Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by sane1


151. Busted Halo

Comment #44067 by sane1 on May 23, 2007 at 8:48 am

An interesting interview, and the panel of "experts" were not as obnoxiously insane and detached from reality as the usual loonies who oppose RD on TV. I enjoyed the conversation.

[edit - this was in reference to a different article and belonged elsewhere...sorry]

152. Busted Halo

Comment #43913 by sane1 on May 23, 2007 at 3:58 am

not sure what is up with this, but when i clicked on the url above teh image, and then on the chopra link, I ended up with a virus problem...beware.

153. Atheism Tapes : Arthur Miller

Comment #43886 by sane1 on May 23, 2007 at 3:27 am

links are broken - 5/23/07.

154. A galactic fossil - Star is found to be 13.2 billion years old

Comment #43884 by sane1 on May 23, 2007 at 3:26 am

What's this thing doing on our galaxy then?

155. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42592 by sane1 on May 18, 2007 at 2:00 pm

I read and recommend a Brief History of Time as well, and the Universe in a Nutshell, and the Theory of Everything - all by Hawking.

I have not read any Neil Degrasse Tyson, but may get his Death by Black Hole next.

156. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42586 by sane1 on May 18, 2007 at 1:37 pm

If I may chime in, I've read several excellent books on cosmology for lay folks that I'd recommend:

(1)The Fabric of the Cosmos; and (2) the Elegant Universe, Brian Greene

(3)The Cosmic Landscape, Leonard Susskind, and,

(4) the Bible.

Of the 4, I recommend the Bile least. [edit: Bible - Freudian slip, I suppose.]

157. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42524 by sane1 on May 18, 2007 at 10:32 am

"time began, but we can't describe how."

Faith head: "god!"
Physicist: "inflationary energy"

At any given time, fools answer the open questions with the simplistic answer: "god," and scientists, actually find the true answer, and posit a new question. The cyclic stupidity of religious answers continues, in the cyclic universe.

158. Dobson, Armageddon, and Foreign Policy

Comment #41977 by sane1 on May 17, 2007 at 11:49 am

OMG!!!!



Somebody save us.

159. Dobson, Armageddon, and Foreign Policy

Comment #41975 by sane1 on May 17, 2007 at 11:48 am

12. Comment #41959 by BAEOZ on May 17, 2007 at 11:07 am - Oh bugger, I blockquoted everything! Pardon me fine people.

just go back and edit it...

160. Among the Disbelievers

Comment #41755 by sane1 on May 16, 2007 at 8:25 pm

Nice list, newton30. Made me laugh, and I needed that.

161. Unbelievable: That's what religion is, says Christopher Hitchens in his profoundly skeptical manifesto

Comment #41500 by sane1 on May 16, 2007 at 7:49 am

Good book, getting tons of exposure in US. Thanks Professor Dennett for a clear-headed review.

162. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39294 by sane1 on May 10, 2007 at 9:20 am

"mumbo jumbo, mumbo jumbo,
saviour,
mumbo jumbo,
saviour,
mumbo jumbo,
can't have a meaningful life without god cause you are always searching and wondering
mumbo jumbo
misrepresentation, falsehood
mumbo jumbo
I believe it because of creation.
mumbo jumbo
3 heavens
its in the north
constellation of Orion."

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

163. Anderson Cooper interviews Christopher Hitchens

Comment #39281 by sane1 on May 10, 2007 at 8:54 am

Go, Hitch, Go!

He is more persuasive when he is engaging and pleasant as he is here. But more enjoyable for me when he is brash and confrontational as in his Sharptin debate and teh LA book festival discussion.

164. Sam Harris in conversation with Oliver McTernan

Comment #39272 by sane1 on May 10, 2007 at 8:46 am

Sam Harris is 99% correct.
Oliver McTernan is 99% wrong.

Discourse matters. God is an illusion. That illusion fuels major problems. That some folks' god is not harmful, doesn't address the problem.

165. Sam Harris in conversation with Oliver McTernan

Comment #38840 by sane1 on May 9, 2007 at 9:44 am

Sam is fantastic.
Oliver defines christianity his way.
Sharpton defines his god his way.
Apologists dodge the criticisms by redefining "true" religion at every turn, "simply obfuscating the problem." So said Sam and Oliver agreed.

Face it - the problem is the irrationality and nonsense of religion, in whatever form.

166. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton: A Debate God Is Not Great

Comment #38614 by sane1 on May 8, 2007 at 6:55 pm

Sharpton's "God" apparently has nothing to do with religion, or religious dogma. OK. Everyone go home.

Sharpton is a deist, I suppose: "god set universe in an order."

Hitchens should have asked him what the hell he meant by the "god" he insists exists. When Sharpton finally got to defending "god," it was some personal amorphous thing totally divorced from any "relgion." Confirmed to him in his own personal feelings - "nothing to do with scriptures."

And, per Sharpton, plenty bad has gone on with religion, but that is just people's doing, not god.

The long debate about Dr. King is tiresome.

167. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton: A Debate God Is Not Great

Comment #38610 by sane1 on May 8, 2007 at 6:43 pm

Very glad Hitchens wrote his book, and has taken up the case bravely. Feels to me that RD has really started something.

Now I hear that Bill Maher is making an atheist documentary, and speaking his atheist mind. Right on!

168. Massive explosion is brightest-ever supernova

Comment #38528 by sane1 on May 8, 2007 at 2:00 pm

Thanks, CJ
- So what does it mean to say it was the brightest?

169. Massive explosion is brightest-ever supernova

Comment #38522 by sane1 on May 8, 2007 at 1:43 pm

I thought super novae were uniformly bright, and as a result were a good yardstick for measuring their distances from us. So, are they saying that this one was closest?

170. A Bunch of Monkeys

Comment #38313 by sane1 on May 7, 2007 at 1:25 pm

NICE!!!

I think I'll go read Discover magazine.

171. Richard Dawkins on Canada AM

Comment #38310 by sane1 on May 7, 2007 at 1:19 pm

Just go here: http://www.ctv.ca/canadaam

and click on his image, halfway down on the right side.

This works perfectly.

Corduroy: What is that gigantic link you posted???

172. Interview with Pierre Rehov

Comment #37973 by sane1 on May 6, 2007 at 2:31 pm

23. Comment #37946 by Norseman on May 6, 2007 at 11:28 am

I saw this film a while ago. It was VERY pro israel, atleast from my european point of view.

Pro Israel how? Like, ah, anti-suicide bomber?

173. God Exists. A Formula Proves it.

Comment #37967 by sane1 on May 6, 2007 at 1:57 pm

Holy Shit was that a half-assed story! Did my ears decieve me or at on epoint did he say "feces proves god exists."?

174. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #37161 by sane1 on May 3, 2007 at 2:15 pm

82. Comment #37149 by oao on May 3, 2007 at 1:29 pm

Oh, and, as to the merits of your goofy theory: "the irrationality of the suicide bomber" only is "irrational" if you think that he thinks his desired effect will not be advanced by his action, and he takes that action anyway. I suppose that is what you mean by the "irrationality of the suicide bomber?" (You failed to clearly explain what you meant. If I missed my guess, by all means, explain better what you mean.)

Anyhow, since he obviously values his own life less than that of his cause and whatever he thinks he will achieve by his action, it seems clear that his action is "rational," though totally abhorrent. Or, perhaps you are saying his action is objectively obviously counter-productive? Who can tell? Anyhow, that would be debatable.

On the more general point, we heartily endorse all sorts of self-sacrifice for a greater good in our culture, but don't call it irrational.

Heck, the christians will tell you the greatest thing ever done was jesus dying for your sins. The supreme self-sacrifice. (Of course they also think that suicide is a sin, but when did inconsistency ever stop them before?)

175. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #37159 by sane1 on May 3, 2007 at 1:54 pm

Fishpeddler: It is tempting, but, no, I think I'll go grocery shopping instead.

And, btw, always love your posts.

176. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #37156 by sane1 on May 3, 2007 at 1:49 pm

oao: I was referring in particular to your declaration: "Irrationality is not something people are born with, but rather instilled in them."

See now? It was obvious wasn't it. I quoted it at the start of my post, and referred to it as your "theory on irrationality".

Your high horse now has 2 broken legs and a brain tumor. Your rantings are crippling it further.

177. Richard Dawkins in the Time 100

Comment #37148 by sane1 on May 3, 2007 at 1:24 pm

Here's the problem:

Behe seeks to elevate himself by reveling in the reflection of praising RD for contributing to their "debate."

Nauseating. Watch out for his next "book."

178. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #37144 by sane1 on May 3, 2007 at 1:13 pm

OAO wrote:

Irrationality is not something people are born with, but rather instilled in them. In practically all moslem countries there is little education and mostly quranic indoctrination. The ignorance and hatred resulting from that has been well documented publicly. But because the west is undergoing its own educational collapse, it is being manipulated by its elites and the media into political correctness and multiculturalism that blind them to how suicidal that is. A lot of Europe is already lost. The educational collapse is very obvious in the US, with the ensuing ignorance about Islam and incompetence leading to self-destruction fiascos such as Iraq.


oao: I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but are you sure you are not half-mad? These sweeping over-generalizations amount to a nearly unhinged world view. Are you able to reel it in when necessary?

And your theory on "irrationality" is odd to say the least. Whatever do you mean? It seems bizarre on its face.

179. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #37139 by sane1 on May 3, 2007 at 1:01 pm

78. Comment #37129 by John Phillips on May 3, 2007 at 12:46 pm


Correct. Thank you. To the extent that oao had something to say, you found it and dispensed with it.

OAO: Get off your name-calling, labeling, self-righteous high horse. You made an elephant out of a mole hill. Apologize and move on.

180. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #37029 by sane1 on May 3, 2007 at 7:49 am

Look, oao took the use of a word ("Yahweh"), and made a silly and unsupported accusation from it. Enough said.

But, Richard, there IS a word for the "...Christian God AS OPPOSED TO the Jewish God.." They call him "Jesus" all the time.

181. Ken Miller on Intelligent Design

Comment #36569 by sane1 on May 1, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Everyone, I mean everyone, should have to watch this! Flat out brilliant. And as RD said in his 2002 TED talk , it is important in part because it is from a "christian."

http://richarddawkins.net/article,960,An-atheists-call-to-arms,Richard-Dawkins-TED-2002

182. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #36565 by sane1 on May 1, 2007 at 3:16 pm

The TED talks are great. 'Twas I who sent this to Josh.

Peruse the list your self at: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/list

They have recently posted many new ones. They are organized and delightful. Personally, I like the science ones best, but many others are interesting as well.

And Greg23 left off one of my favoites: Micheal Shermer on "why people believe wierd things."

183. 'god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything' by Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36493 by sane1 on May 1, 2007 at 10:26 am

I read the book.
I thoroughly enjoyed it, and recommend it. However, it is subject to many of these criticisms - and I'll buy [most of]the conclusion of the article:

He finds the worthy man of religion so nearly a contradiction in terms that persuasion is pointless. One cannot win such people over, he implies, one can only smash them, rhetorically, and then only to delight those for whom they are already smashed. In that sense, [but only in that sense,] "god is not Great" must be judged a smashing success.

184. Pop Tech Lecture

Comment #36485 by sane1 on May 1, 2007 at 10:08 am

Excellent.

Here is another excellent video - from back in 2002 - when RD was apparently getting revved up to write TGD. Interesting to hear the state of his thinking at that time.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/113

185. Fighting Words: A wartime lexicon

Comment #35130 by sane1 on April 26, 2007 at 9:48 am

This excerpt is from the first chapter, which I am past. My recommendation: buy the book.

186. Brian Lehrer interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #35127 by sane1 on April 26, 2007 at 9:43 am

CJ: In the US, we call the period starting with Thanksgiving (late November) and ending with New Years Day "the Holidays." The end of the year used to be called generically "the Christmas Season" or just "Christmas." The period obviously covers Hanukah, and the more recent creation "Kwanza."

So as not to offend non-christians, the end of the year is often referred to as teh more secular "Holidays" though there are stories each year about how there is a so called "war on christmas." Thank Bill O'Rielly for making an absurd amount of noise on that issue.

187. Brian Lehrer interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #35109 by sane1 on April 26, 2007 at 8:32 am

I still think there should be a way to arrange some sort of interview based on questions submitted by those who frequent this site and feel like we have heard all the answers to the typical questions. Or he should do an interview with Robert Wright, perhaps.

188. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #34912 by sane1 on April 25, 2007 at 2:54 pm

72. Comment #33838 by stereoroid on April 22, 2007 at 4:55 am: We may have a 5th Musketeer on our hands: Matthew Parris, in today's Sunday Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris//article1685452.ece


I read it - nice piece - thanks for the link.

189. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #34907 by sane1 on April 25, 2007 at 2:37 pm

Veronique: My prejudices are what propel me to discard one person over another. Doesn't matter what my rant is or may be. Rational argumentation to discard someone's views and therefore not even entertain any other of his/her views discounts my non-rational discarding of that person.


V - your posts are usually lucid - but I can't understand this one. can you help me out?

190. One Hell of a Religious Read

Comment #34865 by sane1 on April 25, 2007 at 1:25 pm

51. Comment #34832 by Vinelectric on April 25, 2007 at 11:47 am

I don't depend on translations as the arabic language is my mother tongue and I was raised in that culture. Hitchens definitely got it wrong. Want to make the same mistake? Be my guest but I have to just point it out every time echoes it.

No offense intended, but your mother tongue can't possibly be ancient arabic. I don't now who is right, but your appeal to authority is not convincing.

191. One Hell of a Religious Read

Comment #34863 by sane1 on April 25, 2007 at 1:22 pm

Bought it today at B&N in Colorado - I'd reserved it prior to when it came in. Read the first chapter at lunch break. Good start. I hope it sells well.

192. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #33593 by sane1 on April 20, 2007 at 4:47 pm

I nominate Victor Stenger for Musketeer as well:
http://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591024811

193. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33529 by sane1 on April 20, 2007 at 1:49 pm

102. Comment #33497 by AtheistAcolyte on April 20, 2007 at 12:03 pm

My advice to Dawkins would be, "Be prepared to walk away at any moment O'Reilly begins bullying. Prepare a concise statement along the lines of 'I refuse to discuss this with you while you are shouting,' and leave the set."


Sorry, but that is the worst possible advice. Ever see anyone do that? It is disgraceful, and embarrasing. Robert Novak, anyone? There is a reason people don't do that on TV - they look like they couldn't handle it. Much better to calmly make your points and allow BillO to embarrass himself.

194. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33459 by sane1 on April 20, 2007 at 8:23 am

68. Comment #33248 by rchoquette on April 19, 2007 at 5:15 pm

I am of the opinion that if Dawkins can handle Ted Haggard, he can handle O'Reilly in like manner!


Hold on! Dawkins did not "handle Haggerd" very well. He got in a shouting match, instead of calmly clarifying where Haggerd was mistaken. If that is what we have to look forward to, I am afraid!

hey, however, I just looked at the BillO youtube clip - BillO may understand (and be more sympathetic to) theists better than it appeared.

Here is what he will hammer on:

"You say that teaching kids religion is CHILD ABUSE. CHILD ABUSE!!! ARE YOU INSANE!!!! WHERE DO YOU GET OFF COMING OVER HERE, AND SAYING SUCH INFLAMATTORY NONSENSE!!!!! I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU PEOPLE ARE THINKING OVER THERE IN ENGLAND. BUT NOT HERE IN AMERICA BUDDY. CHILD ABUSE IS CHILD ABUSE - DON'T CONFUSE TEACHING MORALS WITH CHILD ABUSE!!!!"

Olbermann hammered O'Reilly for saying that the kid who was kidnapped and held hostage in Tennessee (?) and released a few months ago liked something about his arrangement (no school, etc.) O'Reilly will use this to "stand up for" kids. http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6013

Oh, and its hard to see how Olbermann would work in an interview RD. He doesn't do book interviews. He only interviews people on the day's news stories to add "hard news" political or military perspective, or at the end, comic relief.

195. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33232 by sane1 on April 19, 2007 at 4:29 pm

RD: Go on Olbermann on MSNBC. Complete opposite perspective. Way more thoughtful show - and your book is advertised on it!

196. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33230 by sane1 on April 19, 2007 at 4:25 pm

Bremas: What's a YEC?

How is Fox billing the "topic" of the program on which RD will appear? What is the subject of that night's episode?

197. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33224 by sane1 on April 19, 2007 at 3:56 pm

Just watched Sam's appearances again. I gotta say O'Reilly was pretty fair to Sam, especially on the right to life issue. But watch how he labels and dismisses people who disagree with him in the second interview (on Islam): crazy, not "right-thinking," "no one we would take seriously," etc.

When the topic turns to is belief in god a delusion, or atheism, I don't expect it to be pleasant. I hope I am surprised.

Heck, the guy has famously taken up sides on the imaginary "war on christmas" for crying out loud!
http://mediamatters.org/items/200511210003

198. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33217 by sane1 on April 19, 2007 at 3:34 pm

This has huge potential to be a disaster.

O'Reilly stacks the deck, and uses his show to set people up, attack them, and and pontificate. ZERO intellectual honesty or integrity. NOT a good forum for RD. Did you see the useless interview by Paula Zahn a month or 2 ago. Also a waste of time for other reasons (e.g., not enough time, poor questions, and then 3 morons shouted about the topic)

This may be better as a 1 on 1, but don't expect reasonable or fair intelligent questioning. Colbert's parody of O'Reilly is so close to the real thing it is scary - only real difference is Colbert is funny and pleasant - O'Reilly is a nasty bastard with a microphone.

199. Stephen Colbert Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #30745 by sane1 on April 9, 2007 at 4:10 pm

This probably needs to be relinked with something on comedycentral.com.

200. 12 Year Old Girl Prodigy Paints Pictures of God

Comment #30719 by sane1 on April 9, 2007 at 1:57 pm

@Comment #30718 by icanreachmydreams -
Who is attacking a child?

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next