151. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87529 by Spinoza on November 12, 2007 at 11:30 am

Some of these responses are funny.

Dawkins is penultimate because Spinoza and Hobbes are Ultimate. :)

... or rather, the Ultimate depends on who you are talking to...

I was simply expressing annoyance or frustration with the lack of intelligence among many atheists (and expressed my desire that they themselves can rectify this).

Also, Dawkins-worship needs to go away.

Yeah, you know what I'm talking about... Youtube Atheists...

152. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87344 by Spinoza on November 11, 2007 at 11:40 pm

Baeoz, you may want to read something like The Cambridge Companion To Spinoza, or Steven Nadler's biography of Spinoza first, before you try to tackle either the TTP or The Ethics.

You need to get a sense of why they called the man "That God-Intoxicated Atheist"... he denied atheism vehemently for his whole life, but his followers were vilified for centuries after...

He uses the word "God" constantly, which, to the uneducated Atheist might be an immediate turn-off. Not only that, but his works are DIFFICULT. Much more so than Descartes.

I would suggest, if you want to dive straight in, to read the Theological-Political Treatise first, before you try his magnum opus (written in the style of Euclid's Elements). But even that might put you off, since he spends a long time explicating how we ought to read scripture.

But if you stick it out, you will soon realize why the book had to be published anonymously, and why it caused a massive uproar.

Also, we philosophers, at least, some of us, think that Descartes may have INTENTIONALLY written some of his philosophy to fail, but written in such a way as to placate the religious powers of the time... Also, keep in mind, the guy DISCOVERED NERVES. He was the first one to figure them out. He thought they transmitted "animal spirits"... he can be forgiven for thinking the mind communicates with the body through the pineal gland. The danger the uneducated mind has when reading historical philosophy is reading it anachronistically, and assuming that it must be stupid because we know better now. But this is certainly far from the case.

And anyway, Spinoza's God IS Einstein's God, and you'll just have to get used to him using the term. He meant it as "Deus sive Natura" ("God, or rather, Nature").

As for the argument that philosophy is not worth reading because you "don't have the time"... That's your opinion, but it's not an uncommon one. It has been the cry of the plebeians for 3500 years now, and we philosophers, quite frankly, are used to it. The very FIRST Western philosopher known to us, Thales, showed us all the value of philosophy from the very first moments of its existence, in the face of scorn and disrepute. He made $$$ by buying all the oil-presses in Athens and loaning them back out at a huge premium, having used "Natural Philosophy" (as Science was called back then) to predict a record olive crop, well in advance.

And even today, philosophers are quite useful, contrary to popular opinion. Just go watch the Beyond Belief 2006 videos again, and you'll see what philosophers are capable of :)

153. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87336 by Spinoza on November 11, 2007 at 10:00 pm

As a further point, and to play DEVIL'S ADVOCATE (hehe):

PeterK asked me about this: (I think he thinks I'm a theist?):

The notion of a transcendent conciousness (ie God) that creates or brings into existence--well all that exists-- could not possibly exist, simply because to "be conscious" would require something to be conscious OF ( existence ). If there is nothing --because nothing has yet been created--there can be no consciousness anywhere, not by nobody, not no how. And this includes any Allah, Jahweh, Zeus, Jupiter.

Now would this not constitute as proof that a creator-God-thingy-dingy could not possibly exist?
What IS the problem here?

154. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87335 by Spinoza on November 11, 2007 at 9:53 pm

Hehe, Zaphod THANK YOU! You got both the Ad Hominem definition correct (and my lack of its use!), AND called me on the strangeness of my being a fan of RATM.

I am not a fan of their politics, but damn if their first album wasn't a helluva piece of musical genius. (With Maynard and Stephen Perkins on Know Your Enemy, you can't make a better song!)

And I think the lyrics fit.

To Oxytocin, you may or may not be right, but I have a suspicion that your broad-brush is slightly unfair (and insulting).

To BAEOZ, Spinoza developed his system out of the Cartesian system, he reduced Descartes dualism to a substance Monism with two knowable attributes corresponding to Descartes two substances (thus solving Descartes' problem of interaction between mind and body).

Leibniz came along later in the Rationalist tradition and did all kinds of crazy stuff. I suspect, academically speaking, that he was a closet Spinozist (but not really a closet athiest, he was too much of a pietist for that).

Yet, in his writings, you find attempts to solve the logistical problems of theism.

I recommend reading Leibniz's Theodicy for a valiant effort at thwarting the problem of evil. It is NOT easy to pin Leibniz (the polymath genius that he was) down on this issue, as his argument SEEMS prima facie logically consistent. But there IS something quite fishy about it. (He says that there is evil because God picked the most harmonious world freely, out of moral-perfection, and thus when we sin (i.e. commit evil) we do so contingently, and therefore it could have been otherwise... and so is consistent with God's properties... it's a really difficult formulation of Theodicy to rebuke... not that it's impossible... I once gave it a go, but I'd have to go back and rework some things to make it stronger).

In any case, my point was that there is value in acknowledging the justificatory status of atheism, and theism. And that this status comes in degrees on both sides, regardless of the ultimately correct conclusion.

We can criticize theistic arguments on the justificatory structure, and so too can they of us. And that is how you can win a debate without being right. Or at least, without even considering whether you are right or not.

The atheist need only show that no theistic argument succeeds to be vindicated, since he can then say "I'm just waiting for the right argument before I believe." (following William Clifford's Ethics of Belief).

155. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87320 by Spinoza on November 11, 2007 at 7:55 pm

"We never called the IRA Catholic terrorists."

156. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87316 by Spinoza on November 11, 2007 at 7:44 pm

Baeoz, it's not about being happy, or clever, or "learned", it's about justification.

Truth is one thing, justification is another.

If a legion of atheists rises up, and only one in 50 of them has any semblance of the justificatory structure of their beliefs (liberal estimate, real number may be much much less, given my experience with atheist groups and this website), then WE (as a group) are no better than the theists, most of whom who only remain so because they are too lazy or jaded to think critically and carefully.

I am not annoyed because I think those whom I referred to as "idiot atheists" are INCAPABLE of becoming justified, it is, rather, that they don't seem to care.

You OUGHT to care.

The answer to "Why are you an atheist?" is not "Because there isn't a God.", the answer ought to be that you were persuaded by good argument (very specific ones) to reject beliefs that have weak or nil justification.

God-belief DOES have weak justification, and the atheists, in virtue of identifying themselves that way, have a duty to both explicate the weak justification for God-belief AND understand what they are logically entitled to conclude from that basis.

Dawkins is well within his boundaries, and his comments about Einstein belie his deep understanding of the problem.

I am worried about the developing and rampant cult-of-personality surrounding "The New Atheists".

To quote some revolutionaries (whom I actually disagree with largely, but who got it right when they said:)

Wake up! Wake up! Wake up! Wake up!
Wake up! Wake up! Wake up! Wake up!

How long? Not long, cause what you reap is what you sow

157. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87296 by Spinoza on November 11, 2007 at 5:18 pm

I am so tired of idiot atheists.

Those of you on this site who idolize Prof. Dawkins to the point of sexual desire, you DO do atheism a disservice by not educating yourself on just why Dawkins omits the things you wonder why he omits.

He is following a LONG tradition of intelligent atheism, one in which he is penultimate, but rests upon solid foundations he must utilize, or risk crumbling. (like a bridge).

Please atheists, learn some philosophy, some very very basic philosophy, or shut up.

(I await the expected lambasting I am going to incur).

158. Georgia plans service to pray for rain

Comment #86623 by Spinoza on November 9, 2007 at 6:14 pm

I see someone's been watching our videos...

Wasn't it just recently that that guy sang the song "Nothing Fails Like Prayer" (Freedom From Religion foundation?), where one of the lyrics goes "Better to check the report, before you pray for rain..."

OR something like that... kinda uncanny that this guy actually DID IT.

159. Pope's 'morning after pill' speech criticized

Comment #83906 by Spinoza on October 31, 2007 at 3:43 pm

Yeah that and I'm pretty sure it's not atheists who are obsessed with sex. Atheism just happens to be an effective way of liberating women and men from religious anti-sexuality...

What would be REALLY weird is an atheist who thinks female sexuality and homosexuality are immoral.

There's gotta be at least one 0_o

160. Internet used to target extremism

Comment #83890 by Spinoza on October 31, 2007 at 2:49 pm

I don't think that's fair Geoff.

I think this sort of thing is a very good idea... it has nothing to do with whether atheism is true, or whether religion is violent (two separate claims)... but with what sort of pragmatic applications can be developed to help combat extremism... and this IS one idea that may work.

We can't just ridicule or whine about every little initiative that has religion involved in it... that would be entirely unproductive...

I see nothing wrong with this at all!

161. What's the evolutionary advantage of offering your place to an old woman on a bus?

Comment #83010 by Spinoza on October 28, 2007 at 1:56 pm

A well functioning, moral, and courteous society is the ultimate evolutionary adaptation.

Q.E.D.

162. AAI 07

Comment #82818 by Spinoza on October 27, 2007 at 9:36 pm

Bloody brilliant talk. In all honesty, this talk ranks among the BEST EVER given on the subject. Perhaps it was because he has the same accent as my grandfather, and the same way of spinning a yarn... But I found myself saying "Wow, this guy has it exactly right... and notices the areas of weakness I've repeatedly noticed in the talks of the myriad other public atheists... and isn't afraid to point them all out."

Just brilliant.

And as for the arguments about libertarianism vs. socialism... well... I'll stay out of it, but will just briefly mention that the statistics seem to favour mild democratic social(istic) capitalism.

That is to say, the Scandinavian welfare states, and perhaps Canada.

163. '55 'Origin of Life' Paper Is Retracted

Comment #82557 by Spinoza on October 26, 2007 at 5:30 pm

Bravo, and kindest regards, Dr. Jacobson! (if you do indeed happen to Google your name again and run across this page)...

Absolutely brilliant.

164. Atheists don't believe in anything

Comment #82505 by Spinoza on October 26, 2007 at 1:45 pm

If you don't believe in God, you must not believe in anything.

165. Science and Religion BOTH make faith claims

Comment #82417 by Spinoza on October 26, 2007 at 9:04 am

Um, Mewtwo_X. That is false.

An axiom is just an unargued foundational assumption.

There are loads of theologians who use axioms in their arguments... (i.e. the axiom that there has to be a solution to an infinite regress.... which I think is false, but anyway... it's one that is used).

Using axioms doesn't have anything to do with this topic.

The answer to this topic is simple:

1. BAEOZ is sort of right. There are several meanings to the word "faith". Religious FAITH can mean EITHER "the leap of faith" (which was NOT first used by Kierkegaard, but by Jacobi) away from the problems of philosophical dogmatism (that is, Spinozism), or "THE faith", meaning "the acts of worship". The latter does not REQUIRE faith in the former sense... one could be an atheist and still act religiously.

2. By definition Science does not operate on faith, or make claims which rest on faith... but the very opposite... The scientist operates under the assumption that everything he is saying is falsifiable. (at least, since Popper).

The way religion uses "faith" is as a method of arriving at a solution without doing the work.

E.g.

An example of faith: The Crucifixion and miracle of the Resurrection of Christ are the gift of salvation for all those who accept it.

There is no way of PROVING that one's "soul" is "saved" merely by "accepting" Christ (as Saviour).

It is BY DEFINITION an article of faith... and is so central to Christianity that if you don't believe in it, you aren't a Christian.

On the other hand, let's use evolution as the example. The Scientist is not told "accept what we tell you as fact, or you cannot call yourself a scientist", and it isn't a case that evolution is "unprovable". On the contrary, the evidence can be arranged into a solid deductive proof for the evolution of life on Earth by natural selection (etc.)

This proof is not a guarantor of ABSOLUTE truth, which is to say, it is not meant to be assented to "in faith", but is meant to be subjected to rigorous testing, analysis, and the evidence.

It just so happens that certain scientific propositions are so well supported that the likelihood of their being disproved is near zero... but, of course, it is not QUITE zero.

And that is the difference.

166. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #82411 by Spinoza on October 26, 2007 at 8:48 am

Oh, and just so y'all know. Both of them got Spinoza's ontology wrong. LOL.

167. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #82409 by Spinoza on October 26, 2007 at 8:46 am

Comment #81513 by oxytocin:

Spinoza,
xianity may have done well in Fiji, but the same effect could have been achieved by sending in the police. Again, secular people could do the same thing that any theist could do. That xians show some form of human decency is something they do despite their barbarism, not because of it.

168. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #81517 by Spinoza on October 24, 2007 at 9:23 pm

Baeoz, either it works or nothing does, and if nothing does, then why is this thread here?

... The atheist's goal should not be to "convince" others at whatever cost, but to get things right...

And Plato's Euthyphro IS the answer to this question. 2500 years ago he solved the problem. If the theists don't understand it, there's not anything else which can be said.

169. You can't prove that you love someone, so don't expect proof of God

Comment #81510 by Spinoza on October 24, 2007 at 9:14 pm

Love is an empirical measurement of personal value and sacrifice.

170. Pascal's Wager

Comment #81509 by Spinoza on October 24, 2007 at 9:12 pm

You guys would make awful philosophers.

There is a reason philosophy is HARD. You have to come up with awesome analogies like mine that show the idiocy outright and clear as day.

171. You can't prove that you love someone, so don't expect proof of God

Comment #81489 by Spinoza on October 24, 2007 at 8:27 pm

This question originates in William James' "The Will To Believe."

You can CERTAINLY PROVE that SOMEONE loves YOU. (which is the actual problem, not that YOU love someone, since everyone knows when they love someone... since if you don't know if you love someone, then you don't).

William James gave the speech "The Will To Believe" as a response to William Clifford's "The Ethics of Belief", wherein it was argued that: "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for everyone to believe ANYTHING without sufficient evidence."

James' response (the pragmatist that he was) was to find examples of things we WANT to believe, but for which we have no evidence, but which BECOME TRUE AFTER we start believing in them, rather than being true a priori.

Love is his strongest example. And if fails prima facie.

I know my girlfriend loves me because she gives me lots and lots of hints. (EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE!!!)

If I was a philosophical skeptic, I would ask myself "Yeah, but how do I REALLY know she loves me, since she could just be ACTING, and the phenomenological state of ACTING would appear to me the same as the TRUE state."

But I'm not a skeptic, and anyway, the skeptic about love is just being silly, for reasons elucidated by NUMEROUS philosophers with regard to the Brain In A Vat scenario (see: Hilary Putnam, G.E. Moore, etc).

So there.

I'm going to answer every single one of these debate points with my awesome Philosopher Powers. :)

... I have been annoyed and disappointed by public atheists' rebuttals to these questions in the past, because philosophers answered all of them LONG ago.

172. Pascal's Wager

Comment #81487 by Spinoza on October 24, 2007 at 8:21 pm

If you don't believe in Phlogiston, you will be eternally pestered by ravenous rhinoceroses.

Therefore it's better to convince yourself to believe in Phlogiston, since if you're wrong, nothing bad happens, but if you don't believe in Phlogiston and you're wrong... you will suffer eternal rhino-damnation.

Q.E.D.

173. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #81485 by Spinoza on October 24, 2007 at 8:19 pm

Euthyphro.

Q.E.D.

174. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81362 by Spinoza on October 24, 2007 at 4:14 pm

Unfortunately, I have to say that there were several points that can charitably be given to D'Souza... though by proxy of the hard to understand Tongan man who asked the question about the cannibals of Fiji.

He had a valid point. The question is "Is Christianity the Problem?"... well, of course, Christianity HAS problems, and blind faith, dogmatism, gibberish, bad metaphysics, etc, are among them.

But in that particular case, I think the descendants of Fiji's cannibals are grateful for being provided with an escape from what would have been a WORSE religious morality.

Hitch's rebuttal to this claim was surprisingly weak and uncharitable... and for him to be consistent, he should have acknowledged that in that particular case, Christianity DID do something good. Namely, it stopped people from eating each other.

But, he should have argued, that does not excuse the myriad wrongs Christianity has with itself, NOR the fact that Christianity is ultimately a lie.

Just disappointed about that one particular point, and D'Souza did a much better job here than he did against Shermer (who was less formidable).

I should add, this criticism is on top of the fact that I wanted to punch Dinesh in the nose several times throughout that debate.

175. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78786 by Spinoza on October 14, 2007 at 11:40 pm

Good catch Quine!

176. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78782 by Spinoza on October 14, 2007 at 11:20 pm

Quine, well, ignorance is the antithesis of true acquiescence of spirit! ;-)

177. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78748 by Spinoza on October 14, 2007 at 5:21 pm

An honour.

Do not wear that name in vain, Professor Dawkins.

Bruno would be proud.

Regards and congrats.

178. Ayaan Hirsi Ali at AAI 07

Comment #78620 by Spinoza on October 13, 2007 at 10:38 pm

Ugh, Quine, that link is awful (there are some wacked out Spinoza sites that totally misunderstand him and have hard-to-follow versions of his works (probably with lots of typos and bad translations too).

This one is better: http://www.philosophyarchive.com/text.php?era=1600-1699&author=Spinoza&text=A%20Theologico-Political%20Treatise

Though it too has an idiosyncratic style of display and margin.

I actually, rather, recommend getting a PROPER, MODERN translation off Amazon... relatively cheaply... The Curley translation is the best, second best (and my favourite) is the Shirley translation.

Elwes is a bit dated, which is why you find his free on the internet.

179. Ayaan Hirsi Ali at AAI 07

Comment #78614 by Spinoza on October 13, 2007 at 9:39 pm

The Theoligico Political Treatise of my namesake philosopher is quite possibly the most brilliant dethroning ever manifested upon this earth.

If you are to read Infidel, I urge you also to read Spinoza's TTP.

You will not be disappointed.

180. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78612 by Spinoza on October 13, 2007 at 9:07 pm

"The religious believer says that moral integrity, self-introspection, honesty and trust are styles of living that connect with the character of an eternal and free agency, the agency most religions call God. Agree or disagree, but I would say to critics, at least grasp that that is being talked about. Often the atheist seems to be talking about something else."

181. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75845 by Spinoza on October 3, 2007 at 8:52 pm

I agree with nearly everything Sam says here 100%.

I have been saying such things for a LONG time... and getting shat on from both ends of the spectrum. Hehe.

182. Root and Branch

Comment #73956 by Spinoza on September 26, 2007 at 9:08 pm

Just an interesting point... Hacking is probably the most well-known Philosopher at my University... he was named one of the top 25 thinkers in the world by some French outfit (I forget).

.. Never met the guy, but he seems like a smart cookie.

LOL.

183. Crisis of faith in first secular school

Comment #72865 by Spinoza on September 23, 2007 at 9:21 am

Ok, I'm hijacking this post back to the stupid basic astronomy question from the show...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMFsuBlkoIQ&mode=related&search=

The question asks, "What rotates around the earth, the Moon, the Sun, Venus, or Mars?"

Now of course... the answer is the Moon. But the question itself is scientifically inaccurate. Technically, the moon does NOT rotate around the earth. It rotates around its own axis. However, it does REVOLVE around the earth. These facts I learned in 8th grade. So since we're talking about scientific literacy I just thought I'd point this out. Technically, the answer should be the earth rotates around the earth, not anything else.

Anyways, Neil deGrasse Tyson would have my back on this one. He can't stand inaccurate astronomy.

184. Is 'Do Unto Others' Written Into Our Genes?

Comment #72209 by Spinoza on September 20, 2007 at 2:28 pm

Uh, sorry, but metaethics still hasn't nailed down what moral judgments refer to... so this sort of claim is basically nonsense.

It needs to be made clear that what people SAY is "wrong" or "right", or even what people are APT to call moral or immoral, is not the same as things which are moral or immoral (either PER SE, or via some other description, depending on your metaethical stance).

""It is at least possible," he said, "that conservatives and traditional societies have some moral or sociological insights that secular liberals do not understand.""

185. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #72110 by Spinoza on September 20, 2007 at 11:01 am

Christ, (LOL) that debate is awful.

I'm sorry... Brian you sound CRAZY dude.

"Almost everybody on the internet knows it!"

WHAT THE FUCK?!

What is wrong with you!

186. Larry King Interviews Kathy Griffin

Comment #72075 by Spinoza on September 20, 2007 at 9:12 am

HOWEVER, Yorker also said this:

but most people in Edinburgh don't know who Hume was!

187. Larry King Interviews Kathy Griffin

Comment #72072 by Spinoza on September 20, 2007 at 9:06 am

We don't need more jaded college atheists, with brittle foundations of mere apathy or opposition, the Alister McGraths, the Francis Collins'. Atheists don't need to recruit for recruitments sake.

188. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #72043 by Spinoza on September 20, 2007 at 7:45 am

Yorker, actually the Simpsons joke was about the unemployment office no longer being just for philosophy majors, "useful people are now feeling the crunch".

189. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #72041 by Spinoza on September 20, 2007 at 7:38 am

Jiten, agree absolutely.

It still astounds me that I have had professors who are completely ignorant of basic science.

One of my goals as a grad student will be to try and move philosophy back toward its scientific roots (when science was called "natural philosophy") and to push the academic tradition to reject obscurantist positions like Midgley's.

190. Catholic school board in Halton may ban HPV vaccination

Comment #71639 by Spinoza on September 19, 2007 at 11:51 am

Well, just to be clear:

The vaccine, Gardasil®, protects against four HPV types, which together cause 70% of cervical cancers and 90% of genital warts.

191. Catholic school board in Halton may ban HPV vaccination

Comment #71631 by Spinoza on September 19, 2007 at 11:29 am

... On second thought.. never mind:

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/09/19/halton-hpv.html

They're not AS stupid as I thought.

192. Catholic school board in Halton may ban HPV vaccination

Comment #71622 by Spinoza on September 19, 2007 at 11:20 am

I live in Halton, and I went to a Catholic Highschool.

And I am PISSED about this.

FUCKING IDIOTS.

They think that it will "endorse" promiscuity.

That makes NO sense, given that we ALL had to get the Hepatitis B vaccine in grade 7 (age 13), and THAT is also an STD/needle-transmitted disease.

But it wasn't targetted at women, so it was okay.

Fucking MISOGYNISTIC BASTARDS!

AHHH I'm so fucking angry.

Hey Yorker, I feel you on this one.

I'm thinking of writing to the Champion (my hometown paper..) LAMBASTING the Catholic church for their idiocy.

Mandatory vaccines WILL result in some bad reactions and deaths... that is the price we pay for a CURE for a cancer that could potentially arise in over 80% of all females (approx. 80% have HPV).

AHHHH ASSHOLES.

193. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #71100 by Spinoza on September 17, 2007 at 8:25 pm

Lol, I think that Spinoza is simply trying to live up to the atheist characterization BlazingArrow. I know I've been called all of those things.

194. The Nonbelievers

Comment #71097 by Spinoza on September 17, 2007 at 8:19 pm

I feel a Spinoza rant coming on.....

195. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #71043 by Spinoza on September 17, 2007 at 4:04 pm

"Time to get over the fact that they will characterize us badly at every turn because that's the only thing they have as a defense against reality."

THEY?

Who's "they"???

I, sir, am not a faith-head. I'm the most atheist of atheists (a philosopher, a dogmatist, a nihilist, and a fatalist... all in one).

196. Argentine Church Faces 'Dirty War' Past

Comment #71041 by Spinoza on September 17, 2007 at 3:57 pm

Nails, Zeitgeist is a JOKE... it's worse than "What the Bleep Do We Know?"... which was a CULT sponsored propaganda movie.

Zeitgeist is worse because it's not fundamentally misunderstanding a difficult to understand theory (string theory), which can happen to anyone... but it actually fucks up royally over and over, inferring things that don't follow, and presenting things as fact that simply aren't true.

And I'm an atheist, have never had religion... so it's not like I have any vested interest in preserving some ridiculous "facts"... it's just that Zeitgeist actually gets quite a few "facts" wrong.

I had a long discussion about this awful movie a few weeks ago on another board and I really don't feel like doing the whole nit-picking thing all over again (I already watched the piece of shit once, and that's enough).

Perhaps someone else who happens to know some ancient history can enlighten us as to the many errors in the first section of that movie (not to mention the many errors in the rest of it, which became an extended, raving conspiracy-theory laden bunch of bullshit).

197. Argentine Church Faces 'Dirty War' Past

Comment #71024 by Spinoza on September 17, 2007 at 2:25 pm

Interesting article... Weird first two comments though.

Enemy-oriented stuff creeps me out.

198. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70883 by Spinoza on September 17, 2007 at 6:45 am

Man am I glad that outside of the internet crazy people on boths sides of the spectrum are not this pervasive.

199. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70762 by Spinoza on September 16, 2007 at 9:12 pm

I'd just like to point out that the assertion that an elitist such as myself has not watched a lot of TV is quite ridiculous.

I have watched every episode of The Simpsons at least 30 times (all 380 or so episodes are on my computer), and I can quote rhyme and verse from any episode ad nauseam.

For instance, this idiotic thread reminds me of two episodes in particular, the one where the Mensa-ites of Springfield took over when the mayor skipped town (switching to Metric time, and then quibbling over silly things and being handed their asses by Stephen Hawking was brilliant)... But the line in particular that this reminds me of is when Carl says "Yeah, let's make litter out of you literati!" and Lenny says "You're one of them!!!"

As well, cf. "HOMR", the episode where Homer has the crayon removed from his brain to increase his IQ 50 points (to 105!):

Homer: "Effigy eh?... Yeah, nothing burns like an effigy... Hey that's ME! Stop that, the fire inspector would be appalled!"

Fire Inspector: "Don't tell me how to feel! "

So yeah, keep calling me names...

But I'm not the one with the knee-jerk anger (this is what we literati refer to as irascibility), and the obsession with conversion.

Perhaps some of you former Fundies can't shake old habits?

200. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70747 by Spinoza on September 16, 2007 at 8:39 pm

I think that sounds like a load of bullshit. :)