101. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #144134 by AfraidToDie on March 15, 2008 at 6:55 am

Dadamo, thanks for the link. My favorite:

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centures since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly. - Isaac Asimov, in Canadian Atheists Newsletter, 1994

102. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #144124 by AfraidToDie on March 15, 2008 at 6:37 am

Steve, no doubt Evolution is a very good reason for doubting the existence of a creator. But is it the primary "seed" of knowledge that brings most to atheism? I think not. By RD using this as his foundation for the origin of his atheism, it opens the door for creationists to say "see, this is what teaching Evolution does, it causes atheism". Reason causes atheism, not any branch of science. Now RD can speak for himself, but I find it very difficult to believe that he needed any knowledge of evolution to doubt the existence of a creater.

103. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #144119 by AfraidToDie on March 15, 2008 at 6:15 am

35. Comment #143984 by Ian Bamlett - I have never believed in any kind of religion, and my knowledge of evolution is that of an interested amateur at best. Is Richard really saying if he hadn't come to a full understanding of evolution he might still have faith? Doesn't this play right into the hands of the creationists who can then play the evolution = atheism card?

I agree with WhoDatNija that this point by Ian was excellent, and it always just got under my radar. At a very early age I was cultivating the seeds of doubt way before high school. And well before I ever heard anything about evolution it was apparent the whole church and bible scene was total "bullshit" (to use Rd's term lol). As all the arguments go, "we" don't need to prove that god doesn't exist; it is up to the believer to show a single bit of evidence that a god exists. Evolution, DNA, or any science knowledge is not needed at all for individuals to come to their own conclusion that there is no sky fairy.

I'd like to see RD look back very carefully to his youth and see if there isn't a really better time line between when he had doubts, and those doubts turned to total skepticism, and then just where his knowledge of Evolution started coming into play. I'd like to believe he had total skepticism way before he started learning about Evolution?

104. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143254 by AfraidToDie on March 13, 2008 at 6:46 pm

50. Comment #143126 by al-rawandi - So name one place where declaring yourself a Jew gets you killed. I am a bit of a stickler for facts when comes to statements of facts.

I'm going to take a couple of uneducated guesses, since it sounds like a trick question. If not killed, perhaps making such a declaration might make one somewhat uncomfortable: Iran, Iraq, Abilene Tx, Harlem, Muskogee Ok, East Berlin. I'm only serious about the first two.

105. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #142677 by AfraidToDie on March 13, 2008 at 2:19 am

14. Comment #142517 by drive1: Dawkins spoke about childhood indoctrination into religion. "Isn't it a remarkable coincidence, almost everyone has the same religion as their parents?" I think Richard needs to update this part of his talk, in the light of the recent Pew Forum Survey.

Beth's response (#18) answered this completely. Another twist on our US stats is that I'd venture to say a large percentage of those who "change" religions, are simply men marrying into the Catholic religion because "they have to". They know full well we'd do almost anything for "the prize"! I know a lot of men that married into the Catholic church, and really don't give a damn about it.

Although such a simple point, I think it is one of the most potentially thought provoking points a theist can hear. If you happened to be born in China, India, or Saudi Arabia, what are the chances that you would be Christian, and why? If there is any potential for change, this is a great seed to plant.

17. Comment #142569 by mesomodel .. drive1: Yeah. He could update it with something that has more punch. Like discussing this kid. His reason couldn't override his parents' indoctrination. Solution? Kill.

I'm afraid theists would only use this as a "see, that's what happens when you start to question God". They'd consider it a product of "doubt", brought on by all the secular movements.

27. Comment #142647 by Teratornis

As usual, Mr. T's posts are too long to put in block quotes. But I do want to say that post was very informative and well thought out. It was a great recipe for a casual debate and how to gently promote more free thought with a theist. When I first started frequenting RDF, I initially would cringe when I got to some of your posts because of the sheer quantity. However, I've learned that the quality is outstanding as well and I look forward to reading them. If I ever have to go to a theist gang fight, I want to take Mr T with me, along with Mr Z (Steve that is), Paula, Max D (it's the gloves), and more. There's a lot of RDF'ers that I really enjoy reading and I think it would be fun to rate our top 20 all-time favorite posters some day, because there really are some great thinkers here. Other interesting posters I enjoy off the top of my head is Sara95, Lucas, Robotaholic, Mitchell Gilks (maybe it's just his avatar :-) , Irate Atheist (sometimes you just need comedy), AtheistJon (where r u these days), Diacanu (should be toward the top of the list), Sturmundrang, and many more that I can't remember off the top of my head right now. I apologize in advance for missing some of you. Perhaps your name or avatar doesn't stick out. Is there anyone else in your top 10 that I haven't mentioned already?

106. Two More Fleas

Comment #142549 by AfraidToDie on March 12, 2008 at 5:51 pm

42. Comment #142525 by HourglassMemory... What worries me is that half the people might actualy be convinced by one of these books and go back to the "Agnostic 50/50 position", not to mention go religious again.

Reason and atheism IS "the light". You cannot return to "the dark side". OK, perhaps one exception, and that is to lie for personal (monetary) gains. When you have so many fraudulent "born agains" bilking millions from the misguided, perhaps we have some good insight as to why someone with a math and science background might want to "cash in" too. Prostitution has many forms!

107. Out of the Blue

Comment #142083 by AfraidToDie on March 12, 2008 at 12:56 am

I wonder what Voltaire quote you were thinking of.

I was just confusing my Frenchmen!

108. Out of the Blue

Comment #142080 by AfraidToDie on March 12, 2008 at 12:34 am

147. Comment #140972 by AfraidToDie: …Perhaps if Voltaire had been around in the computer age he might have switched his famous quote ("Je pense donc je suis") around to "I am, therefore I think"?

I cannot believe no one corrected me on this. I cannot believe my memory is so bad that I screwed up the "who said it" part. I was just watching The Science Channel and watched the very tail end of a show regarding religion's role in forging an understanding of the properties of light. I was fascinated by that description, and just wondered how religion could possibly forge any good science. Although I caught only the last 5 minutes, I'd guess it could have been described more accurately as "how (in spite of religion) science forged an understanding of the properties of light". Anyway, back to my self correction. They mentioned that Des Cartes (rang my bell, as he's the one who coined the "Je pense, donc je suis" phrase, not Voltaire) was somehow part of the theorists stating something to the effect that light was from god, and it was Newton who devised experiments to show the scientific characteristics of light. Since I screwed up the quote, perhaps I am misinterpreting the jest of the show? Anyone else see this segment?

109. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141588 by AfraidToDie on March 10, 2008 at 6:59 pm

Robo, that link don't work?

110. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141465 by AfraidToDie on March 10, 2008 at 1:13 pm

I don't know if I'm a five or 7, but I'd love to get inbetween those two in Mitchell Gilk's avatar, even if they were my neighbor's wives... but only to covet.

111. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141346 by AfraidToDie on March 10, 2008 at 9:37 am

My initial thought was that nothing else could be written any better to expose the sheer stupidity of this religion. I hope it appears on the front page of every newspaper.

112. Out of the Blue

Comment #140972 by AfraidToDie on March 9, 2008 at 9:56 am

"145. Comment #140969 by corruptmemory " …there is a lot of supporting evidence that we are modelling various elements of the brain well. We have simulations of simpler organisms such as insects and worms that can pass them selves off as the real thing. Also, remember that the simulation these folks have of the tiny fraction of the brain they are modelling shows very good results compared to "the real thing". After all, it is also a scientific endeavor and needs to progress in stages where each stage is tested against the actual human brain.

Excellent points! It is a least fair to say there is scientific approaches to pursuing AI, totally unlike what we hear the theist's approach to pursuing god (old text from a couple thousand of years ago written by tribes). I am very excited about where AI research is going; it's just the age old argument about what self consciousness really is and can we pull it out of the realm of philosophy? But perhaps it is quantifiable? Is the emotion fear no more than the "bottom line" numerical equivalent of what the body's I/O devices are tell us: a) eyes fight-or-flight hormones dilate your pupils to improve vision, b) heart pumps faster increasing blood pressure to accelerate the deliver of oxygen (so you can run like a fucking deer), c) lungs breathing rate increases as your lungs take in more oxygen, d) adrenal glands secretion for faster action. All of these could be quantifiable by I/O devices and the "net" result would be to give the AI device a "flight-or-fight" result, of which other options would then have to be weighed to make that decision. It seems likely to me that millions of years of evolution has allowed us to interpret all those bio responses as "fear". Certainly, we can attain that with AI computing power and advanced I/O devices? Perhaps if Voltaire had been around in the computer age he might have switched his famous quote ("Je pense donc je suis") around to "I am, therefore I think"?

113. Out of the Blue

Comment #140963 by AfraidToDie on March 9, 2008 at 8:30 am

"got to stop sometime. That's the message from Intel co-founder and computer visionary Gordon Moore, whose 1965 prediction that the number of transistors on a chip would double roughly every two years proved startlingly true. But Moore's Law, as it's known, can't apply indefinitely.

One of the reasons is that in the next 15 years the transistor will approach the size of the atom (the theoretical "wall"). However, in another article I was reading it talks about:

".. this year, IBM will begin selling its work-around to the transistor-density problem, a vertically stackable chip that moves data 1,000 time as fast as what we use now"

And as "Mr T" mentioned, speed may not be the important factor anyway. My problem with all this discussion is that somewhere between the lines I hear gigantic "leaps of faith" about how computer simulation could somehow gain consciousness. That is all interesting (and fun to ponder on), but that assumes that consciousness can somehow be quantified. As far as I know, there is no science to back any of this up. At the end of the day, AI could only simulate consciousness, and that is only perceived from humans. You could carry on a conversation with an AI machine, and it might very well sound as intelligent as most humans. To imply that shutting down a computer program would be anywhere near the moral implications of murder (other than affecting other humans or environment), is absurd. It is a "leap of faith" that has no scientific backing that I have heard of yet. It sounds very much like the hypothesis (not scientific theory) theists make regarding their god. It would be absurd to think that anti-abortionists might one day protest outside the Big Blue headquarters just because they decide to re-boot and make software changes, or replace their program altogether.

114. When blasphemy bit the dust

Comment #140509 by AfraidToDie on March 7, 2008 at 3:25 pm

He concluded with a worry about what his forebears, "many of whom were non-conformist ministers" would make of his liberalism on the Day of Judgment, but suggested that he would have "far graver things to worry about on that particular occasion".

Are you sure this article isn't from The Onion? It is truly some funny shit!!! Hats off to "the enlightenment".

115. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #139397 by AfraidToDie on March 5, 2008 at 5:58 pm

299. Comment #139375 by ungodlystheist: …And if we accept evolution, there is plenty of scientific proof that form came first, and consciousness arises within form, and not seperate to it.

Now this says it the way I wish I could have in the first place - very logically. You can "believe" in reincarnation all you want, but it is no different than "believing" in a god that you can neither prove or disprove. If any of you believe in reincarnation, the burden of proof is upon you. Let's hear one bit of evidence you have? Perhaps the new collider will discover the Higgs particle carries potential for your "reincarnation". Sorry to be so sarcastic; I just thought that anyone skeptic enough to proclaim they were atheist would never "believe" in reincarnation, or ghosts, or karma. And yes, I'm AfraidToDie, but (as my Forum signature states) "not so much that I would accept The Irrational".

116. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #138959 by AfraidToDie on March 5, 2008 at 1:44 am

266. Comment #138743 by qster: I know that this might be like bringing pork chops to a barmitzvah but reincarnation is not such a crazy idea. Consider that all mass is energy, all thought and mind (and spirit) is energy and energy can neither be created or destroyed - what is to say that my energy is not recycled into another being?

I don't know what u r smok'n, but pass some over here! If you believe any of that crap, well, then you've just branched off the road of science toward the town of unfounded mysticism. I'd venture to say if you believe in some form of reincarnation, then you probably believe in ghosts as well (however that life spirit made it to the new host must be hovering around somewhere)? It's all part of a believe in everlasting life… it's irrational. "...reincarnation is not such a crazy idea.." YES IT IS!

117. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137959 by AfraidToDie on March 3, 2008 at 4:48 pm

After reading most of the threads here on Buddhism, I must admit that I get the same feeling about that area of "belief" as I do with the other major religions. Even without the negative aspects of the other religions, it still reeks of mysticism. And yes, I don't know hardly anything about it, but none of the information written in these threads helps me with it either. It may very well be much more than I can perceive (not unlike a god), and to me it sits on the fringe of supernatural. Arguments I read make it sound like it is all things to all people and there is an answer for everything based on someone's interpretation and explanation. It almost sounds like that if a person is a really happy Buddhist, perhaps they wouldn't even be bothering with point and counterpoint discussion. In the 60's I was probably close to a Buddhist state of mind once, but then after about 6 hours I came down and reality set in. Anything that involves "teachings" that don't involve science can be lumped with religions as far as I'm concerned. Teachings like "not misusing sensual pleasure" are so abstract it ranks up there with the ten commandments. Besides, I don't want to stop "misusing sensual pleasure".

118. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137037 by AfraidToDie on March 2, 2008 at 7:48 am

64. Comment #137012 by AtheistJon: …Arrogantly proclaiming how stupid GW Bush is…… and ….. Hitchens ….he doesn't care what the party line is. He uses his own brain to think about issues.

Both statements, whether I repeat them out of context or not, are absolutely true. Bush is of average intelligence, making him appear to be an idiot since we expect a lot more from such a powerful leader. And even though Hitch is arrogant and would be tough to swallow if he was on "the dark side" (you know, the side that claims to be in the "light"), I'm very glad he is on our side. I must be German, AtheistJon, since I love all kinds of humor…. Yours too. Even though you sound like you lean a little too much right, anyone that's avatar involves drinking a glass of beer and quotes a lot of jokes sounds like a fun person to be around. With the sense of humor you appear to have, surely you must see some of Maher's outrageous comedy somewhat funny?

119. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #136981 by AfraidToDie on March 2, 2008 at 4:51 am

41. Comment #136937 by AtheistJon : If Atheism cannot live without being tied to leftism, then I don't want any part of it.

So, where will you go then without atheism…. To a religion. Doubt it. That does raise a very interesting question about the political affiliations of atheists. It does seem to be predominately "left" of center; at least that is the way I interpret the majority of the posts I've read. Or at at least, the posts that appear to make left or right-leaning comments. Anyone else seem to get the feeling that more atheists lean left?

By the way, I am a big Bill Maher fan. Most of his comedy makes me laugh a lot. I disagree with him on the illegal immigration stance he takes, and certainly on his views on marriage and his anti-children rants. But, he's a single guy and enjoys all the action his celebrity status affords him. Those who have never had children (and help raise them) can never understand the respect that motherhood should get. Without Mothers there would be no evolution for us humans. Edit: all us guys have to do is spread the seed, and I like my job!

120. The Giant Tortoise's Tale

Comment #133906 by AfraidToDie on February 27, 2008 at 2:37 am

There is a true story about whaling that inspired the fiction Mobey Dick which has quite a bit in it about the whalers picking up these tortoises and carrying them for emergency food. It is a wonder they didn't become extinct with all the whaling that went on. For those of you who enjoy true stories that have great historical significance, yet have intrigue that matches good fiction, pick up a copy of "In the HEART of the SEA - The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex" by Nathaniel Philbrick. This is the true story of one special journey and their tragedy after being sunk by an irate whale (I say "good for the whale"!), and the efforts to survive deep in the Pacific Ocean. These giant tortoises played significant cameo roles!

121. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133771 by AfraidToDie on February 26, 2008 at 6:19 pm

342. Comment #133690 by Bonzai on February 26, 2008 ……"I have a fear of flying"

Hmm.. no kidding, doesn't seem rational for someone who is so into technology and science. :)

It is quite easy to understand that the curvature of the wing has more surface area, causing the air to move faster over it's surface than the flat surface under the wing, producing lift. That is quite easy to understand, yet, as I get on the plane and ponder the massive weight of all the passengers and countless luggage below, I can't help but wonder how all that shit gets up in the air. So, though I've flown around a million miles, I still have a fear of flying, thinking each time I am tempting fate. Oh yes, I don't believe in fate either :-)

122. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133766 by AfraidToDie on February 26, 2008 at 5:58 pm

318. Comment #133652 by Steve Zara

There is a serious flaw in the "Stalin and others were atheists" argument that I have not seen mentioned. This argument assumes that everyone following these leaders were mindless puppets. At the Nuremberg Trials after World War II, it was established that "I was only following orders" is no defence.

We need to understand those who followed these leaders, and there is plenty of evidence that many Chinese worshipped Mao as a god.

I believe it was total FEAR of torture or death, not unlike the Christian god; the first is here and now, the latter is after death and for eternity. The latter don't affect atheists for obvious reasons (like, we don't believe in one), but to be around during Hitler's control would be a moral nightmarish delimma. If you say anything as they take the Jews away, you would be taken as well. Your choice at that moment is life or death. Just think of the last time when someone appearing to be dangerous in a group was confrontational and your choice was to either ignore and hope nothing happens, someone else will confront them, or you decided to turn and walk away. Those can be very scary choices, but nothing like a definite life and death choice like many that lived under the Nazis had to make. Once you give in, it becomes easier to give in each time, until you must somehow accept your inferiority. At that moment, that's when Hitler, Stalin, and Mao become like gods. My logic tells me that eternal damnation is a very similar psychological experience for those that have spent their whole life in the church. It's all about fear. That's my unfounded opinion.

123. Pakistan blocks YouTube over blasphemous video

Comment #133278 by AfraidToDie on February 26, 2008 at 2:39 am

16. Comment #133200 by prettygoodformonkeys Please line up here to offend Islam…. Fuck Islam.
I slam Islam. Muhammad sucks. Pin the tail on Muhammad… Next

Muhammad is Gay! …Hey, they can't find us by our avatar can they? I think I just blasphemied (try saying that 3 times).

...fullfilling a completely useless "free-speech" urge

What? You don't like Saturday Night Live? Come on! The problem with Islam is they need a lot more Fuck, so I agree… Fuck Islam

124. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133264 by AfraidToDie on February 26, 2008 at 1:57 am

193. Comment #133226 by William Sierichs Jr.Lenin probably abandoned Christianity in his mid-teens, but Stalin spent time at a seminary studying to be a priest in his later teens, and reportedly wrote religious poetry in his 20s. So Lenin and Stalin were brought up with school prayer, the 10 Religious Expressions and church services, and look how they turned out!

Unfortunately, I don't believe being brought up in "the church" lends itself at all to the proposition that Stalin and Lenin were NOT atheists. Many, if not most of us atheists were brought up in "the church", and look at us now. For my experience, the church was not making me an evil person; it was just not logical to gather so often and get so emotional over supernatural stories that made no sense. "The church" promotes evil deeds when it persecutes (or holds in contempt) those who do not believe the way they do. I did not see that in my church. Could Lenin or Stalin's experience with "the church" have influenced them to persecute and torture so many later in life? There is nothing in atheism that remotely promotes persecution and torture because atheism does nothing to change one's views on good and evil.

125. How he was sentenced to die

Comment #132566 by AfraidToDie on February 25, 2008 at 1:37 am

I'm curious as to what a "23 year old student" is doing in that particular area? It's not a place I would consider going to school. Is he associated with some activist group that the Afgans detest. No matter why he is there, to say he most certainly does not deserve prison is an extreme understatement! Just curious about how and why he is there?

126. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #132543 by AfraidToDie on February 25, 2008 at 12:46 am

14. Comment #132535 by Richard Morgan Can rationalists and theists interbreed? Would they want to?

I'm sure that was rhetorical as we've proven our species (males) will breed with anything that moves, and sometimes when it doesn't.

127. The coming religious peace

Comment #132089 by AfraidToDie on February 24, 2008 at 6:12 am

43. Comment #132052 by Titus I suspect that education is the key

What demographic contains the highest percentage of atheists? Everything I've read points to the scientist. So, why is that. It's a combination of #1 IQ and #2 education in my mind. The real question is why there are "some" very intelligent people who still believe in a supernatural being?

128. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #128186 by AfraidToDie on February 16, 2008 at 12:33 pm

8. Comment #127965 by Rtambree When she was in London last year at the RSA, there were two large security guards there, but still I got right next to her when I walked out at the end (and no one even checked my ID, bags or ticket when I walked in). I could've had my choice of attack if I was so inclined.

Hopefully they use a little profiling, although normally not politically correct these days. Rtambree if you look like you just popped out of a bottle someone rubbed, perhaps you’d get a little more scrutiny? They couldn’t stop Bhutto from attack, so if they want to bad enough, they can just about get anyone. The answer is to get a lot more to stand up and say the same things, so that attacking them all is almost impossible. That’s why every major newspaper in the world should have run those blasphemous cartoons instead of cowering down to Islamic threat.

129. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #126242 by AfraidToDie on February 12, 2008 at 7:05 pm

A very happy Darwin Day to all, wishing only theists achieve one of his awards :-)

130. Blasphemy

Comment #122629 by AfraidToDie on February 5, 2008 at 5:23 pm

Blasphemy by Daniel Dennett, Secular Phillosophy…Let us all just remind Muslims everywhere of what they must surely know: blasphemy is not a capital crime in any society worthy of respect.

“blasphemy is not a capital crime”? BLASPHEMY is not a crime of any kind!! Is it blasphemy when a theist claims they feel pity for an atheist? Blasphemy is either criticism or ignorance, neither of which is a crime.

131. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #122626 by AfraidToDie on February 5, 2008 at 5:10 pm

Timothy Jackson seemed to be quite apologetic, and never argued "for" religion or claimed any strong personal belief in a god (or Jesus). If he was really Christian, he caved in because he at least knew he had no argument that made sense. He could only try and challenge Hitch on his statements such as MLK wasn't really Christian. I came away thinking Mr Jackson may be coming into the light of rational thinking. If he had a "flock", he's going to have a hard time keeping them together after this debate!

132. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #121388 by AfraidToDie on February 3, 2008 at 10:49 am

166. Comment #121347 by Dinah:
I am confused (not an unusual state of affairs). This bloke Simmons doesn't believe in evolution, but stated he wasn't a Christian, didn't believe in the biblical account of creation, and wasn't an Intelligent Designer. So according to him how did we get here? He spent the whole time trying (unsuccessfully) to rubbish the arguments of PZ Myers but never actually spelt this out. Or did I miss something?

I think this is an excellent point. One I “blew off” after the debate got started. Perhaps Simmons should have been pressed more on “what the hell” he actually WAS? If he was just being dishonest, was it to try and throw off PZ? Isn’t he putting himself in jeopardy with his colleagues as being quoted as not being Christian and therefore labeled as a liar in any debates? That would almost be like RD starting off his debate saying he didn’t really believe in evolution, but was there to defend the science behind it. Perhaps I missed something as well?

133. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120633 by AfraidToDie on February 2, 2008 at 7:03 am

30. Comment #120323 by ohdaddy …I always start to feel sorry for these people that attempt to debate solid science with supposed legitimate challenges to established scientific theorem, my compassion quickly evaporates as they endeavor to maintain how objective they are, how they are not Christians, have no belief in a creator and are only attempting to enforce the rules of justifiable scientific inquiry.

I agree, I started feeling sorry like it was a prize fight with Rocky against Richard Simmons (guess who was Rocky). The ref was on Richard’s side, but instead of calling the fight when he was bloodied and out, they kept holding his limp (ignorant) body up for PZ to pound. Actually, you can hear PZ do light chuckles in the background as he kept hearing the massive ignorance being spewed.

PZ, I think there is a new Horseman in town (you), and I hope you use it to make millions, because we’d all pay good money to watch another “ass whoop’n” like you laid on the good doctor (how can you get to be a doctor without logical thought processes?).

I agree with those who think there is value in these debates. There is a great chance that quite a few of the ID people (at least youth) might open their minds to rationality.

134. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #118825 by AfraidToDie on January 31, 2008 at 3:18 am

by nogodsever in a prior post�..How fucking ridiculous. How can a muslim woman wearing a sheet wrapped around her, in the 21st Century, look at herself in the mirror?

Sorry "nogodserver", I had to resurrect your comment from a prior post since every time I now see a muslim woman in a sheet, I think of your comment and it continues to crack me up. I think they should have had a woman in a Berka there as well. For some reason all that cover up makes me want to see them naked� is that blasphemy or am I just sick?

135. Richard Dawkins on The Big Debate

Comment #117943 by AfraidToDie on January 30, 2008 at 3:21 am

36. Comment #117888 by nogodsever
Funny how you can pick out the religious folks in this video. How? They are wearing costumes�. How fucking ridiculous. How can a muslim woman wearing a sheet wrapped around her, in the 21st Century, look at herself in the mirror?

This simple and overlooked observation just started my morning with a great laugh. But how true!! I find it particularly sad when all that garb might possibly be hiding potential beauty. It really isn't much different than what a nun wears, is it? All very ridiculous. Maybe RD should wear a suit with equations and astronomy symbols?

136. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116674 by AfraidToDie on January 27, 2008 at 3:46 am

23. Comment #116473 by MelM: A nice YouTube video of a young woman escaping religion because of the "multiple faiths" issue is "my coming out story". She's quite a gem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naLQjFNQVAM
I think the "multiple faiths" approach is a good one.

MelM � Thanks for that link. She is so refreshing that perhaps even "John" might see the real light. I think I'll save that link to email the next person who has pity for me. And yes, I agree, the multiple faiths approach is a good one. I enjoyed the Baptist vs Catholic logic carried out to Christian vs Budhist, etc.

137. Loneliness Breeds Belief in Supernatural

Comment #116291 by AfraidToDie on January 26, 2008 at 7:23 am

People who feel lonely are more likely to believe in the supernatural, whether that is God, angels or miracles, a new study finds

This makes sense to me for many reasons. However, I'd like to see if the reciprocal (not sure this is the right word) of that would have merit: Those who are NOT lonely are more likely to be atheist?

Although I have read so many opinions and quotes, as well as summaries of studies, on why people are either theist or atheist, I really have not been able to understand why people are theist. It is easy for me to deduce that rational (logical) thinking should make one atheist, because that is my own background (strong math background, hardwired for logic). Yet, I still know people in my profession and similar background that are strong theists. You must admit there are many theists that are very strong intellectually, and just because they believe in something we feel is not logical, they are not idiots. My problem is that I feel there has got to be a reason why people feel there is a god, but nothing they can say or do satisfies me as justification for religion. Belief in god must therefore be a pure emotion that you are either "hardwired" to believe or not?

138. Ethical storm as scientist becomes first man to clone HIMSELF

Comment #113615 by AfraidToDie on January 20, 2008 at 7:22 am

29. Comment #113596 by Vadjong on January 20, 2008 at 6:35 am
Okay, so what if it became possible to clone, let's say, Hitler ? You will only get another human being, growing up in the twenty first century, with similar bone structure and eye colour as the infamous F�hrer, but no way of growing up in 19th century Austria, experiencing WW I and all the things that led to the creation of the monster. He (or she !) might become a nurse in a old people's home, an archbishop or a contestant on Idols, who is to say ?!

Just to hedge our bets, let the first experiments be cloning people with souls that will go to hell anyway� say Dawkins, or most of us who are a theist (sorry, atheist). And if it grows up to be a famous scientist in the field of evolution, we'll know it is more nature than nurture!

139. Ethical storm as scientist becomes first man to clone HIMSELF

Comment #113579 by AfraidToDie on January 20, 2008 at 5:09 am

And the Vatican condemned the cloning of human embryos, calling it the "worst type of exploitation of the human being".

And what about all that mind control and accumulation of wealth on the Vatican's part all for the propagation of a myth?

"extremely offensive to millions in the UK".

Then just think how many are offended in the US?

10. Comment #113545 by Nefrubyr: Can't have people finding out they're not specially created, can we?

Fantastic point!!!

Maybe that's how the miracle birth took place and how Jesus was the son of God� he was cloned! Pretty amazing; I think I'll dedicate my life to that theory.

140. The New Theology

Comment #113485 by AfraidToDie on January 19, 2008 at 6:02 pm

Rod-the-farmer: My tiny JPG is apparently WAY too big..

Besides what was already recommended, you can alternatively use MS Office Picture Manager (MSOPM) that usually comes with Windows. You can right click on the file name to see what you can open it with. I'm not promoting it, but you can easily do what you want (resize your picture to acceptable avatar size). Just open it with MSOPM, click on Picture and select Resize, then in the Resize box select "Custom width & height" button, then change either the left box (width) to 150 or whatever you want, and the right box (height) will be adjusted automatically when you click OK. Then just do a "save as" with a new name and your picture will be ready to use as an avatar. PS. That really is me, just touched up a bit :-)

141. The New Theology

Comment #113235 by AfraidToDie on January 19, 2008 at 4:12 am

Reconciling the biblical God with Darwin's theories would challenge even an omnipotent being. But a growing number of thinkers and scientists are altering their concept of the deity to make room for evolution.

I've just been reaffirmed in humanity by reading "New Voices" article in the Orlando Florida forum for readers under 30. The link below is to an opinion by a 17 year old highschool student titled "Time for debate to evolve". This is quite refreshing, especially coming from Florida. She makes no attempt to make room for the teaching of ID in the classroom. I can't wait for the fallout in the reader reviews over the next few days.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-newvoices19a08jan19,0,5685754.story?coll=orl_news_opinion_util

142. The Pagan Christ

Comment #113170 by AfraidToDie on January 18, 2008 at 6:25 pm

238. Comment #112724 by Steve Zara �I think the belief "poisons" the good deed, as the warm feeling that can come from doing good can be assumed to come from God, not one's own mind.

Very possible Steve. That would mean that if they could somehow be convinced that there was no god, that they wouldn't have the same desire to "do good" things, or at least the same "good things" they did in god's name. I have too many friends and family members who are strong "believers", yet I know that even if they suddenly awoke to the stark reality that there was no god, that they would still be every bit as much inclined to continue to live by the golden rule. At the same time, there are those that do evil things in god's name, and I also believe that they would act no different if they lost their belief in god. I guess I am saying I believe god is irrelevant to good and evil regardless if you are atheist or a theist.

143. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #113164 by AfraidToDie on January 18, 2008 at 5:59 pm

141. Comment #112985 by quill As a side note, has anyone seen that video where Ron Paul denies evolution? I think that should be up here, too, since many independents seem to be flocking to him.

Here is a link to the video you were referring to. I got the impression that he really wanted to side on science but sensed the inbred stupidity around him and decided to hedge his bet and claim to not believe in evolution. Regardless, Ron Paul doesn't have a chance (he's about as dynamic as Forest Gump), and the pendulum is swinging left, not toward the far right fringe where Ron Paul plays. Anyway, here is the link that confirms his stupidity about evolution:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw

143. Comment #113031 by Prankster on January 18, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Can someone please explain to me why in America the education system is dead-set against or discourages the talk and theory of evolution-I'm trying to understand the American mindset when it comes to this. What is wrong over there?

Yes, I can explain�we just have a higher percentage of idiots! I guess you lost quite a few that came over on the Mayflower, and that made the gene pool starting out here very heavy on the irrational side. Just give us a couple more hundred years and we'll be down to the same percentage of idiots you have. On second thought, they seem to survive at a higher rate than "rationals", and are much more prolific. They might feel guilty about their sex, but statistics indicate they are still having it often enough.

144. Comment #113038 by mesomodel So, you crank out idiots for teachers. Then, they go off to K-12, where they infect students with illogic and irrationality.

And just when I thought it might take only a couple hundred years, you have to go and tell us this shit. The sad news is, you are right!

144. The God Delusion: Now Available in US Paperback

Comment #113148 by AfraidToDie on January 18, 2008 at 5:02 pm

I've seen it advertised during "Lou Dobbs Tonight", so it's getting a lot of ad exposure at least on CNN. I hope a few doubters get interested!

145. The Pagan Christ

Comment #112719 by AfraidToDie on January 18, 2008 at 1:41 am

234. Comment #112706 by albondigas: �It appears to me that you're saying that because belief in God is misused, belief in God is a false belief.

It's the other way around: Belief in God is a false belief, therefore belief in God is misused. Is belief in God misused when you do "good deeds"? No, that is quite benign. Why do theists state that they perform "good deeds" in God's name? I don't think theists inherent flaw in rationality has anything to do with "good deeds". Most theists performing "good deeds" would have done so anyway, out of their "good heart" (or the somewhat more rational adherence to the Golden Rule, an evolutionary trait). Had you not been brought up brainwashed in Christianity, you would have still been the nice, helpful, caring person you are today without it (assuming you are). You could have just as easily been a nice, helpful, caring Muslim.

I do believe that a propensity to believe in the supernatural would not have allowed you much chance of being a nice, helpful, caring atheist, however. If you could just let go of your irrational feelings, and open your mind to rational thought, you too could see the rational light :-)

146. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #112716 by AfraidToDie on January 18, 2008 at 1:04 am

by gtcc on January 17, 2008 at 12:44 pm
I would have thought this news item would appear on RD website:
"Pope cancels trip to Rome university after protests"
SEE HERE:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-01-16-pope-visit_N.htm

Very important news! I bet this will get the appropriate attention of this site. I find it interesting that the current pope back in 1990 made such ridiculous comments:

The faculty letter to the university rector, opposing the visit, cited 1990 remarks by the pope, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, describing the church's trial of Galileo as "rational and just." Thousands of the university's 145,000 students demonstrated and strung up banners reading, "Science is secular" and "No pope."

Of course, the Vatican claimed his quote was taken out of context, and they were made "in the context of a talk on the crisis of confidence in science". How is that taking it out of context? To even have a talk on "the crisis of confidence in science" shows complete ignorance. Perhaps the crisis is that science continues making discoveries that make it more difficult to justify religion (even though there has never been any justification anyway). Make'n me crazy!!

147. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #112324 by AfraidToDie on January 16, 2008 at 8:33 pm

by madame_zora : Anyone retarded enough to be glibly sniping about Obama being a closet muslim needs a wake-up call! He's the ONLY candidate who isn't a faith head.

I don't think any of the remaining top candidates except Huckabee are really "faith heads", it's just that they have to act Christian. Romney is the other potential exception, and he has to stay away from religion because nobody can trust someone who is openly Mormon. But, he hasn't said much about his Mormon faith that I have heard, so as he gets closer to the nomination, I'm listening for some tough questions for him to answer. I'll probably vote democratic, but McCain has a fairly level head for a Republican. If Huckabee gets "in", even us atheists might start praying the checks and balances work (maybe we should start preying).

148. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111123 by AfraidToDie on January 13, 2008 at 4:28 pm

�loss aversion appears to be a trait we've inherited genetically�

I relate this to one major reason theists believe in a supernatural being� life after death. Isn't that a form of "loss aversion"?

..how irrational and emotional people are in all other aspects of life..

Well, perhaps those of us who are atheist (aka secular rationalists) are more likely to make "rational" decisions and perhaps that explains why we are in the minority? I don't know about the rest of you, but I have been accused of not respecting authority (the truth is I only respect authority that "deserves" respect � demonstrably earned). I don't respect titles (such as "queen") and am not big on ceremony. I suspect those that do are also more likely to be theist.

149. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110710 by AfraidToDie on January 12, 2008 at 4:59 am

ADH says: By the way, it would have been nice to see some of you hang in there a bit longer in the Atheism Sucks site. But there you go.

I visited that site, and started reading the comments to "Offering a fresh start to Dawkins's followers". My impression was that the Atheist posts by several RD bloggers far outweighed the responses from the theists in both quality and quantity of "point/counter points".

However, I do see one perplexing common thread in both the Theist and Atheist blogs that is persistent throughout many discussion areas when Atheist confronts Theist and vice versa. And that is that the area of expertise being displayed is that of "debate", not so much science. Both sides partake in this, but it appears that the Theist side must rely heavily on "debate" technique. I enjoy a good debate, but isn't it true that great debate teams can swap sides and be quite persuasive no matter which side they take, depending on their debating skills? Just the sheer power and expertise of debate itself becomes the center of attention. I am extremely impressed with the intelligent writing by Atheists in most discussion areas on this site. The ability to debate appears very strong with many of our RD members, and from what I can tell, the RD members "kick butt" against the Theist debaters. The Theist debaters appear to be very well versed in debate as well. The problem is that they ARE on the "ridiculous" side of the debate. They have the task of defending something that is really beyond reason, using a tool (debate) that is supposed to use logic and reason. It is no wonder that they have to totally rely on "debating techniques", as the only possible win is that of skill of presentation, and some ability to somehow deduce that one and one does not equal two. They must make reason out of the unreasonable using the tool of reasoning, and for the pure sake of argument, they appear to do a good job of it and rarely tire.

Consider two competing debate teams given the following debate sides: a) the rock before you on the table is "hard", and b) the rock before you on the table is in reality "soft", it just appears hard. Skilled debaters can make a semi-persuasive presentation that "b" is true, but unless you enjoy the pure skill set of the debaters, it would be very boring quickly. That's the impression I got while reading commentary (debate) on the AtheismSucks website. Opening arguments were interesting, but the detail arguments presented from the Theist side became ridiculously boring very soon.

150. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110632 by AfraidToDie on January 11, 2008 at 4:43 pm

ADH. I admire your "staying power" as well. It does make me wonder a great deal about you, and how you obviously enjoy the challenge of confronting so many extremely intelligent people here. I've read your posts across many areas, but I haven't heard anything about your specific religious convictions or affiliations. I assume you are Christian, believe in Intelligent Design, and believe that God does intervene? Were you raised Baptist, Catholic, or just what was your upbringing? I am curious as to whether you believe that had you been born in Iran to Islamic parents whether you believe you would have still become Christian? Also, do you think there is a remote possibility that there is no God? And one last question: why do you think so many intelligent people either do not (or cannot) bring themselves to believe an intervening God exists?