151. 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.

152. 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?

153. 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.

154. 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 :-)

155. 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.

156. 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!

157. 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?

158. 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.

159. 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?

160. 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?

161. 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.

162. 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?

163. 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!

164. 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.

165. 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 :-)

166. 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

167. 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.

168. 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!

169. 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!

170. 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 :-)

171. 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!!

172. 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).

173. 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.

174. 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.

175. 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?

176. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110275 by AfraidToDie on January 10, 2008 at 8:30 pm

Somewhat on topic, and to propose a more realistic dilemma, I'd like to add a little spice to number four � "The enormity of evil". I'd love to hear a response from ADH or other theists concerning their opinion on masturbation. The George Carlin link by Diacanu was apropos and made me think of this. Is this too crude to bring up here? I know growing up as a Baptist, I came away thinking we were not responsible for any sins until around the age of 12. For some reason, I thought it was exactly 12, but what is a kid to know? So, I thought I was just fine with masturbation until I had my 12th birthday. However, by the time that came around, I sure couldn't stop, and for awhile there was enormous guilt. That's probably where I started feeling that religion really was bullshit. Here's what one Christian web site says about masturbation and the bible:

Matthew 5:27-28
27 "You have heard that it was said, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
So not only is masturbation lust and coveting it is also sexual, making it sexual immorality. We might ask ourselves, "what are the sexual organs made for?" and, "what context were they intended?" Was God's intention to give man or woman their own pleasure source? If God intends for sexual morality to be a man and a woman coming together in marriage is it moral for us to go about it on our own?

So, ADH and other theists, what do you have to say about this crap? Do any of you claim to not masturbate, and when you do (notice I didn't say "if" you do), do your fantasies get you in trouble with your God? Fantasies without guilt is a really good reason to be an atheist!

177. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108131 by AfraidToDie on January 6, 2008 at 4:53 am

And the number one reason to be an atheist: Sex is sooooo good now that I don't think someone above is watching :-)

178. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #107718 by AfraidToDie on January 5, 2008 at 4:17 am

We need to realize that there are those Christians who are shy or not well versed in Scripture

"Shy"??? Give me a break. They are continually in your face, at your door, pushing prayer everywhere including children's events. They cause so much fear that all political candidates feel it necessary to "live the lie" and even try to "one up" the other. If they become any less "shy", I'm afraid the Crusades will be starting all over again!

179. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #104956 by AfraidToDie on December 30, 2007 at 6:40 am

..whatever Picasso may have meant by his bon mot, he could not truly claim that he didn't engage in a time-consuming, energy-consuming exploration of neighborhoods in Design Space. At best he could claim that his own searches were so advanced, so efficient, that it didn't seem�to himself�to be design work at all. But then what did he have within him that made him such a great designer? A skyhook, or a superb collection of cranes?

No doubt Picasso's R&D took place over the many years as a child growing up (superb collection of cranes), and his skill/art was so developed that his adult works appeared to need no R&D?

LorienRyan: just because it is possible creativity can be reduced to a darwinian, materialistic explanation does not mean that a beautiful symphony or painting cannot move me. In fact, the scientific explanations of things move me just as much as the things themselves - so I am in heaven!

If others would not be "moved" by specific areas of creativity, perhaps there would be no evolution within those areas? If there was no interest by other humans in one area, would that creativity be transferred into another area (ex. Painting to architecture)?

What is the difference between a savant and a Forrest Gump (ninety-nine per cent perspiration)? Does either possess creativity or are they more like Deep Blue? I suppose this is what DD is saying?

dragonfirematrix: I would love to hear Mr. Dennett debate with the likes of Sean Hannity, or Bill O'Reilly on any issue. Such a nationally televised event would surely result in national chatter of profoundly enlightening proportions.

I respect DD a lot, and enjoy his thoughtful commentary, but I don't think his skills in debate are up to RD, Hitch, or Sam Harris, even though he always adds another unique and insightful perspective to rational discussion.

180. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #104793 by AfraidToDie on December 29, 2007 at 12:45 pm

SOSDD, but I still like to keep hearing RD's responses; maybe some day I'll be able to remember them well enough to use them effectively in casual debate. The priest was beyond air head. He really thought he'd catch RD off guard; that's pure stupidity!

181. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104665 by AfraidToDie on December 29, 2007 at 5:15 am

"The Archbishop also singled out for praise the atheist Richard Dawkins, the Oxford professor recently outed as a carol singer, whom he described as being in touch with the "amazement and awe" of God's creation."

We are all in "amazement and awe", some of us are not willing to believe in a mystical creator. I'll put my faith in my fellow man who tries to de-mystify, not some tribal leaders claiming that unknown flying thing should be worshiped.

#17 FXR: Its demotes the human race to being the pawns of an invisible super-nosey invisible alien and treats our only home, the Earth, as a mere waiting room for some imaginary theme park built around clouds, po-faced harpists and winged interplanetary effeminate hippies wearing garments made from curtains.

Damn, where do I buy a ticket to get into this place? Oh, I have to believe in it?

#20 Sleep of Reason: Just to prove, in every one's minds their belief that Jesus Christ, was their Lord and Saviour, I think that all ordained priests should follow the tests laid down on Mark 16:17-18

http://russellsteapot.com/images/comics/2007/Image072.jpg

I'll bet there are no takers!

I loved that cartoon. I have a couple of friends who occasionally send me some religious thought in emails and I am using this to return the favor. Thanks!

I think that "Professor Dawkins'� and yada

Come on RD, you put on your pants one leg at a time don't you? Don't you read these blogs? Everyone hear has an opinion of what "you think" about this article, but we haven't heard from YOU! Are you amused, insulted, pleased, or do you prefer to just read what others think you think? I bet we won't hear from him.

182. Priest who committed suicide for rebirth cremated

Comment #103743 by AfraidToDie on December 26, 2007 at 4:07 pm

konquererz:I don't feel sorry for him. Even for a devout believer, that was a stupid stunt. If your wrong, you don't get another chance. Sorry, should have thought about that one a bit longer.

Pascal's wager might seem like a good way to hedge your bet in theory... just don't test it!

183. Synthetic DNA on the Brink of Yielding New Life Forms

Comment #102961 by AfraidToDie on December 24, 2007 at 3:45 am

You boys and your petri dishes are way over my head, but the prospect of synthetic DNA creating new life forms certainly gives me hope that we won't have to wait millions of years to evolve beyond belief of intelligent design. Of course, we are here in our own little petri dish called Earth. Perhaps if we can one day escape our own solar system we'll be able to discover other petri dishes with life forms we can communicate with. Certainly an intellegent designer would experiment with more than one petri dish?

184. Christmas with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #102302 by AfraidToDie on December 22, 2007 at 9:27 am

"ricey": It's no good getting rid of Abrahamic religions only to replace them with woo woo. I'd say this stuff is more "thin end of the wedge" than a last hooray for irrationality.

The only way to make a dent in irrational belief is to educate. One aspect of education is exposure to new ideas, and I am optomistic that the Internet will be (and already is) a place for many to become "exposed" to new ideas. Besides "new ideas", just the recognition that perhaps your doubts are shared by potentially millions can be an awakening to many. And it is very rewarding to find out that there are many rationalists who are actually fighting the "good fight" along with the "four horsemen". Maybe instead of worshiping the irrational, the Internet will replace god as the provider of all knowledge.... all bow to The Internet and we must fight for it's preservation. I am being facitious, but I do believe the Internet will play a key role in changing those minds not already under control. If your community is full of nut cases, you can at least find safe harbor with rationalist communities all around the Internet.

185. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #99036 by AfraidToDie on December 15, 2007 at 9:56 am

"Comment #98180 by Mitchell Gilks" - He seemed too high on his own sense of self-satisfaction to listen to a word she said. After all, the only reason people listen to her is because she isn't bad to look at, she is obviously a moron. Almost makes me want to open a can of jihad on his smug self-absorbed ass.

I don't understand why you think she is a "moron"? The fact that she "isn't bad to look at" in this case is probably not that relative. I believe her message would still be as popular even if she was not attractive, mainly because there are so few women who are willing to come forward like she has. She could look like Mother Teresa and would probably still attract great interest. I am curious how many others believe her popularity is primarily due to her (relatively) good looks?

186. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #99028 by AfraidToDie on December 15, 2007 at 9:22 am

I could not access this Quicktime link either, even after installing the latest version. I was able to get to a very good viewer of it by following the link "reposted from" at the top, and then selecting that viewer.

187. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96871 by AfraidToDie on December 11, 2007 at 3:09 am

I'm trying to imagine how I would react if a group of Bible thumpers sponsored a sign that read: "Imagine no atheism" and on it was a picture of Stalin and his army. "Riley"

I agree with Riley. For me, it's a great message, but the wrong time and place. We need to post challenges to the many "followers" that have that doubt in the back of their mind to drop by RD.net to read the thoughts of those who no longer live their lives by the threat of eternal hell. They can escape the dark side.

188. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #95959 by AfraidToDie on December 9, 2007 at 2:40 pm

"Whether religious or not they certainly weren't acting rationally..." M Till

That is the best point! Religion = Irrational, Atheism = Rational. I suppose someone could be irrational and still be an atheist, but I'd also suppose a higher probability of someone who is irrational embracing some religion or other dogma!

Even though it gets tiresome hearing the same old arguments by theists, I enjoy these forums because I think there are a lot of theists out there who are hearing RD's (and others) rationalizations for the first time, many of which will ever so slightly be swayed away from the "dark side".

189. Nurses Told to Turn Muslims' Beds to Mecca

Comment #94819 by AfraidToDie on December 6, 2007 at 5:03 pm

Abdullah, thanks for making me laugh so hard. My guess is that you are really someone just trying to agitate and get lots of reactions. Whether you are an imposter or just that horifically ignorant, you have succeeded. I really liked the comment by "Smith" about Californians having to point down to Mecca. Perhaps that means someone should just come in and flip the bed over to get you pointed in the right direction, the direction most christians think everyone else will be going to? And it is obvious that the US will not have the same problem as the UK. Everything extra in our hospitals must be approved by our HMO or you have to pay out of pocket. Dealing with an HMO is the only thing that sounds as remotely frustrating as I would guess trying to reason with Abdullah would be. Maybe that's it, Abdullah probably works for one of our big HMO providers (at least a call center somewhere over there where everyone knows where the hell Mecca is). I am really "rethinking" Pascal's wager. If christians are right, and I could end up in hell with a bunch of Abdullahs, I might have to "fold" to Pascal's wager.

190. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94055 by AfraidToDie on December 4, 2007 at 4:43 pm

Walk: "if god appeared, or gave us even a shred of evidence to believe his existence, I and most here would readily admit we were wrong, and jump on the supernatural band wagon."

Now that is an interesting proposition, one that cannot possibly take place. However, just to play along, I suppose I have lived close to 60 years as a non-believer, so will I be doomed to hell no matter what I do here on out. If evidence was shown, aren't I allowed to finally claim to "believe" and all will be forgotten as I enter Heaven? But, that would mean I had to be shown and didn't just "believe" to save my soul. Where will heaven be, and will I just be on an eternal high. Can I still have sex? It just gets more ridiculous doesn't it? I'm hoping I can hold out to damn near the last breathe and then use Pascal's wager to bail me out. Yes, on my death bed I'll profess to believe "just in case". I've always hedged my bets.

191. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #83657 by AfraidToDie on October 30, 2007 at 7:56 pm

D'Sousa is sharp enough (as an example he wouldn't let Hitchens lure him into asking D'Sousa to ask a question Hitchens wanted more time to answer), but Hitchens blew him away with logic. If you prefer logic over irrational belief, it was no contest. And even if Hitchens was having a "down" day, he still had more dynamic personalilty and persuasiveness than D'Sousa could ever have. I'd like to see a format where each one could ask a specific question and be allowed to force the other to address that question (both sides). As an example, the 100,000+ years of human existence with a late arrival of jesus 98,000 years later to an isolated fragment of humanity would be a good place to start demanding D'Sousa to try and justify. To my knowledge, he never once tried to justify this?

192. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #83649 by AfraidToDie on October 30, 2007 at 7:33 pm

I have come up with a theory for the existence of a god that may need to be debunked in future debates. It may have already come up somewhere, but in reading many threads in this and other forums, I have not seen anything remotely close to anyone offering this as a possible explanation of the existence of a god. I know there is no way I can possibly imagine pre "Big Bang" scenarios, or how there could possibly be a beginning of time. Because of the vastness of the universe that is also unimaginable to me, I certainly cannot believe a supernatural creator exists somewhere beyond our planet or universe. Furthermore, of what avail would a god be that somehow existed somewhere light years away? I can't even fathom Einstein's theory of relativity, but accept that there are much greater minds than mine that make his theories probable, or I can even accept them as fact. With that in mind, I can also accept some of the relatively new "string theories", in regard to the possibility of several or many more dimensions than the three generally accepted dimensions. If I am to somehow even imagine a supernatural being, then I could only imagine it existing in some type of dimension similar to what string theories offer. I do not profess to believe this, only that such an argument may be presented by deists (I imagine it already has), and that it may need to be countered in some debate. Of course, this would only account for a placeholder for a god to exist, and certainly not be a legitimate argument for Christianity (or could it?).

193. The Rise of Atheist America

Comment #68918 by AfraidToDie on September 9, 2007 at 5:40 am

Does anyone really care "why" they came here? If they happened to be a group of "wife beaters", would that make it "what our country was founded for/on", and therefore OK? Hell no. What matters is that we have a great set of laws on the books, and over time the interpretations have (in general) evolved toward the "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness" creed. Withstanding (hopefully) minor setbacks, we'll eventually separate the theists from their strangle hold of our govenment. I'm just not confident it will happen in my lifetime. But again, who cares of the beliefs of our forefathers? What is important is that government continually evovlves in the direction of reason.