very unscientific.

Really? Forgive me if I am being ignorant on this subject, but why should something unscientific be reasonable to consider philosophically? Philosophy, I thought, is a type of search for truth. Therefore it seems any reasoning that works in science should also work in philosophy. Philosophy may be a great supplement to science (such as in the case of questions about free will, etc.), but it does not make sense to me that it should override or conflict with scientific reasoning (that is to say, with reasoning).

68. Gods and earthlings

Comment #163466 by Count von Count on April 18, 2008 at 11:39 am

Nice article. My favorite take on this idea (complexity from complexity leads to infinite regress) is the question:

"Could god make a cake so big, he himself could not eat it?"

(Insert "burrito" or "joint" etc. for "cake" according to preference.)

thewhitepearl -
Welcome aboard! When I read your comment, I made a fist and said "Yes!" It reminded me of this:

69. Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

Comment #162992 by Count von Count on April 17, 2008 at 7:18 pm

Fascinating.

I have recently been thinking that rather than having articles and debates on "evolution vs. creation," it might be more useful to put our energies into having articles like this one that simply explain evolution. Remember the wonder you felt when you first started to understand evolution? The next time you are about to get in the old "e.v.c" debate with someone, maybe try taking a time out to just explain to them the basic ideas. Try to make them see the beauty rather than shoot down their ideas. (If anyone tries this, let me know about your results!)

The subtitle echoes a bumper sticker I thought of (which could perhaps be made a bit more catchy):
"Don't believe in evolution? Maybe you just don't understand it."

70. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160603 by Count von Count on April 14, 2008 at 8:19 am

Theist music is so much better than that awful music by atheists such as Mozart, Beethoven, Verdi, Paganini, etc.

(This is my first post, so I hope the sarcasm in my above statement is apparent.)

More Pages: Previous | 1 2