Comments by secondsoprano

Comment #229502 by secondsoprano on August 13, 2008 at 5:16 pm

"until you arrived gay men here were represented by the likes of Bonzai and Cartomancer and Steve Zara . They have provided a standard of intellect and argument that is hard to equal anywhere on the internet."

There, that's better.

102. Judge says UC can deny class credit to Christian school students

Comment #229487 by secondsoprano on August 13, 2008 at 5:02 pm

Timmydou,

This ruling is a closed-minded, anti-religious statement that has no basis in truth, only in bias. At least research the other side of your arguments, people. You shouldn't just discount any argument because you choose to do so...be learners not spewers of ingnorance

We are always open to learning. I would be very grateful if you could set out in easy to understand terms:

- the basis for your assertion that the ruling was biased [quotes from the judgment itself would be helpful]

- an outline of the arguments which have been discounted

- the evidence for creationism.

yours,
secondsoprano

103. Praying for health

Comment #225500 by secondsoprano on August 6, 2008 at 4:30 pm

Mr Fincher and his colleague Randy Thornhill wondered if disease might be driving important aspects of human social behaviour

How can anyone call themselves "randy", study human behaviour, and expect to be taken seriously? Or does "randy" mean something different in American?

104. Texas Fiction Science

Comment #225466 by secondsoprano on August 6, 2008 at 3:44 pm

Wikipedia [yes, I know, not authoritative but in the absence of a US law degree and unlimited research time the best I could do] quotes the Mass. law and an equivalent one in Maryland, and notes that:

... in 1972, in Maryland v. Irving K. West, the Maryland Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) declared the blasphemy law unconstitutional.

and

The US Supreme Court in Joseph Burstyn, Inc v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952) held that the New York State blasphemy law was an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of speech. The court stated that "It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches or motion pictures."

I understand there have been similar cases regarding the laws which purport to prohibit non-xtians from serving on juries or taking public office etc.

None of this changes the political reality, which is that it would appear to be impossible for an athiest to be voted in to any significant public office in the US. (Happy to be corrected on this one, but that is certainly the impression one gets from the media.)

105. Texas Fiction Science

Comment #222648 by secondsoprano on July 31, 2008 at 4:33 pm

J Mac

In MA it is illegal for ANYONE to doubt god.

J Mac, can you cite/link the relevant law? I'd be interested to see how it is expressed.

Also, are there any US constitutional lawyers out there who can tell me whether these laws have been challenged?

106. Church exorcism protected by First Amendment

Comment #221630 by secondsoprano on July 29, 2008 at 11:55 pm

whitepearl is a prime example of what happens when you hurt yourself doing a pas de bouree turn.

Doing a what??

107. Council ban on atheist websites

Comment #221616 by secondsoprano on July 29, 2008 at 10:08 pm

Its ok Carto wednesday was shit, don`t bother going to work ,stay at home.

Not joking. Rained all day.

And it was freezing. And I had a fight with my girlfriend. And now apparently religious Americans can torture children with impunity.

Altogether a right shit of a day.

108. Church exorcism protected by First Amendment

Comment #221584 by secondsoprano on July 29, 2008 at 8:42 pm

Comment #221238 by nrvous

And while this might mean "certain harms may go unaddressed", he said, "the larger protection of the church and religious freedom is the overriding concern."

Anyone else get a little chill from reading that?

A little chill doesn't begin to cover it. I felt the urge to run straight home, grab my daughter in my arms and keep her safe from this horrible world.

Can I possibly say "only in America"? Can I delude myself that something so appalling couldn't happen here?

Niyne said:

her psychologist said he could not separate the plaintiff's emotional distress from the religious grounds it was based on. Religious conduct is open to judicial scrunity, but courts cannot decide issues of religious doctrine.

Psychological injury, although more difficult to prove, is a perfectly valid category of injury. If a religious organisation or individual causes injury to a child, they/it should be liable for that breach, separation or no separation. If your constitution says otherwise, it is wrong.

[ducks approaching verbal missile from Fighting Falcon and other rabid US nationalists]

Funflower said:

If she was there voluntarily, she has no claim regardless of how unhappy she was about the experience. If she was kept against her will, a crime has been committed, and the first amendment is irrelevant.

Isn't there scope to argue that because she was (a) a child and (b) had been brainwashed by religion since birth, she could not give informed consent?

thewhitepearl said

I feel like I need a fag.

Hey TWP, I thought you were straight? [Sorry, can't stay serious for a whole post. Too depressing.]

Edited to avoid offence to niyne!

109. Texas Fiction Science

Comment #220689 by secondsoprano on July 28, 2008 at 10:26 pm

But why is it allowed to still be there, in a country where separation of church and state is a cornerstone of the constitution?

I'm fairly sure similar laws have been struck down by courts, so this provision would be inoperable even though (offensively) it is still on the books.

I'm sure there was a discussion about this on rd.net a while ago but I forget the details.

110. Red hot enlightenment led me to believe in one fewer god

Comment #220578 by secondsoprano on July 28, 2008 at 3:44 pm

Morning all. Coming late to this conversation, I thought I'd weigh in to a few bits and pieces:

Mitchell

I think that being gay gives you a reason to doubt religious teachings, even if not quite one to reject them. It at least gets the ball rolling.

That's exactly how it worked for me.

Why just men, there are some lesbians I know about on the site as well. Not any many as gay men, but then there aren't as many woman period

Maybe we're here, we just don't have as much time to post. Women's work is never done and all that ;)

Decius

I remember Berlin being swamped by one million catholic youths for such an event. I think the author has a point. The majority of them stood out in any crowd for unattractiveness, shoddy outfits, and shrieking loudness.

Absolutely the case in Sydney.

Radesq

I think homosexuals tend to be better educated and wealthier than average. I'd like to think that demographic skews toward atheism. Now, I haven't supported my argument well; but I bet if you do the research it will pan out to be true.

In my entirely anecdoctal experience this is true. I have about a dozen close gay friends, and at least a hundred gay acquaintances, and I would estimate that of that group: (a) at least two-thirds are wealthier and/or better educated that average; (b) about half are firmly athiest; about 5 or 6 are religious; and the rest are either agnostic or have never expressed a view to my knowledge.

Mitchell

This reminds me of a sermon my dad made me listen to a few years ago where the guy argued that if you belief in evolution, then you are a homosexual.

Let's see now: me, Steve Zara, Cartomancer - yep, that seems to be true. The rest of you on the site who believe in evolution are no doubt closet gays (or, if you're gorgeous and single then you're clearly potentially gay, you just haven't met the right girl .... well, that's always my friends' theory after a few drinks ... )

Radesq

Well...after posting my comment I went on a little internet search and found plenty of mention of gays and lesbians having higher levels of education and income than average. I also found at least one published book that claims that despite that -- there is no evidence that homosexuals are less likely to be religious or church members than anyone else. I should have known better than to try to apply logic to religious belief.

Oh go away with your statistics and studies. I was liking my anecdoctal evidence just fine!

And finally, although someone has no doubt mentioned this on another thread, did anyone in NZ happen to watch the rugby on Sat night?? Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh

111. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218027 by secondsoprano on July 24, 2008 at 9:19 pm

TTFN - "Ta ta for now" (my Scottish mother-in-law used to say)

EDIT: But I like Brian's version better

112. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218025 by secondsoprano on July 24, 2008 at 9:17 pm

Goldy

Friday! Almost home time. Stop off via a Liquor King and get supplies for the weekend.

You'll need a stash to drown your sorrows after the Bledisloe. Carn the men in gold!!!

113. Red hot enlightenment led me to believe in one fewer god

Comment #217995 by secondsoprano on July 24, 2008 at 8:33 pm

I'm used to the phrase "with the blinders off," as in a horse with blinders. I can't say that I've seen a horse with blinkers...

A blinder is something completely different. For details, see the proposal for an Aussie RD.net drinking er I mean athiest conference.

114. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217787 by secondsoprano on July 24, 2008 at 4:19 pm

713. Comment #216317 by Richard Morgan

If you really believe that my being attracted to quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit; a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labor, and recreations; by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peaceable, mild and courteous speeches and behavior; forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil; comforting and succoring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent. is a sign of mental illness, then clearly we do not have the same refernces!

All these things are admirable.

[EDIT: With the possible exception of meekness. For me this has an uncomfortable association with victim/doormat behaviour as exhibited by women subjected to domestic violence.]

They are also perfectly compatible with atheism, and are displayed by many fine atheist of my acquaintance (and quite possibly by you in your atheist days; I wouldn't know).

It is your peculiar insistence that the supernatural not only exists, but is a prerequisite to morality and happiness, which baffles me.

Sadly, when "un-herdable" atheists get together, we don't see very much of all that, do we? However, you'll find oodles of "; ignorance, forgetfulness, misapprehensions, false opinions, unworthy and wicked thoughts of him; bold and curious searching into his secrets; all profane- ness, hatred of God; self-love, self-seeking, and all other inordinate and immoderate setting of our mind, will, or affections upon other things, and taking them off from him in whole or inpart; vain credulity, unbelief, heresy, misbelief, distrust, despair, incorrigibleness, and insensibleness under judgments, hardness of heart, pride, presumption, carnal security, tempting of God; using unlawful means, and trusting in lawful means; carnal delights and joys; corrupt, blind, and indiscreet zeal; lukewarmness, and deadness in the things of God; estranging ourselves, and apostatizing from God."

Well come now Richard, that is simply silly. Let's pick a few examples:

"Ignorance": plenty from theists. I admit that am fairly ignorant of many scientific matters, but that doesn't apply to most of the others here. If I wanted to cure that ignorance I would go back to uni [EDIT - or hang around here a bit more]; if I suddenly reverted to my youthful belief in god my sphere of ignorance would not decrease (quite the opposite I would think).

"Insensibleness under judgments, and carnal security": I don't understand this, so I guess you can file that under ignorance.

"Unbelief, heresy and misbelief" Well, of course. That's the point. But you say it like it's a bad thing!?

"Bold and curious searching", "taking [our mind] off from [god]" ; Richard, Richard �quot; intellectual joy and freedom from religion are GOOD THINGS!!!

"Hatred of God, estranging ourself from God" etc. Despite theist ranting, it makes no intellectual sense to claim that atheists hate god, unless we also hate Santa Clause, the Wicked Witch of the West, Bilbo Baggins and other non-existent personages. Some of us may hate some of god's followers, but that is an entirely different matter.)

I regret that many atheists comment with great assurance about the "fuzzy" or "good" feeling that accompanies the experience of God. Clearly they are choosing to ignore the dramatically life-changing, world-view threatening nature of being touched by the love of God. Even atheists should stick to talking about what they know about!

I would never comment about "the experience of God" or "being touched by the love of God" because I don't believe god exists . (Hint: that's the definition of atheist.) Many atheists comment on theists' perceptions of god �quot; and many do so with great assurance, drawn from personal experience, clinical training or simply a highly developed intellect. Steve Zara, for example, has given you a very calm and rational explanation of what science now understands about the functioning of the brain, and how this relates to hallucinations of alien abduction. Many others have engaged you [contrary to anna's advice] in a highly intelligent and learned manner.

It does not take professional training in psychiatry to understand that a person who claims that invisible voices speak to him is likely to be mentally challenged.

900. Comment #217270 by annabanana

It seems that Richard has gotten bored and come back over to prod the atheists a bit. I think it would be considering feeding the troll to engage with him at this point.

I know, I should resist. But since he replied directly to my comments (713. Comment #216317 above), I thought it only polite to engage. Silly of me, but then I wouldn't want him to accuse "us atheists" of rudeness ;)

Edit: why does a box and the word quot keep appearing in the middle of my sentences?

Edit: thanks Roland!

115. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #216900 by secondsoprano on July 23, 2008 at 4:15 pm

"IT IS ALLAH THAT TAKES THE SOULS( of men ) AT DEATH ... Are you listening boys ?

NOW WILL ANYONE HAVE THE BALLS TO ENGAGE ME BY PHONE?

NOW BOYS ENJOY SWIMMING IN THAT MOUNTAIN OF PROOF AND SIMMER

EVEN IF ONE PRESENTED EVEN MORE PROOF ON TOP OF WHAT I HAVE DONE, IT STILL WOULD NOT MEAN THAT ANY OF YOU GUYS WILL NESSECARILY ACCEPT THE TRUTH.

YOU HAVE NOT EVEN GOT THE BALLS TO ENGAGE ME

Whitepearl, Hellene - do you not see! Joe has been trying to tell us - all that stuff about men, boys, guys; his obsession with male genitalia - only women will be saved !!!

Tyler, Quetz, Al, Goldy - thanks for playing...

116. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216103 by secondsoprano on July 22, 2008 at 6:40 pm

Richard Morgan:

There is also a link there to an account of my discovering the love of God via this forum, which could be of interest to people sickened by the "fruits" of atheism.

Not sure how many of those people exist Richard, but I do know that for people like me who delight in those "fruits" (fruits like: freedom from fear and dogma, the joy of discovery without the stifling effect of faith, acceptance of oneself and others' sexuality as natural and normal, that sort of thing), it is your story which is depressing ... indeed "sickening". Apart from being incredibly self-indulgent, what it reveals about your mental state (if true), is really terribly sad.

117. The brain in love

Comment #215442 by secondsoprano on July 21, 2008 at 11:11 pm

Auraboy said

... the strange way society can ostracise a woman who shows no maternal instinct and refuses to have children

It is fascinating to see how "society" (to use a gross generalisation) ties itself in knots over lesbians who DO want to have children.

It goes against the rules:

1. Women must have children. Women who don't want to have chilren are evil and unnatural.

2. Lesbians are evil and unnatural and must not have children.

3. Lesbians are women, therefore they must have children.

So, lesbians are evil and unnatural, therefore they must not have children. No, wait, I mean, lesbians are evil and unnatural because they don't want to have children ... or is it because they DO want to have children, or ...

118. Surgeon General Nominee Dismisses Homosexuality Paper

Comment #215434 by secondsoprano on July 21, 2008 at 10:31 pm

Rod said

I feel I must comment that some of the language on this particular thread is....inappropriate....for this site. While I support the rights of gays & lesbians to do what they wish in the privacy of their own homes etc., the terminology used by kkelly and some others is.....not.....necessary.

Hear hear. kkelly and others, your language is tacky and inappropriate.

And no, this is not homophobia, so get down off your high horse. I have no problem with whatever straight people want to do in the privacy of their own homes either, but I don't want to hear about it in anatomical detail. There are plenty of appropriate sites and chatrooms for that sort of thing, and this isn't one of them.

Edit: on reflection that should probaby be addressed only to kkelly, not "and others"

119. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #207494 by secondsoprano on July 10, 2008 at 12:20 am

However batty, I want to live in a society that permits me to worship the quiff of elvis without some idiot coming in to nick it. Don't you?

Yes, but he didn't nick it. They GAVE it to him. Just because he chose to take it away instead of eating it, and then ridiculed them for their beliefs might make it rude/offensive/childish/bad mannered etc, but it's not stealing.

120. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #207459 by secondsoprano on July 9, 2008 at 9:46 pm

Comment #207074 by Cartomancer

Insensitive? Of course - but often you have to deeply offend people to show up how flawed their belief system is.

Hear, hear.

Comment #207084 by Dr Doctor

Irregardless of customs, manners there is one law that goes all the way along, all the way up and all the way down in a country with highly specific exemptions.

You don't have a right to not be offended

... unless you happen to be one of the a "World" Youth Day "pilgrim" invaders in Sydney. Police can now direct a person not to "annoy or inconveniece WYD participant, and it is a criminal offence not to comply.

See: http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2811,Crack-annoyance-squad-wanted,SMH---Julian-Morrow

Comment #207089 by Roland_F on July 9, 2008 at 7:06 am

123. Comment #207072 by mixmastergaz "Jovial ridiculer" doesn't do justice to the genuine hurt and offence this act has caused.

Yes, it probably is genuinely hurtful and offensive.

And catholic doctrine is genuinely hurtful and offensive to me.

So where is the brave Sydneysider who will do the same thing in St Mary's on Sunday, or Randwick at the Papal Mass, and challenge the "annoy & inconvenience law??

121. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #205899 by secondsoprano on July 7, 2008 at 8:56 pm

God has sealed up their hearts and hearing and over their eyes is a blindfold. They will have a terrible punishment.

It seems rather unfair that I should suffer terrible punishment for something GOD has done to ME. According to you I'm wearing a blindfold someone else put there, but it's own my fault I can't see!

122. Crack annoyance squad wanted

Comment #203840 by secondsoprano on July 3, 2008 at 7:36 pm

From the ABC article posted by Michael (link above):

Yesterday, it appeared the NSW Police got wind of the plans. Mr Roberts received a call in Brisbane from a detective who identified himself as being from the World Youth Day Investigation Squad. He was then asked a series of questions.

The World Youth Day Investigation Squad???

Annoy pilgrims, face a fine

This week, it was revealed NSW Police had been given the power to arrest anyone who they believe causes annoyance or inconvenience to pilgrims during World Youth Day. Offenders risk fines of up to $5,500.

Protest groups worry about the definition of the word, 'annoying'. They fear it could lead to the confiscation of items such as placards and T-shirts bearing anti-World Youth Day slogans.

The co-convenor of Acceptance, a group for gay and lesbian Catholics that is planning to run a forum on homosexuality to coincide with the event, says he has also received a call from NSW Police.

Paul Harris says the call came after World Youth Day organisers refused to include the forum as part of the week's official festivities.

Utterly appalling laws.

The only good thing is that they have been universally condemned - the media, talkback and blogsphere are ringing with fury and ridicule, and many people who didn't really care either way are now planning to get out there and annoy as many catholics as possible.

123. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #203787 by secondsoprano on July 3, 2008 at 3:19 pm

Ironically RD Net is following the well worn path of the Daily Mail - put out stories that are true, in order to outrage and reinforce your own prejudices. Its cheap and nasty but very effective

Josh, you should be ashamed of yourself. I hope you will in future follow the Clear One's lead and only publish stories that are FALSE in order order to outrage and reinforce your own prejudices.

124. A secular world is a sane world

Comment #202065 by secondsoprano on June 30, 2008 at 7:13 pm

Comment #200115 by Steve Zara on June 26, 2008 at 11:42 pm

By the way, are you now prepared to make a statement backing evolution and that there was death and natural disasters before humans?

I have asked 8 times now.

You're right Goldy - and I found the reference. I'll see your sad git and raise you a disgraceful procrastinator.

125. Stop distorting young minds!

Comment #200116 by secondsoprano on June 26, 2008 at 11:46 pm

So the C of E and the Baptists ... always threaten torture?

And do you seriously believe that torture often accompanies one side of a religious belief?

"If you do not believe in our god and obey our rules, you will go to hell and burn in hideous agony for all of eternity."

Sounds like threats of torture to me.

126. God hates Mars

Comment #200113 by secondsoprano on June 26, 2008 at 11:36 pm

By the way, the badastromony article omits one of the best/worst bits of the original Rob Hood article:

I have four year old kids in my church that could tell you where life originated. If people would bother to accept the fact that everything in existence is created by an omnipotent God then, we would not need to waste money searching for an answer that even small children already know

I despair. How do you respond to such idiocy? How do those four year olds have any hope when their parents and leaders clearly have the mentality of four years olds too??

127. God hates Mars

Comment #200112 by secondsoprano on June 26, 2008 at 11:33 pm

When I went into www.standfortruthonline.com I see no comments at all. Have they all been removed or am I not looking at it right?

128. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #199336 by secondsoprano on June 25, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Al, thanks for that mate. Any time I want to know what my "real problem is, I'll be sure to ask you.

By your analogy, straight men are banned from marrying other men, so they are banned from marrying.

I am banned from marrying the person to whom I intend to commit myself in a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship. Hence I am banned from marrying.

My "real problem" is that the state validates some lifelong, sexually exclusive, committed relationships, and not others.

I have no wish to go down to any church or synagogue, I wish to have the same civil rights as anyone else.

And if that bothers "the rest of you", you can go f*ck yourself.

129. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #199323 by secondsoprano on June 25, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Children are entitled to be born within that bond of marriage

Fine, so you won't have a problem with me and my partner marrying so our daughter can be 'legitimised' then?

Vanwall:

I can't believe so many people are sucked in by this alledged violation of rights. What exactly is being "banned"? Gay couples can have a civil union or whatever they want to call it. The only thing they are banned from doing is changing the dictionary. If a woman wants to be an "uncle" are her rights being violated because females are "banned" from unclehood?

Even if marriage was only a word in the dictionary, my rights would be still be violated, because as long as the state still regulates marriage at all (and I have some sypathy with the view that it shouldn't) it amounts to the state officially validating the view that my relationship is less valid that a comparable relationship between a man and a woman.

Of course marriage is not only a word in the dictionary. It has enormous legal and financial implications - more in some jurisdictions than others.

130. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #197761 by secondsoprano on June 22, 2008 at 3:53 pm

What a pity that tank person turned out to be a drive-by. I was hoping we might actually have conversation [or even a conversion ;)]

*sigh*

I am so naiive.

131. Rapture site sends unbelievers their last chance ... via email

Comment #196375 by secondsoprano on June 19, 2008 at 8:20 pm

If only I had no conscience, I could be (in the immortal words of Daffy) rich! Rich! Fabulously Wealthy!

Are you an athiest? Then by definition you have no conscience, because you have no moral framework, because morality comes from god, as defined by [insert name of holy book here]. Haven't you been paying attention??

Go ahead and fleece 'em.

132. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196372 by secondsoprano on June 19, 2008 at 8:16 pm

Surely this can't be true.

133. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195837 by secondsoprano on June 18, 2008 at 10:29 pm

* Applause , applause *

Fine work, irate.

134. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195124 by secondsoprano on June 17, 2008 at 6:55 pm

Don't be an apostate. It is not to late, as long as you draw breath, to turn around and praise God, the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the one and only Almighty God.

Take care to not venture so far in your thoughts of folly and evil. This is not a game. It will determine where your soul will rest in eternity.
Come to Jesus Christ and praise his name. Belief, Praise, Repentance and Love will do wonders for you.

Please change your minds, please look into the truth and re-discover how awesome Jesus Christ is and what you can accomplish with Him working through you. You know, in your heart, it is true.

May God bless you and keep you.

Tank, the old "god is awesome" and "you'll burn for eternity" combo which Mr. Forrest so succinctly diagnosed is really not going to cut it here, you know. Nor are you going to get anywhere with patronising suggestions that we are "playing a game". You are going to have to do a lot better than that.

Most of the people on this site are mind-blowingly intelligent, and know more about science, theology, philosophy and practically anything else you could name than you could possibly imagine. You have an incredible opportunity here, if you hang around and keep reading, to have the same epiphany as Prof. Elgaroy and realise that truth and happiness can be found, not by embracing myths, fears and threats, but by opening your mind to logic.

I hope you are mature enough to accept the challenge, and I look forward to welcoming you to the wonderful freedom from religion, fear and indoctrination that intelligent athiesm can bring.

[Edit. P.S. - what Frankus said]

135. Debating creationism in Louisiana schools

Comment #192379 by secondsoprano on June 12, 2008 at 11:29 pm

Why is it that all those foundations with "Family" in the title are usually detrimental to the kids in the families?

They are certainly detrimental to my family - they define it out of existence.

136. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #192372 by secondsoprano on June 12, 2008 at 10:24 pm

Can't have a godless heathen in the house, and that includes me.

Ah. By the sounds of it, especially you ;)

137. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #192369 by secondsoprano on June 12, 2008 at 10:12 pm

he knows how much alimony and child support he'd pay if he admitted atheism

I don't get it. (Am I letting the intelligent athiests' side down?)

138. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #192302 by secondsoprano on June 12, 2008 at 6:07 pm

Happy 25th birthday Cartomancer :)

139. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #192270 by secondsoprano on June 12, 2008 at 4:01 pm

And in other breaking news, a new study has found that grown-ups are less likely to believe in Santa Claus.

140. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191355 by secondsoprano on June 10, 2008 at 4:44 pm

Is this srsly the best they can do? How very disappointing.

141. A moral test for true believers, Rudd style

Comment #189208 by secondsoprano on June 5, 2008 at 8:00 pm

To acs -

EDIT - Damn, secondsoprano beat me to it.

... but you did it so much more succinctly :)

To Brian English -

Here, being openly religious is a bit of a politcal gamble. Sure Howard and Rudd used religion a bit. But if they come out and say the sort of shite that's considered normal in the US, they'd be in a right spot of bother.

I agree. Sure, there are still problems ($165 mill of my money to "world" youth day; tax ememptions to churches, no gay marriage etc), but in general it seems to me that Australians do not take kindly to overt religious involvement in politics. I'd say we're doing pretty well compared to the US, if what we see in the media/net can be believed.

142. A moral test for true believers, Rudd style

Comment #189194 by secondsoprano on June 5, 2008 at 6:46 pm

dr joneZ , you are right about Rudd as a shrewd politican, but the rest of your post is, with the greatest of respect, b*llsh*t.

The separation of church and state mostly works pretty well in Australia. There is the occasional clever and nasty priest/politician like Abbott, Harradine & Niele, but in general it is simply not true that "the state needs the church to mandate its law process".

Your stated example re the oath is incorrect. The Oaths Acts of all Australian jurisdictions include provision for a witness to take an oath or an affirmation, at the witness' discretion. Case law makes it clear that in every case where an oath is required, a solemn declaration is also acceptable, and the only requirement is that the oath or declaration be binding upon the declarant's conscience. There is no requirement that a bible or any other religious text be used, unless the deponent requests it.

*edited for typos

143. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165554 by secondsoprano on April 21, 2008 at 4:40 pm

Comment #160816 by navyjake95 on April 14, 2008 at 12:27 pm

It's been my experience (for 50 years), that people who behave like you did (in your article), do so because they're deeply afraid of Jesus.

Comment #161118 by secondsoprano on April 14, 2008 at 8:44 pm

What a peculiar thing to say. Can you give us some examples? How can an athiest possibly be afraid of something which they don't believe exists?

Hello navyjake, I see you are back. Any chance of an answer to my question?

144. Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

Comment #165536 by secondsoprano on April 21, 2008 at 3:38 pm

Comment #163152 by Mitchell Gilks
I highly doubt that there are "gay genes". …. I think that the idea that is is genetic is latched unto with vigour, so they can just claim "see, it's not my fault, I can't help it. I was born this way."

I'm not a scientist, so I speak only from personal observation, but my sense is that it is at least partly genetic. (Perhaps a combination of genetic and cultural factors).

I don't say that because I want to claim that "it's not my fault" (indeed, I consider myself very fortunate to be gay) It's just that I have no sense that I chose my orientation, and neither does anyone (straight and gay) I have discussed this with. I have never heard of anyone outside the loopy religious ex-gay movement who just woke up one morning and "decided" to be straight/gay.

My sexuality is so very much a part of my being; much like being left-handed, or having brown hair; it makes sense to me that it is genetic.

Obviously I realise I could be mistaken, and that choices can be subliminal etc.

But I wanted to clear up the misconception that gays (well, this one, anyway), use genetics as an "excuse" for something negative. As you point out, it's not negative, so we don't need an "excuse".

If I could choose to be gay, I would. I just don't think I did.

145. Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

Comment #163065 by secondsoprano on April 18, 2008 at 12:03 am

Natural selection of any such children will not be affected by the ideology of their parents.

It is not an ideology. Take your homophobia to some other board. It is not welcome here.

146. Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

Comment #163057 by secondsoprano on April 17, 2008 at 11:36 pm

Get yourself a gay couple, a lesbian couple and a turkey baster. Then before you know it, you've got a baby with four parents.

... two of whom are homosexuals who have "produced offspring" in the biological sense.

147. Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

Comment #163056 by secondsoprano on April 17, 2008 at 11:33 pm

Never said they weren't. It's just that Male-to-male or female-to-female sex will not produce offspring.

True but irrelevant. What you said was that homosexuals would not have any offspring. This is self-evidently not true.

Take me for example: I'm homosexual, I have a child. My genes (including, for the sake of argument, my "gay" genes) are being passed on.

Homosexually orientated people have always been just as physically capable of producing offspring as bisexually and heterosexually oriented people. Whether they do that by heterosexual sex, turkey baster, etc doesn't change the fact that they are homosexual.

148. Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

Comment #163050 by secondsoprano on April 17, 2008 at 10:50 pm