Comments by AtheistAspy

Comment #123941 by AtheistAspy on February 8, 2008 at 2:29 am

Some thing else what'shisname wrote:

Comment #30362 by DavidJMH on April 7, 2007 at 8:36 pm

Ladies and Gentlemen,
There is hope for the survival of the white race yet. We may have to rely upon the innate laziness, ignorance and stupidity of the aboriginal peoples rather than our own cleverness, but combined, both these traits should see us through. Darwinism; isn't it great?

I seriously think David might be a troll.

102. Ad 'likely to offend gay people'

Comment #123936 by AtheistAspy on February 8, 2008 at 2:25 am

Isn't it a fact of psychology that no one is entirely gay or straight? I've heard that most straight males will have consciously had a gay thought by the age of 50. I'm as straight as most, though I've probably had a gay thought or two at some point.

BTW, notice how that David fellow starts every post with "ladies and gentlemen"? I find it odd that an atheist would be homophobic, which is pretty rare. There are surely some weird-ass people out there.

103. Apologetic billboard replaces atheistic sign

Comment #123912 by AtheistAspy on February 8, 2008 at 1:41 am

A crowd of atheists ought to set up an opposing billboard of their own as close as possible to the billboard they have now.

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

Comment #123906 by AtheistAspy on February 8, 2008 at 1:24 am

Simmons has posted comments about this debate at the Discovery Institute. After reading it I can see why they don't allow people to comment - it is pathetic!

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/02/dr_geoffrey_simmons_on_his_deb.html

What horse shit.

What do these cretinists think is going on? Do they think evolution is some massive over-century-old conspiracy to suppress religion? Is that even possible?

If that's true, why is it that I can find plenty of religious people who accept evolution?

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

Comment #123902 by AtheistAspy on February 8, 2008 at 12:50 am

It annoyed me to no end how they let Mr.Simmons rattle on for close to two-thirds of the debate without even bothering to use the bell on him.

I can't recall even one instance in which they gave Simmons the bell.

106. An Altar Beyond Olympus for a Deity Predating Zeus

Comment #122742 by AtheistAspy on February 5, 2008 at 11:07 pm

Mango:

Why is there a seemingly universal human (particularly male) need to be right? That is, why can't a person have his own God(s) while accepting that the god(s) of others exist as well -- what is called henotheism. In that way these interesting "pre Zeus" religions might still be around.

It's my understanding that the Greeks would incorporate the gods of conquered peoples into their beliefs systems as a way of maintaining power. Or was it the Romans?

107. An Altar Beyond Olympus for a Deity Predating Zeus

Comment #122740 by AtheistAspy on February 5, 2008 at 11:04 pm

"Even Christians would on occasion reuse a pagan sanctuary in order to transfer allegiance from the preceding religion to Christianity," he noted.

The following might be of interest:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm
(Parallels between Jesus

108. Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

Comment #121666 by AtheistAspy on February 3, 2008 at 11:55 pm

The measure is deemed necessary to stop the spread of infections such as MRSA and Clostridium difficile, which have killed hundreds.

Religion kills again!

Perhaps they should set up muslim only clinics that these women could work at. Muslim patients would agree to be cared for by muslim women.

OTOH, these patients could infect others.

Nah, just fire their asses.

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

Comment #121141 by AtheistAspy on February 3, 2008 at 1:50 am

In whose image was Eve made?

Perhaps Eve and Adam were both made in God's image. Does that make God a hermaphrodite?

110. God the psycho

Comment #121082 by AtheistAspy on February 3, 2008 at 12:13 am

Look at this way; if God is the kind of being who deserves worship, then he won't punish disbelief. If he does, then he shouldn't be worshipped anyways.

Oh, and Pat's hilarious!

111. God vs. Gridiron

Comment #121079 by AtheistAspy on February 3, 2008 at 12:08 am

I'm surprised that theres just as much opposition to football as there is to faith on here!

I'm not. Not meaning to sound rude, but atheists always struck me as being the geeky type (I'm kinda that way myself).

Think about it; the ones who have an interest in science, philosophy, or any other subject that may lead to questioning are often (but not always) considered "geeks."

112. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119879 by AtheistAspy on February 1, 2008 at 12:38 am

Look at that big boy. What is that, a water pistol? He must be one fat baby. The military must be really desperate to be drafting kids who still piss their pants. I hope they have pampers.

113. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119878 by AtheistAspy on February 1, 2008 at 12:35 am

epeeist: Why are you responding to this turd? Just report him to administration. Better yet, find someone you know who can pull some strings (e.g., someone who knows Josh).

114. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119812 by AtheistAspy on January 31, 2008 at 8:19 pm

99 we have uncovered the identity of the leader of chaos...

It's Vox, isn't it?

115. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119811 by AtheistAspy on January 31, 2008 at 8:18 pm

The fucker ate my poste! Edit: And my avatar too!

116. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119784 by AtheistAspy on January 31, 2008 at 7:37 pm

AspyMan comes to save!

117. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119779 by AtheistAspy on January 31, 2008 at 7:34 pm

What amazing arrogance. "Select seven representatives"? Is this some kind of joke? ("And Lo, the Seven did go unto the Land of Morons") If you are going to put a book out in public, you don't get to define anything about how it is reviewed or how people can respond. You don't get to define what people's choices are, such as "concede or respond". Other choices include "ignore", "laugh at", and "use to line the cat litter tray". My personal view is that we should not play this pathetic game. Reviews can be done when people wish and where people wish. If an author is not prepared to respond to reviews unless things are done according to his terms, that is his problem.

It's getting serious now. Steve's showing his angry side.

118. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119774 by AtheistAspy on January 31, 2008 at 7:27 pm

LorienRyan:

I challenge Vox Day (the angry little man) to produce one bit of actual evidence for the existence of his god other than words arranged into tripe.

Preferably the empirical kind. As the philosopher David Hume pointed out, an existential claim cannot be proved a priori.

119. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119765 by AtheistAspy on January 31, 2008 at 7:24 pm

Let's just tell admin. to kick out this bozo. We've been more than accomodating.

Don't even bother reading his posts. If he had anything productive to say, he would have said it long ago.

120. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119757 by AtheistAspy on January 31, 2008 at 7:20 pm

"Wonder if Athiesm's Red Queen is anything like his Blow Job Queen ;-)
As for religious experiences, wouldn't they fall under the same camp as alien encounters?"

Nah, ours would be way hotter. :-)

121. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119755 by AtheistAspy on January 31, 2008 at 7:18 pm

LorienRyan:

"AtheistAspy,

When I'm in the country and gaze upon the night sky I get a sense of wonder, its a good feeling. But I wouldn't denegrate the experience as a religious one."

I meant the kind of "religious experience" that requires medication.

122. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119750 by AtheistAspy on January 31, 2008 at 7:15 pm

Oh, I get it. You're trying to come up with so many posts that I waste my time marking them all.

No matter. I'll just send a complaint to the admin.

123. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119746 by AtheistAspy on January 31, 2008 at 7:13 pm

Also duly marked.

124. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119743 by AtheistAspy on January 31, 2008 at 7:13 pm

BTA,

I just marked your post as trolling.

125. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119741 by AtheistAspy on January 31, 2008 at 7:09 pm

I suspect "religious experiences" are actually quite common. My mom claims to have had one. I've also met various other theists with the same claims.

I've also had problems posting, though I can edit posts.

126. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119732 by AtheistAspy on January 31, 2008 at 7:04 pm

I'm going to mark whatever BTA posts as trolling, if (and that's a BIG if) and until I have compelling reason not to.

127. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119726 by AtheistAspy on January 31, 2008 at 7:01 pm

The best arguments for atheism are the theists' arguments. I see just how weak the theist case is by listening to the theists themselves.

128. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119725 by AtheistAspy on January 31, 2008 at 6:59 pm

What happened to my post?

129. Happy Birthday Josh Timonen!

Comment #119439 by AtheistAspy on January 31, 2008 at 3:42 pm

Happy B-Day Josh!

130. The Repeater

Comment #118747 by AtheistAspy on January 30, 2008 at 10:53 pm

Astonishing people still deny evolution. Here's a letter of mine that my newspaper printed:

DARWIN VS. GENESIS
It's a near certainty present life forms evolved

I'm writing in response to Steve Stuart's letter, "Believing in evolution takes faith, also," in the Sept. 9 Gazette. He claimed evolution "cannot be observed or tested scientifically." Any of our observations could be questioned. We can't prove that the physical world exists, but it very likely does, given the reasons for it not existing.

Likewise, it is extremely unlikely that present-day organisms did not evolve from earlier life forms, considering the fossil record as well as genetic and physiological similarities between species, not to mention more than two centuries of scientific findings.

Also, there are three problems with theistic explanations. First, they claim that a deity caused the phenomenon but fail to explain how. After all, if you fail to explain how God created life, then I could just as easily say that leprechauns created it. Evolution, in contrast, explains how genetic variation and natural selection result in speciation. Second, history shows supernatural explanations are often disproved once tested (we know that lightning isn't Thor's hammer). Third, even if a cause was supernatural, it could have been a force or law just as easily as it could have been a deity.

He also conflates abiogenesis, the formation of life from non-living matter, with evolution. Even if God created the first cell out of nothing, it would still evolve into other organisms once it got here.

Andrew Luke
Colorado Springs

http://www.gazette.com/opinion/colorado_27436___article.html/gazette_park.html

131. Atheism and Violence

Comment #118745 by AtheistAspy on January 30, 2008 at 10:38 pm

Artful_dodger:

Nietzsche was right! Any appeals that atheists make to "morality" just show a refusal to follow the implications of biological materialism through to their logical conclusion: morality does not exist...

It doesn't, is that a problem?
Euthrypo Dilemma anyone?

(Wait, you claimed to be agnostic in another post.)

Edit: I confused Artful_Dodger with another poster

132. Atheism and Violence

Comment #118739 by AtheistAspy on January 30, 2008 at 10:23 pm

Books advocating atheism have recently been enjoying a modest boomlet. Sales are solid, book readings are sold out, and their authors grace the highbrow talk shows and op-ed pages in prestigious newspapers and periodicals. But their arguments are shopworn, stale hand-me-downs and threadbare heirlooms inherited from an era that was fading away even...

Actually (not that it matters), some new atheist arguments have been made in the past decade or so.

One example is Quentin Smith's Atheistic Cosmological Argument, which argues against a creator based on Stephen Hawking's Wave-Function of the Universe:
(Is the argument valid? Any physicists?)
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/bigbang.html

Some more articles: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/bigbang.html
(His website can be found here: http://www.qsmithwmu.com/)

133. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118733 by AtheistAspy on January 30, 2008 at 10:08 pm

This troll is hilarious. I've laughed myself silly.

134. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118719 by AtheistAspy on January 30, 2008 at 9:50 pm

Kardashovel:

I doubt it. After all, no one here would categorically deny the possibility of God as a creator, would they?
They simply refuse to believe, much less seek God, until after they see the evidence. That is not denial. Amiright? Perhaps not about everyone here...

I'm a strong atheist, though I'd change my mind if presented with evidence.

135. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118711 by AtheistAspy on January 30, 2008 at 9:38 pm

Steve,

There we go. It is doubly interesting because I usually advocate a much more pleasant approach. But sometimes I just lose it.

It turns out I am not God. I guess I have to get all the t-shirts reprinted.

Understandable, I lose it myself sometimes.

136. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118655 by AtheistAspy on January 30, 2008 at 8:05 pm

al-rawandi:

Anna,

Truck Driver from Ohio. Look at my Avatar, this is me shocked.....

I think I might crank call him later.

While I generally agree that the theist posters deserved much of the ridicule, the truck driver remark was uncalled for. With attitudes like that, should I really believe your claim of respect for those who work hard, including truck drivers?

It's elitist shit like this that turns so many theists off to atheism. If you want average people to reject religion, then lay off the elitism.

137. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #118517 by AtheistAspy on January 30, 2008 at 6:13 pm

Gallstones:

Sorry, but I accidentally reported your post as trolling. I've already sent an e-mail to admin letting them know.

138. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #118502 by AtheistAspy on January 30, 2008 at 5:55 pm

well, don't get too encouraged, america has far worse laws which have religious subtexts: laws against gay marriage (and even practicing gay sex), the right to die, to be able to buy alcohol on sunday, prostitution, etc. ad nauseum!

Yeah, that's true.

Not so fast:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy#United_States_of_America

However, the article cites a 1952 Supreme Court decision that probably eliminates any chance of an a blasphemy conviction in the U.S.

I do agree that watching this discussion suggests the American Revolution was perhaps not such a bad idea after all. The U.S. took longer to get rid of slavery than the Mother Country, but at least we were a bit quicker to stop taking our blasphemy laws seriously.

I should have written, we don't enforce laws like that.

BTW, wasn't the American Revolution all about taxes, which were instituted to pay the costs of defending the colonists? The colonists actually seem to have been quite unreasonable, barring further information. I remember learning in my AP U.S. History class that only a third of the colonists supported the Revolution, one-third being pro-British and another third being neutral. Even then, it's argued that the upper-classes gathered support for the war out of economic interests.

139. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117914 by AtheistAspy on January 30, 2008 at 1:24 am

rk3001:

One more thing, I don't need to read Vox's book to know it's nonsense. Saying I do, is like saying I need to read every "holy" book ever written before I can write off all religions, or that I MUST read what someone writes just because he can come up with something, albeit unoriginal. I've heard all the arguments theists have to offer. If they had better ones, I would have heard them by now.

140. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117910 by AtheistAspy on January 30, 2008 at 12:57 am

rk3001:

Several people are upset at Day's claim that Dawkins said raising a child religiously is worse than child sexual abuse. Several have said that Dawkins never said that.

From page 317 of The God Delusion (which I have in front of me) second paragraph, second sentence beginning in the middle of the third line of text for said paragraph "I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place."

So yes Dawkins did in fact say what Day claimed he said get the book and check for yourself, I did, it's easy). The thing I find funny is how so many of you want to accuse Day of not checking his facts, when apparently you can't even be bothered to read the book of your 'champion'.

I haven't read Day's book so I can't say anything about it, but I have read through quite a few of the comments here. And if this is an example of atheist intelligence, I'm glad I'm agnostic (which does not mean undecided btw, it means I don't know nor does anybody else. all claims to the contrary are crap.)

Dawkins did compare apples to oranges, then again, I've never defended Dawkins on that particular point. That's one of the pitfalls of having celebrities as role models.

However, agnosticism is just silly. Being agnostic about God is like being "agnostic" about a leprachaun made of exotic unknown matter that lives in the sun, or any other far-fetched thing you can dream up. Most self-described atheists think God's existence is unlikely, not certain.

Most "agnostics" are probably weak atheists.

141. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #117879 by AtheistAspy on January 29, 2008 at 10:39 pm

I think it's funny how theists always accuse atheists of being arrogant when relatively atheistic countries (e.g., much of Europe)have blasphemy laws and state-sanctioned churches.

142. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #117874 by AtheistAspy on January 29, 2008 at 10:24 pm

Blaspemy law! WTF? America may be full of fundies, but even we don't have laws like that.

Besides, how do you define blasphemy? Couldn't the law be used for secular reasons without clear boundaries?

143. Belief in Belief

Comment #117476 by AtheistAspy on January 28, 2008 at 11:10 pm

AtheistAspy: A Mormon friend of mine once invited
me to a service. When it came time for individuals
to testify, each person broke down sobbing, if not
outright crying, and it extended to the other
church members just sitting there. Half the church
was crying. This same thing happened at an evangelical service that I attended. It reminds me
of the kind of blubbering that takes place at an
AA meeting when people are telling their personal
histories. Just a lot of pent-up feelings, I guess.

But what are they emotional about? I still don't get it.

144. Belief in Belief

Comment #117460 by AtheistAspy on January 28, 2008 at 10:00 pm

I think it's easier than most of us suppose to instill doubt. I've noticed that theists become very nervous whenever a secular argument was made, almost as if they were in denial. Perhaps they don't believe as strongly as they think they do.

145. Belief in Belief

Comment #117459 by AtheistAspy on January 28, 2008 at 9:57 pm

EpsilonDelta:

@tybowen: I was also raised mormon, and that was a big problem for me as well. I never understood how people could tell me that I had to profess belief in something before knowledge of its truth could be given to me. It's basically saying that if you lie and say you believe, then you'll know it's true.

Me too. BTW, why do Mormons always start crying in church when they profess their "testimony"? Is it common for other religious people to become this emotional? (I'm not being sarcastic. I really am curious to know.)

146. New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?

Comment #117452 by AtheistAspy on January 28, 2008 at 9:25 pm

...life-enhancing faith in God has been driven out.

Artful_Dodger, it's emotional drivel like this that turns me off to whatever theists have to say (I'd listen more if they didn't "cheat" by playing on people's emotions).

Reminds me, take away the touchy-feely crap, and then religion doesn't have a leg to stand on.

147. New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?

Comment #117449 by AtheistAspy on January 28, 2008 at 9:15 pm

All religion is based on faith but not all faith-based dogmas are religious.

Religion is especially pernicious because it rationalizes and reinforces otherwise secular dogmas (e.g., government, nationalism, political causes, etc.)

Even a dictatorship cannot manipulate its followers' emotions as effectively as religion does.

148. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117448 by AtheistAspy on January 28, 2008 at 9:03 pm

More baseless assertions. He didn't go into detail, to say the least.

BTW, what is it with his claim that secular countries become pagan/new age? Even if that were true, what does that have to do with the truth of atheism?

149. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116977 by AtheistAspy on January 28, 2008 at 12:03 am

I don't get why anyone would be moved by a short video clip that didn't even SHOW what happened. You think they would have made it more graphic.

150. Math Religion Trouble

Comment #116971 by AtheistAspy on January 27, 2008 at 11:41 pm

"You could probably cook up an "anthropic" argument, following Dawkins' lead (pp. 135 and following in The God Delusion), and say that any Universe which did not show the kind of regularity which we can capture in mathematics is not a Universe friendly to life, let alone intelligence. . . ."

That's basically what Max Tegmark argues. He hypothesizes what he calls a Type IV multiverse, in which different universes correspond to "mathematical structures." He also states that most physicists are Platonists. I first read about it in Scientific American and am not sure about the credibility of neo-Platonism.

(BTW, how do you box quotes?)

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 | Next