201. Voyager 2 probe reaches solar system boundary

Comment #97961 by Don_Quix on December 12, 2007 at 10:08 pm

Seriously, this is really cool. I like how the Bow Shock looks like it is some fiery nuclear death blast in the graphic for the article. heheh.

I imagine when Voyager gets there in the next few hundred years or so (actually I don't know how long it will take for it to get there) it won't be nearly as dramatic. And like Russell's Teapot said we will have hopefully caught up to it by then :)

We truly live in enlightened times, despite the ancient metaphysical bullshit we deal with daily. Jesus never sent shit to the edge of the solar system :D

202. Voyager 2 probe reaches solar system boundary

Comment #97957 by Don_Quix on December 12, 2007 at 10:00 pm

Sweet! Termination Shock! That's going to be the name of my new metal band ;)

Go Voyager Go! Or should I say, V'GER. heheh.

203. U.S. Congress Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith

Comment #97948 by Don_Quix on December 12, 2007 at 9:39 pm

I'm confused too. But we're really in deep shit if this resolution has already been voted on and upheld. This has to be some kind of joke.

204. U.S. Congress Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith

Comment #97941 by Don_Quix on December 12, 2007 at 9:27 pm

WHAT THE FUCK JUST HAPPENED?

I demand a recount.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison are rolling in their graves.

This doesn't sound like MY secular representative republic ;)

205. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97934 by Don_Quix on December 12, 2007 at 9:03 pm

If I see this mortal wound become supernaturally healed, like it says in Revelation 13, I will believe in my head that the healing occurred as per the scientific method.

What are you talking about? Are you injured? If so, revelations will not help you.

Dial 911 immediately.

What I will not do is believe and follow, in the sense of becoming a believer in that person or putting my trust in them, or bragging about what they've done, or treating them with awe in humble reverence and submission.

Yet again, this makes no sense. What are you talking about? If you're being metaphorical, please provide some kind of example. Don't be vague, because it makes it impossible to respond in an intelligent way. Be specific.

206. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97928 by Don_Quix on December 12, 2007 at 8:53 pm

No, the idea is not to be gullible and believe everything you hear. You should want the proof before you believe it.

I 100% agree with you on this.

I am not talking about hearing a story and asking for proof. I am talking about the challenge that when you see proof you will believe and follow.

This doesn't really make any sense. Please elaborate.

When you ask for empirical evidence saying, "Show me the proof and I will believe", you are setting yourself up to become a believer once you have the proof.

It logically follows that once one is shown empirical evidence of something, one provisionally accepts that evidence until contradictory evidence is presented. That is called the scientific method...which is what spawned every single thing in the modern world which you now benefit from.

But I still don't think you understand what empirical evidence is.

Just because you see a great supernatural miracle doesn't mean you should bow down and worship at the altar of that miracle or miracle-worker.

I 100% agree with you on this.

Let me qualify that by saying I don't believe there are or have ever been any "supernatural miracles" or "miracle-workers". But I agree with the basic premise of your statement ;)

207. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97920 by Don_Quix on December 12, 2007 at 8:41 pm

Are you laughing about the impossibility of producing empirical evidence for a past historical event?

No I was laughing at your complete misunderstanding of what empirical evidence is, and that you chose the worst possible example of things for which "there is no evidence" (ie - the holocaust). You basically just made yourself sound like a holocaust denier.

208. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97908 by Don_Quix on December 12, 2007 at 8:22 pm

hahahah. I just don't know what else to say after that. I'll let my cousins from across the pond take this one on ;)

209. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97895 by Don_Quix on December 12, 2007 at 8:01 pm

I follow modern theology very closely, and I don't see how any more proof that Jesus existed would turn it on its head.

Please provide empirical evidence of this "proof". Words written in books, and the opinions of people (even respected theological scholars or religious figures) based on hearsay is not empirical evidence.

What would be a complete turn around is if Jesus' body were discovered on earth. That would turn all of history on its head.

That wouldn't turn all of history on it's head necessarily, but it would certainly prove Jesus was just a man and didn't "physically" ascend to the heavens as some claim. It would also challenge a lot of peoples' beliefs.

However, I am sure you and I would be in agreement that this will probably never happen. You believe this because you believe in the lies you have been taught throughout your life, and I believe this because there is no empirical evidence such a person ever existed.

For the people I know who know without a doubt that God exists

Evidence, please.

it isn't because other people persuaded them.

No, they persuaded themselves after being influenced by books of fiction (such as the bible). Their beliefs in those books of fiction were then reinforced by others with similar irrational beliefs based on fiction.

All non-Abrahamic religions (and even some of the Abrahamic ones) find your particular beliefs just as fictional as I do. This should tell you something.

It is because God made Himself known to them.

Evidence, please.

The people who only know that God exists because someone else or because a book persuaded them are just operating with their heads and their hearts, but the people who know God personally are knowing Him with their spirits.

I know you think this is a profound thing to say, but it is meaningless to anyone with critical thinking skills who hasn't been brainwashed by a cult. Again, evidence, please.

He takes up residence within those who put their trust in Him, and makes a brand new person on the inside. That doesn't happen just from knowing that God exists or from believing that He exists.

You sure seem to know a lot about God and the nature of God. Specifically how he operates and what his intentions are. Since that is the case, you should have no problem providing evidence, please.

I have no desire to be president of the world

Well, I don't blame you there. I wouldn't want to be president of the world either. Too much paperwork. I just meant it would be a likely natural consequence of you proving Jesus/God existed where everyone else has totally failed.

nor to convince a whole lot of people that God exists.

Really? It seems like most people I encounter who have an irrational faith in God base the majority of their existence and their worth as a person on convincing others that a God exists. Interesting.

If God doesn't do the convicting Himself, everything I do is in vain foolish pride.

Well God certainly is known for doing a lot of convicting for no good reason, but if you meant convincing, then I certainly agree :)

Why would God need you or anyone else to make himself known to us? Answer: He wouldn't.

I'll check out that nobeliefs.com, but it won't be the first time that I've read something like that

And it probably won't be the last.

I've been around the block.

Haven't we all? :)

210. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #97875 by Don_Quix on December 12, 2007 at 6:48 pm

Fuck off.

Seriously, I think you're beating up on the mentally ill. Which isn't nice. Although it is kind of funny to watch. ;)

211. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #97867 by Don_Quix on December 12, 2007 at 6:35 pm

Trying to have a rational conversation about the bible with someone like this is just like trying to convince a schizophrenic psychopath that the voices in their head are lying to them when the voices insist that it is perfectly reasonable to assassinate the president in order to win over the love of Jodie Foster. ;)

I suspect that you actually are arguing with a schizophrenic regarding the voices in his head. There's really no point.

212. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97332 by Don_Quix on December 11, 2007 at 10:32 pm

Shrommer -

Please provide empirical evidence that Jesus existed. If you can do this, you will turn modern theology on its head, and you will be hailed as the greatest historian and archaeologist who has ever lived. You will win the Nobel Prize, and you will probably get elected president of the world for life. You may also convince a whole lot of people that God actually exists.

You clearly have no comprehension of what empirical evidence is (hint: it's not anything you read in the bible, or anything that your pastor tells you). Seriously, read a book.

You may want to start with a website or two. Here's one to get you going:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

213. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97325 by Don_Quix on December 11, 2007 at 10:05 pm

Oh wait, I spoke too soon.

What we should do is base our philosophy of life on our experience with the material world.

I agree, and this is exactly what I was saying. You clearly were not, because you just said:

We've seen Jesus come and work amazing things in people's lives,

No, you never saw this. You read this in a nearly 2000 year-old book of mythological stories that was based on hearsay written down by people who weren't even born until hundreds of years after the alleged events in that book supposedly took place.

and then come back from the dead in a special kind of body.

No, people do not come back from the dead. When people die, they are dead forever. I wish people came back from the dead because there are many people whom I have known and loved who are now dead that I would like to see again and never will. Unfortunately, this is not how the world works

This is the hinge on which human history turns.

The vast majority of human history occurred millions of years before the mythological fables you are referring to were even thought of, much less written down. Human history hinges on the things that humans do, not the events in mythological stories written down by ignorant men with a political agenda who didn't even know how to construct a proper toilet.

He wasn't a spook in the sky, but a flesh and blood person like ourselves. We got to see, hear, and touch him.

No, you read about an allegedly flesh and blood person in a book that was written by ignorant humans thousands of years ago. There is no...zero...none...nada...physical or historical evidence that the person you read about ever actually existed. YOU did not get to see, hear, or touch him. Neither did anyone you know or anyone who is alive today.

The things you believe are simply false. I'm sorry.

214. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97312 by Don_Quix on December 11, 2007 at 9:46 pm

Shrommer -

I'm sorry if my reasons for existence don't satisfy you. I don't have any more answers than this. Ultimately you have to choose your own reasons for existence. I can't choose them for you. I have simply tried to express the reasons for which I justify my own existence to myself. It's not my responsibility to find your reasons for existence for you. Good luck, and I wish you all the best in your quest.

215. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97288 by Don_Quix on December 11, 2007 at 9:05 pm

Shrommer -

I don't think you are quite getting what is being said here. There is no soul. There is no magic life force. There is no God or judgment. There is just biological life doing what biological life does. Fighting, fleeing, feeding, and fucking long enough that they can (hopefully) create the next generation which will do the same thing, and perhaps evolve a little bit in the process.

Ask a seal or a water buffalo if it feels like there is no meaning to life. It's doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing. So are we.

Seriously, I know you're doing your best to be deep and meaningful here, but there really is no need to look beyond the obvious. We are here to reproduce. Anything beyond that which we can come up with to make our existence or the existence of those after us more pleasant is just icing on the cake.

Again, if you don't feel that simply being alive, being happy and making others happy is a good enough reason to exist, then I don't know what to tell you. I guess I'd hate to be you :D

There are of course many many more rational and valid reasons that a human being could come up with to justify their existence, but the main three I've mentioned (reproduction, personal happiness, and spreading happiness to others) are pretty much the basics. There is no need for any other external reason for existence.

We are here because we are here, and we are what we are. Make the best of it for yourself, and try to make the world a better place for future generations, or die. That's all there is to it. But I usually prefer being alive to being dead, myself :)

216. The Pagan Christ

Comment #97265 by Don_Quix on December 11, 2007 at 8:28 pm

albondigas:

Are you saying that any person who believes in God can't be a productive member of society? Sounds like it when you use a phrase like 'waste your entire life'.

Not at all. Many people who have false beliefs lead very productive lives regardless of the positive or negative benefit their lives have on society. I didn't mean it as an insult to you personally, although now that I read it I see how it may have come across that way. If you took it that way, I apologize. :)

I guess what I meant to say is that I find it completely baffling that people can waste such a large amount of their time and energy on something so utterly unsupported by even the slightest shred of evidence whatsoever (re: belief in the Abrahamic sky-daddy God). Not just something that *may* not be a fact, but something that *almost absolutely certainly* is not a fact (based on all the evidence available to us). It is exactly the same thing as basing your decisions and your entire worldview on the idea that unicorns might actually exist and care about what happens to you. It just doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me.

I don't find the views you have expressed particularly offensive, I just can't comprehend how you arrive at them.

However, I do find it very offensive that many people (not you necessarily, but many people) intentionally screw up my country and retard the progress of science and society in order to promote and maintain the views they base on their completely irrational, unalterable, and evidentially-unsupported ancient mythical belief systems.

217. Functional Neuroimaging of Belief, Disbelief, and Uncertainty

Comment #97243 by Don_Quix on December 11, 2007 at 7:50 pm

It's an emoticon for "heart" or "love". If you turn your head sideways to the right, it looks vaguely like a heart. You must not have been on the internet long or never used any sort of text messaging program ;) <- that means wink wink

218. Functional Neuroimaging of Belief, Disbelief, and Uncertainty

Comment #97226 by Don_Quix on December 11, 2007 at 7:20 pm

oh my Don_Quix- I love seeing Carl Sagan...<3

I miss him too :~)

I often wonder what his thoughts on the so-called "new atheist movement" would be if he were alive today. He still lives through his writings and speeches, but it's not the same as having him and his incredible insight and intellect (not to mention communication skills) fighting the good fight with us :)

219. Atheists don't believe in anything

Comment #97218 by Don_Quix on December 11, 2007 at 6:47 pm

Destroyer wrote:

If one does not believe in God then the tendency is to BELIEVE that ONLY matter exists.

No, then the tendency is to provisionally accept (not believe) whatever there is actual empirical evidence for at this time, which is that only matter exists. This is not to say that it is impossible for God to exist (nothing can be absolutely disproven). But it is extremely unlikely for God to exist based on the current evidence available at this time. Whether you believe in God or not has nothing to do with the factual nature of matter.

If one believes that matter is all that there is then this is a metaphysical supposition which equates to faith without evidence, as consciousness has to be discounted.

No, a matter of faith is when one believes something without evidence, and/or when one continues to believe something even when evidence to the contrary of the belief is presented. If one provisionally accepts something based on the best currently available evidence, that is called science (or reason, or just using your brain). The difference between faith and science is that when science is confronted with new evidence, and that evidence turns out to be valid, science can accept it and change whatever idea or theory that new evidence modifies. Faith, on the other hand, cannot modify itself in the face of new evidence.

220. Functional Neuroimaging of Belief, Disbelief, and Uncertainty

Comment #97204 by Don_Quix on December 11, 2007 at 5:53 pm

Yes very, very cool.

Better yet, let's round up all the presidential candidates and run them through this test to see if they really believe the shit they're trying to sell us...and also how many of them are actually atheists XD

221. The Pagan Christ

Comment #97158 by Don_Quix on December 11, 2007 at 2:16 pm

but as it is, I believe both that God exists and the claims of Jesus.

Based on absolutely no evidence, because there is none. The only "evidence" are a collection of mythical self-contradictory stories written nearly 2,000 years ago by ignorant men hundreds of years after the alleged events took place who claim the stories are true because the stories themselves say they are true.

How is it that one can waste your entire life, the only one you will ever have, on such unsubstantiated, circular-logic nonsense?

222. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97101 by Don_Quix on December 11, 2007 at 12:11 pm

Well, well ... what do you know.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/12/atheist-killers.html

Heh. Breitbart is now reporting that the killer was not only NOT an atheist, but he was in fact from a highly religious family, AND he killed himself. He was not killed by the "hero security guard whose hand was guided by God". Apparently he was upset for being kicked out of the missionary training program a few years back.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TFEJO00&show_article=1

This is what happens when people form opinions based on beliefs and not on evidence. I doubt we'll see any retractions from the theists who were blaming atheists for the shootings, though ;)

223. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #97060 by Don_Quix on December 11, 2007 at 10:55 am

As a sceptic

(spoken in Church Lady voice)

A skeptic of what I wonder? ...hmmmmm.....

Could it be...

EVOLUTION!

While theologians have interrogated their beliefs for millennia, secular humanists have yet to question their simple creed. Evangelical atheism is the mirror image of the faith it attacks - without that faith's redeeming doubts.

Again, always equating atheism with secular humanism. I guess going by his logic that makes Stalin a secular humanist.

Does. Not. Follow.

224. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #96791 by Don_Quix on December 10, 2007 at 11:00 pm

No, it doesn't say Church, nor does it yet say Sin. But aside from that, what more could you want.

Is there a burning bush? If there isn't a burning bush then forget about it!

Just kidding. I'll probably go see it this weekend ;)

225. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96781 by Don_Quix on December 10, 2007 at 10:35 pm

Guess I withstood my hazing.
Am I in the frat now, fellas?

Get OUT.

Nah I'm just kidding. Have a beer. It don't cost nothin'.

226. Laugh at Sudan

Comment #96779 by Don_Quix on December 10, 2007 at 10:34 pm

Paging Pat Condell to the "An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins" thread. The pope and a certain catholic priest require a lashing from your scathing wit :D

227. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96760 by Don_Quix on December 10, 2007 at 9:59 pm

Agreed. So we are born areligious.

Finally! We are all in agreement! Hooray! Meeting ajourned.

But how can we say that we are born atheist?

I think this whole thing started when several of us confused the terms areligious with atheistic. However, I also think it is somewhat of a distinction without a difference. Children SEEM to be born without any knowledge or belief in religion (areligious - which I'm not sure is actually a word). So by definition, they would SEEM to be atheistic (one who believes in no deity).

228. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96738 by Don_Quix on December 10, 2007 at 9:42 pm

Is sinful Messiah claiming that we are all born Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc and then we winnow away those religions which just don't happen to coincide with our parents religion?

I don't know! That's what I'm trying to find out.

229. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96734 by Don_Quix on December 10, 2007 at 9:36 pm

Interesting strawman on what I was saying. Nowhere did I say anything about detailed knowledge of any specific deity or deities.

No, it's not a strawman. It's an honest question that I posited since "what you were saying" wasn't much, and I was having difficulty drawing your meaning from what little was there.

What has been demonstrated, however, is that we are not born as a blank slate. Unless you disagree? Are you a blank slate theorist?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you asking me if I believe that human beings are born with pre-existing academic knowledge? If so, then of course I certainly disagree. However I wouldn't describe myself as a "blank slate theorist" (whatever that is).

Human beings are born with many "built-in" reflexes and instincts. One of those instincts is to latch on to mamma and listen to everything she tells you. This is what leads many people to hypothesize that there is a built-in mechanism in the human brain that leads people to seek out and listen to authority figures. This could be one possible explanation for the existence of religion.

I'm sorry but I just can't seem to get your point here. I understand you don't like it when people make claims without reasons or evidence (rightly so), but you seem to be on both sides of the issue you are arguing. It is confusing.

230. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96708 by Don_Quix on December 10, 2007 at 9:05 pm

If you are to make a claim like, "We are all born atheists," be prepared to defend it. Obviously the data is not completely in here. It's a discussion that we can have.

But you two are being dogmatic with your absolutism.

Would it be fair to say "we are all born without detailed knowledge of organic chemistry"? Or is that being too dogmatic?

If you agree with that statement, then to me it seems that saying "we are all born without detailed knowledge of a magical sky-fairy" would also be a valid statement.

If you don't agree with that statement, then I must be misunderstanding what you are trying to get across here.

231. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #96701 by Don_Quix on December 10, 2007 at 8:55 pm

*Cue looney toons music*

232. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #96682 by Don_Quix on December 10, 2007 at 8:26 pm

It's people like this that reaffirm my belief (oops...maybe I should say suspicion...heheh) that the fervent acceptance of religion is a form of mental illness to varying degrees in different people. Some people have mild forms of the illness and are able to manage it without it affecting their lives too much. While others go off the deep end and are almost entirely consumed by their horrible affliction.

Or perhaps it is just that the mentally ill, or those with the propensity towards mental illness, are more susceptible to the rantings and ravings present in the ancient texts. Maybe they see all the madness as a reflection of themselves and find it somehow comforting. I don't know.

Seek professional help.

Sincerely,
- The Lord

233. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #96664 by Don_Quix on December 10, 2007 at 8:02 pm

Sorry I didn't mean to steal your thunder. I just have a compulsion to go for the jugular occasionally :)

234. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #96646 by Don_Quix on December 10, 2007 at 7:39 pm

The molecules we inhabit have meaning because a person exists inside, and uses the human anatomy and physiology as a house.

No, I'm afraid we do not "inhabit" our molecules. Our molecules ARE us, just like the molecules of your chair ARE your chair. There is no special, ethereal "soul" floating around inside each of your cells and guiding your DNA to replicate.

Consciousness, self-awareness, and intelligence are an emergent property of having trillions of brain cells networked together in close proximity to one another. The increasing complexity of human brains came about over millions of years by evolution through natural selection because it provided our distant ancestors with an evolutionary advantage. It did not come about because we somehow got imparted with some magical new age life force.

Forgive me if this is not what you meant, but it sure sounds like it.

The question I'm asking here is not whether anything else can do a better job of imparting meaning to the person, but whether there really is any meaning at all to begin with. If there isn't, then there is no sense at all to "creating meaning" or "deriving meaning" or "imparting meaning" or "seeking meaning". It all becomes a dead end.

The ultimate meaning of life you are looking for is very simple. It is as follows:

Survive long enough to reproduce.

Period. That is all. Full stop.

Now as thinking beings with intelligence, emotions, and creativity, we are fortunate enough to be able to find our own reasons for living in addition to this. There is no need for any other "higher purpose" outside of life itself, but if you really really require a higher purpose, then do something that makes you happy and try to make others happy. Doing this increases the chances of humanity's continued survival, and allows future generations to continue to advance technologically and biologically so that they can also find their own reasons for existing. They will probably have better luck than us, hopefully.

If you don't think that is a good enough reason for your continued existence, then I don't know what to tell you.

235. A Call For a Presidential Debate on Science and Technology

Comment #96620 by Don_Quix on December 10, 2007 at 7:06 pm

I would be in favor of this if the format of the debate included a number of well-known scientists in various fields who would be responsible for correcting each politician every time they said something regarding science that was ignorant or untrue. Of course this would mean the scientists would be doing most of the talking. I guess that wouldn't be a bad thing ;)

Otherwise, it's just another forum for the candi-dolts to spout nonsense and talking points about things they don't understand.

The US constitution stipulates that there can be no "religious test" to be a candidate for political office. However, it has no prohibition against there being any kind of "scientific test". Wouldn't it be great if all candidates actually had to take some kind of science and/or intelligence exam to be eligible for office? "Oh, I see here that you scored moderately well on your SAT, but yet you claim you don't 'believe' in evolution. Next!" Yeah I know...wishful thinking. :)

236. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96574 by Don_Quix on December 10, 2007 at 6:09 pm

The whole Hitler/Stalin/Mao thing really needs to be put to bed. It has been (for us), but I'm not sure if it really has in a large public venue. This would be a great opportunity for a simultaneous smackdown of this sanctimonious Father Morris prick and his fallacious argument.

Hitler/Stalin/Mao DID NOT KILL IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM OR EVEN AS A CONSEQUENCE OF BEING ATHEISTS (Hitler certainly wasn't one).

Hitler/Stalin/Mao DID KILL TO CONSOLIDATE THEIR POWER AND ELIMINATE GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS WHO THEY PERCEIVED AS POTENTIAL POLITICAL ENEMIES. Many of Hitler's specific atrocities were also influenced by his religiosity...particularly his personal twisted synthesis of CATHOLIC Christianity and ancient Germanic mythology, along with a good dose of mysticism and pseudoscience.

The fact that a few of the 20th century's despots may have been atheists is entirely inconsequential. Imagine how many people might have been killed if any of them HAD been devoutly religious and believed that their GAWD specifically told them to kill everyone who stood in their way or posed a threat to the one true religion. The slaughter would be unimaginable.

But good old "Father Jon" already knows all this. He's just trying to make a name for himself in the media as a "defender of the faith" in the hopes that one day he might get a nice, cozy upper-management position (Bishop? Archbishop?...hey Pope sounds nice!).

237. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96554 by Don_Quix on December 10, 2007 at 5:47 pm

Sorry, I can't, I have 100,000,000 people to exterminate before 11am tomorrow. It's going to be an all-nighter.

238. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96545 by Don_Quix on December 10, 2007 at 5:36 pm

Oh I don't even know where to start on this. What a sad and restricted world view.

239. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #96536 by Don_Quix on December 10, 2007 at 5:26 pm

Is he ignorant, stupid, a liar or all of the above?

The pope has indirectly apologized for some of these things, so the church is completely free from all guilt, liability, and responsibility to its victims now.

Anything he hasn't apologized for is all the fault of those evil atheists. ;)

240. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #96530 by Don_Quix on December 10, 2007 at 5:15 pm

It is the #1 movie in America and grossed $25 million over the weekend. I'd hardly call that a flop. Worldwide I imagine it will almost certainly turn a substantial profit. Not counting DVD sales.

I haven't read any of these books or seen the movie. From what little I have heard and read about it on the Internet, I don't really see how it is "anti-religion", other than it depicting authority figures trying to control peoples' lives (a common theme in fantasy fiction). It sounds like it takes place in an alternate universe. I think the Catholic League was successful in setting up a strawman which they then successfully knocked down.

And ease up on demonizing Catholicism-no other religion has done more to promote human rights, science and goodwill

This guy is living in a fantasy world much grander than any of those depicted in the movies.

241. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96503 by Don_Quix on December 10, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Yes, but a picture of Paine with some message about rationalism would go right over the heads of most believers. Our message is not really a positive one. We're saying DON'T BELIEVE that crap! I'm not sure how you present that as a positive message.

That is an interesting point, walk. Especially considering the audience that we are targeting our message towards...some of which aren't the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree.

One of the reasons I think Christianity is attractive to a lot of people, especially in the west, is because of its dubiously optimistic "good news" (Some guy got nailed to a piece of wood a long time ago and now you can live forever if you let us think for you! Hooray!).

Atheism and whatever "movement" atheism represents could definitely benefit from a positive, optimistic, widespread PR campaign. You have to think of it like you are trying to sell a product. You want to come up with succinct ways to promote the product in the most positive light possible, all of which can be easily and instantly understood by your target audience.

I agree that, as it stands right now, "we" (such as we are) are trying to sell a negative which once practiced tends to lead to positives (self-liberation, benefits of science, truly ethical morality), whereas Christianity is trying to sell a positive which once practiced tends to lead to negatives (self-loathing, oppression, mass-murder, etc).

Because of the nature of the initial messages being "sold" (positive vs. negative), the Christians have an easier time convincing the unwashed masses than atheists do.

As atheists, we need to come up with some way to present atheism and rationality in a positive light. Granted, it's difficult to compete with the "eternal life in a better place" promise of Christianity, except to counter that rationalism and science may very well one day bring us all REAL eternal life in a better place (or at least something close to it) and that, unlike Christianity, there is at least some evidence that this could happen (science has a track record of improving peoples' lives, religion does not, etc).

242. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96468 by Don_Quix on December 10, 2007 at 3:17 pm

One of the Darwin fish eating the Jesus fish with the caption, "Sorry, I was designed this way!"

Wait, no, that wouldn't work. LOL.

243. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96437 by Don_Quix on December 10, 2007 at 2:33 pm

I am all for multi-culturalism but culture and religion are not tied at the hip, and should not be.

Heh yes. And if "atheism is a religion", as many theists claim it is, wouldn't it be absolutely correct and proper for atheist symbols and sentiments to be displayed right next to the symbols and sentiments of other religions?

244. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96435 by Don_Quix on December 10, 2007 at 2:26 pm

Nooo, now you're being thick. Theists are as a group being associated with mass murder -- that's an attack.

Soooo...if this is the sign's implication, and some people take offense to it, the sign shouldn't be displayed? Even if it's the truth?

245. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96427 by Don_Quix on December 10, 2007 at 2:13 pm

But can you think of ANY unmistakeably atheist sign that WOULDN'T have had those people jumping up and down in anger and agitation?

Yes, this was exactly the point of my question earlier. It seems that even something that didn't say or infer "atheist" on it would cause the same reaction. Even something like a big smiley face wearing a Santa hat saying "Happy Holidays! Think for yourself!" or "Season's Greetings! Be rational!" would be considered an attack.

Unless you are actively promoting one of the three popular religions, you will cause offense to someone, and be accused of attacking them. The problem isn't that you are promoting some other way of thinking, it's that you aren't promoting THEIR way of thinking.

246. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96419 by Don_Quix on December 10, 2007 at 1:56 pm

To say that it's like our having to look at Christian displays is ridiculous to me. They're not saying that our worldview is responsible for a horrible terrorist attack when they put up a cross, for Christ's sake!

No, they are saying we will all burn in hell for all eternity if we do not convert to their faith and accept Jesus Christ as our lord and savior. It's perfectly benign and humane.

Can we show a litte humanity, my fellow atheists?

Are you kidding? How is it "inhumane" to put up a sign? I'll be happy to shut up as soon as religionists stop trying to convert everyone to their dangerous irrational beliefs, stop interfering in the progress of science, and stop interfering in the running of my country. Until then, sorry.

247. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96385 by Don_Quix on December 10, 2007 at 1:09 pm

I have a serious question:

It seems that anything that is displayed anywhere by any group that is not in direct support of one of the three major religions is considered "offensive" and "an attack". Is it possible to have any kind of display in the winter season that would promote the idea of reason and critical thinking that would NOT be offensive to other religions?

If the answer to this is no, and we are afraid of "offending" people, then we have a serious problem.

248. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96375 by Don_Quix on December 10, 2007 at 1:03 pm

They are people based on the ideas they hold. I don't consider a child born to a Jewish mother to be a Jew until he or she decides they want to be a Jew.

Sure, although a lot of people who consider themselves jewish would disagree with you on that point. But what I'm trying to say is that there is a distinct difference between the implications made by the phrases "Imagine No Judaism" and "Imagine No Jews".

249. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96372 by Don_Quix on December 10, 2007 at 12:59 pm

I do not consider "Jews" to be a people any more so than I consider "Catholics" to be a people.

They are both widely recognized demographic groups of people. They are not a "belief" or an "idea". Saying imagine no "Jews" or imagine no "Catholics" could only be taken to mean that you are proposing people imagine that those groups of people no longer exist.

250. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96359 by Don_Quix on December 10, 2007 at 12:46 pm

Stalin was crusading for the eradication of religion.

No, Stalin was crusading for his own power and deification. Period.