251. Christopher Hitchens to God: Drop Dead

Comment #41907 by konquererz on May 17, 2007 at 9:38 am

The problem is that she doesn't see how religion in general not only leaves open the door for fundamentalism, but it creates it. All religion is founded on a holy book or sacred texts. When those texts condone and speak of murder, rape, and other vicious acts, then the sacred texts become the problem. As long as what you believe in can be interpreted as something bad, then it will always be a problem with the religion that follows that scripture. Religion is no separate from fundamentalism because they all stem from the same 'holy' texts, which is what makes religion dangerous. This could all be solved by following a book that condoned nothing but peace, helping the poor and down trodden, and treating others as you want to be treated. It would be a boring read and much shorter, but it wouldn't cause fundamentalism. Thus the texts themselve, the foundation of religion ultimately cause the problem. No, there is no separation, religion is either bad or good, and its definitely not good.

252. Dobson, Armageddon, and Foreign Policy

Comment #41898 by konquererz on May 17, 2007 at 9:24 am

Well that explains why bush simply refuses to follow 99% of the tenets of the 9/11 commission. He has to leave us open for nuclear attack by the terrorists to fulfill prophecy. Or because he is a buffoon, I can't decide which.

Freaking crazy fundys, wish Armageddon would come, just for them, and decrease the surplus of crazy people pushing our government towards apocalyptic sacrifice!

253. God grief

Comment #41885 by konquererz on May 17, 2007 at 9:06 am

I understand what the person is saying in the critique, however, he falls short on several points. Mainly on the idea that reason can't replace religion. Well, yes it can. When there isn't any religion or god, you are forced to deal with the truth on your own. Its the next evolutionary step of the mind, dealing with problems without an imaginary friend to comfort us. Truth doesn't hurt more than lies, truth simply forces you to deal with it sooner.

Hitchens book is exactly what he says it is. But he fails to see the beauty of God is not Great. Dawkins and Harris sublimely address every issue involved with religion and explain how god is simply not needed and saying he exists doesn't make it so. In the fight again irrational belief systems, Harris and Dawkins are trained boxers, making hard strikes in the right places gaurding their sides perfectly and out matching their opponents.

Hitchens is more like a street fighter. You get hit from behind, ear bitten off, kicked in the nutz, but you still lose the fight. Its not pretty but it still does the damage. In many ways, Hitchens book addresses a different type of person, someone that only understands beligerant insults and doesn't understand the high minded reason of say The End of Faith, or The God Delusion. He is reaching a different audience, a much needed audience. That is evidenced by the enormous rising up against his book.

Why is he getting so much publicity when the other books still on the best sellers list are much better? Because he didn't continue the boxing match with religion, he started a fist fight outside the ring, he took it to another front. Its not pretty, its not poetic, but someone still got hit.

254. Bible drawn into Hong Kong sex publication row

Comment #41866 by konquererz on May 17, 2007 at 8:18 am

Its amazing, during bible study with my wife (which incidentally led to my deconversion) we questioned the rape and incest incidents as to why they were in there, what they taught, and what they actually lent to human morality. The answer is nothing, its there for fun, for the sick reader. I think its funny that someone who didn't KNOW the bible accussed it of being obscene and then the pastor didn't KNOW the bible either! Classic!

255. In Loving Memory of William Luke Ashton: July 10th 1989 - Dec 25th 2006

Comment #41643 by konquererz on May 16, 2007 at 12:58 pm

Wow, reading that excerpt from Unweaving the Rainbow, read in this context, nearly brought tears to my eyes. Nothing can replace the beauty of the human life. Its a tragic happenstance for such a young life to be extinquished. My sympathies for your family and his friends, I am sorry for your lose. May time console the grieving heart and remembering his life bring you joy.

256. Pope Warns of Globalization, Marxism

Comment #41605 by konquererz on May 16, 2007 at 11:43 am

Its more evidence of the disintegration of the church. They have priests disagreeing with the Pope, atheists of Fox news, Popes not realizing (some how) just how delusional they sound denouncing a return to post catholic culture in a country where it was forced on them. Its the sound of rattling in the joints, and the Pope let it scream loud and proud in another brilliant speech. I hope this continues, people aren't stupid, they are just blind. It takes a sound, not light, to wake a blind man.

257. Brazil's Indians Offended by Pope Comments

Comment #41571 by konquererz on May 16, 2007 at 10:17 am

So says the Pope, so says the Catholic church! Well, apparently not in this case. I think its a good sign that priests and such will openly criticize the Pope. Its not been favorable in the past, the Pope talks directly to god, or so its said. Its silly to see too religions arguing about who is best, but its a basic fabrication tear in the wool of christianity.

258. Hitchens' flat world

Comment #41557 by konquererz on May 16, 2007 at 9:50 am

I still think Hitchens is a piggy backer, but he serves the purpose to continue the attack on superstition and challenging people to think for themselves, rationally, even when the arguement is decidedly weaker than say, The End of Faith, or The God Delusion. But I think he hit a different nerve and created a different wound. He went from "theres no good reason to believe in god" to "believing in god is poison to humanity" which is much harsher than either Harris or Dawkins.

259. Hitchens' flat world

Comment #41547 by konquererz on May 16, 2007 at 9:33 am

Wow, I believe this is called a boiling point. First Harris, then Dennett, then Dawkins, and now Hitchens, and its hit the boiling point. Now they are mad, frustrated, because their faith has been sucessfully challenged in main stream. They started by ignoring, then ridicule, then discussion, now they just yell and claim its all wrong wrong wrong! Its totally laughable in my opinion. I love watching this reaction become more and more vitrolic as the fundys claim is atheists being rude and violent and angry. Its actually funny, I expected Dawkins book to create this reaction, not Hitchens. I expected Hitchens release to be more of a piggy backer, but instead, its created its on maelstrom from the religious community to the point where they now say things like "the book was redundant and boring and nonsensicle and played out" yet they continue to argue and rail against his book. That is a sign that its really hitting a cord in the fundy community. And being a former fundy myself, I can tell you I know some fundys that aren't taking these books lightly. Talking with a few online, they believe that their faith is under attack, that these people seek to dismantle and eliminate religion from the face of the earth. You know what I tell them? DAMN RIGHT!

260. Atheists with Attitude: Why do they hate Him?

Comment #41537 by konquererz on May 16, 2007 at 8:58 am

Isn't it a little difficult to hate what you don't believe exists? Thats like saying that you hate the man in the moon, or the celestial teapot, or zeus. Not believing is not the same as hating, hating means you believe that the object of hate actually exists. However, I do so destest much of religion.

But its not a hate, any more than I hate bad political ideas. I may not like them, but not hate them. I don't like President Bush, but I don't hate him. It takes allot to bring the emotion of hate into the picture. But firmly believing that someone is wrong and indeed harming others, don't you have a moral obligation to say something?

And whats frustrating about this article is the complete dismisal with no arguement of most of the atheists arguements. He doesn't bother to really argue any of the arguement but basically says that he either doesn't like the arguement, doesn't agree with it, or doesn't understand it and so he dismisses it like its a fools errand. What an arrogant prick. The article isn't good, its a proof of what kind of person that reason has to over come, the kind that simply ignores logical because he doesn't like it.

261. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41441 by konquererz on May 16, 2007 at 6:02 am

I'm so glad this article was up here to post on. But I'm rather frustrated at the few who seem to have some "moral duty" to protect this dead hate monger from our "personal attacks" The are only personal because every thing he said was personal. ALL of his attacks were personal!

Stop acting like he deserves some special respect. He is dead, we are happy, as all non fundys are, he should have died much earlier and saved the world from his incessant hate filed ignoramus speak. Yes, we hated him, because he brought out the worst of humanity. I'm glad the fool died.

His comments being posted make it easier for people to say bad things about this bad man. "let his own words convict him". No, thats not good enough for him! Not when he blamed terrorist attacks on gays, demonized science and learning, and by his own words, led people behind Bush rank and file just because he said he listens to god.

The only thing immoral about whats being said here is that the words written can never truly describe the damage and the hate that this man has release onto this world when he breathed his first breath. Fat bastard, wish there was a hell for him to rot in!

262. State Darwin museum

Comment #41068 by konquererz on May 15, 2007 at 12:57 pm

Wish this was in the states, we need something like this for the kiddies. My kids love watching and reading about dinosaurs and how they evolved. The earliest amphibian life is where they are so amazed that this is "where dinosaurs come from". But alas, it can't be, we have a Creation Museum instead. Damn it all!

263. Apocalypse Of The Honeybees

Comment #39570 by konquererz on May 11, 2007 at 6:52 am

I have always found this type of article rather sad. The fact is that there will be many that simply dismiss it, like global warming, as nothing really, or over hyped. But we are verging on our first real global catastrophe as a human species, yet no one seems to really care that much. The oddity of it is that we know it will happen some time, and we know we are not going to be around for ever, yet we behave as if we will.

we as a human species have no sense of time. Each continuing generation will continue to say "surely not in my life time" until it is their lifetime and someone has to deal with it, likely too late. We are the only species that has had the power and brain capacity to do damage to the environment on a global scale, radically change the landscape permanently, and wipe out entire species with out much effort at all.

All this power, evolved from an insignificant chimp like species, and we treat it like chimps treat their poo, by throwing it around and making a mess of it. I had a christian friend once tell me, after discussing evolution that he "guesses we are all just a bunch of stupid chimps then". Well, maybe he was on to something. After all, if we go extinct, then by what graces could it possibly be considered that we were a sucessful species after only 10,000 years in our current status?

If we want to live long and be sucessful as a species, on geological time scales, we have to start using the big brains we have evolved to preserve rather than destroy. Lets start with the environment and the bees, and see what we as a species can do when we put our minds to it and decide to be the species we should be.

264. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38262 by konquererz on May 7, 2007 at 10:51 am

I detest and whole heartedly object to the idea that atheists loathe religion to much to challenge it, or the idea that we don't know religion well enough to challenge it. The fact is that I became an atheist when I started reading my bible for real. The bible, not Richard Dawkins, or Sam Harris, or Dan Dennet made me an atheist! And why am I so vehement against it? Cause I used to be that fundamentalist and I know what they teach in the church so I have to struggle against it!

265. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36452 by konquererz on May 1, 2007 at 7:16 am

I'm not a big Hitchens fan, but I will likely buy and read the book. I thought the interview was fun though. Jon Stewart makes me laugh no matter who he interviews. Hitchens always looks slooshed, this time was no exception. He did a bang up job for being, well, like he is....

266. The God Delusion

Comment #36442 by konquererz on May 1, 2007 at 6:31 am

You know, the only reviews I have read on TGD up until now have been other atheists who love it, and christians who hate it but have never read it. This is a refreshingly different review, even if its not in line with how I necessarily think. It was open and honest and you could tell that the book had actually been thoughtfully read before a review was written. Thats quite uncommon now days.

267. The Video: Bill O'Reilly Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34876 by konquererz on April 25, 2007 at 1:40 pm

O'Reilly is a twit who has a tendency to simply talk so loud and long that the other person looks like an idiot for not knowing what to say when being verbally battered.

However, this time, O'Reilly did not do that. Of course he interrupted, thats what he does. And of course he didn't give someone with an uncomfortable opposition to his world view more than four minutes. The point is that Richard was calm, cool, and collected and didn't let himself get ruffled by remarks that were obviously ignorant.

Good Job Richard, loved the interview!

268. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #34814 by konquererz on April 25, 2007 at 10:55 am

WeeFree:

I thought you should hear from someone who used to be a fundamentalist christian. I can help you understand why atheists are not fundamentalist, even if they are "militant". I KNEW what I believed, I KNEW the "truth" for twenty five years. I KNEW where to get answers from and got them frequently. When someone asked a question, I quoted the bible, simple as that.

Since I KNEW the "truth" there were not times in which I even considered the possibility that I was wrong and they were right, I was fashioning my answer before they finished their statements. I debated, like you, with atheists all the time.
That dogmatic stance and refusal to even entertain evidence to the contrary is fundamentalism. I still read christian and other religious views on things, purposfully and on my own. I read Dawkins and Dennet and Harris as well. I read philosophy and science and history of culture and religion for MANY MANY views and sources.

I form my opinions based on a wide veriety of views and evidence presented. I never did that as a christian, and thats why I was a fundamentalist. Most of us here have already gone through the process of looking at all the evidence for a god, and found it lacking. Many of us started out believing in a god, some not. The fact is that if you read The God Delusion, not just looking for "heresy" but read it with an open mind, then you would be unlike any christian I have ever known. If when someone tells you some parsel of information you go out and look for a christian rebuttal to it, you are indeed a fundamentalist.

You can't simply make claims of fundamentalism against atheists. Passion does not make a fundamentalist, though a fundamentalist indeed is always passionate. Its the complete onesided view of life that makes a fundamentalist, the refusal to take any other ideas seriously, and usually, an research done on different beliefs is done on completely your side of the arguement. Example: If I give you tons of information on evolution, and your reaction is to go find information on creationism instead of researching my point, then you are a fundamentalist.

I have never met an atheist that falls into this catagory. In fact, there are a wide veriety of books and opinions that circulate in the atheist community. Not everyone likes or agrees with everyone else on the issue of religion, parsels of the theory of evolution, and any number of other scienctific and logic based priciples. We are open minded indeed, and we have already investigated the idea of a god, and realized, there is not enough evidence to show a god. Thus we don't believe. Thats not being close minded, thats taking the evidence and taking the next step to the next logical position.

269. Vote for the Time 100 - Are They Worthy?

Comment #34747 by konquererz on April 25, 2007 at 5:22 am

Well, even if you don't care for the list, like I don't, you should still vote. Imagine what kind of people would look into Richard Dawkins and what he has written and said if he were on the cover of time magazine? Its the opportunity to get a huge exposure, just like the O'Reilly Factor.

270. 1986 Oxford Union Debate

Comment #34482 by konquererz on April 24, 2007 at 7:46 am

Man, was RD ever patient in how many questions he took. He took more questions that anyone else. Thats likely because he gave more thought provoking fact than anyone else.

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

Comment #34444 by konquererz on April 24, 2007 at 5:13 am

Well, theres no need to insult us Americans because some had a different view on it and speak as though your sensibilities are just better and more highly evolved than everyone elses. Please, come down off the pedistal your standing on, its not becoming of anyone.

As for the O'Reilly interview. I thought Richard did quit well. He needed to come off as intelligent, knowlegable, and above all, not a zealot "atheist evangelizer" as so many would call him. He didn't raise his voice or act flustered or can upset even. Reason in the face of ignorance should be the calm in the storm, the candle in the darkness. O'reilly made some interesting points that will help to make others think about what Richard said.

1.O'reilly said, "my faith is true for me" But Richards counter point was simple and stunning, "no, its either true or its not."

2.O'reilly named Hitler as an atheist, Richard pointed out that he was catholic.

3.O'reilly name three bad people, and said they were all atheists. Instead of naming the bad christians in history, he made the point that they were atheists but didn't commit the crime because they were atheists. True, he did mention afterwards that they likely didn't have any moral foundation, and then didn't let Richard respond.

But these are things that make a person that is considering leaving the faith, think all the more. Those tiny bits of intellectual nourishment feed a growing desire to leave the faith. He was never going to get the die hard fundys to leave the faith and become atheist. His target were the ones questioning their faith, and looking for reasons to leave.

Besides, O'reilly gave him a rather large bump for his book in the beginning. He said something about massively selling or something like that.

272. Against God

Comment #34195 by konquererz on April 23, 2007 at 1:37 pm

You have to have been brought up in "fundamantalist Christianity to understand how true this statement is...god answers prayer, eternity is a choice of heaven or hell, Jesus died to save us, he rose again, god is somehow a trinity ...and on and on ...in spite of logic, ridicule, criticsm, insults...the fact they glory in this because the bible tells them this is the way it will be. All of these things are as natural to them as breathing. Their dedication to it is emotional, physical, mental.

How true this statement is! Unless you grew up like this you never really know what your facing. Its the reason that you can't simply live with these people side by side in harmony. Its the reason that simple well meant and logical discussions go no where, and why the foundations of religion must be broken with a hammer and brushed aside. Fundamentalist christians are the reason that religion will always be a problem and always has been. As long as religion exists there will be the fundys. Dawkins does well by not giving them an inch, not conceding anything, not even a live and let live mentality. Belief in god drives people to extremes and in the end, allows you to speak perfect logical sense to them eye to eye, while their eyes glaze over with a smile and they just stare at you, not hearing any thing. I know this to be true because I was for 24 years, one of these fundys. I had to come to my senses on my own, get debunked in a creation arguement hard core, before I started digging for the "truth" in my own faith, and found the flaws myself. There is not a nice middle ground in the debate with religion, there just isn't room for it.

273. In the beginning

Comment #34131 by konquererz on April 23, 2007 at 10:18 am

Umm, I went to that website in post 8 and I am a bit unnerved!

I really never thought there was someone that would really disagree with the round earth or heliocentric solar system theory. But what we can all benefit from that site is the understanding of what christians really need to believe if they believe all of the bible and not just what they want to believe.

That dude is still a crack pot.

274. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #34120 by konquererz on April 23, 2007 at 9:49 am

I think the "humanists" in the article have forgotten their roots. When I was growing up, my parents (fundys) were all about standing up to the humanists and the new humanist culture. Over time, humanist ceased being a dirty word and became some what accepted. Now atheist is the dirty word, and even those who call themselves humanist now want to pile on because they feel mainstream.

Well, you can't have it both ways, either you believe or you don't. There is nothing else that binds atheists, freethinkers, humanists, skeptics, and the like together except their lack of belief. To forget that, to believe in the unification of atheists and humanists is not only wrong its well, religious. We as a collective are unique in that we don't follow a crowd, don't belong to the "in" crowd, because we think for ourselves and don't need a group to tell us how to think. We don't need unity because there is nothing to be unified about.

There is only a "split between atheist" on one side of the board. I don't see a split, because I don't see a group. At best, atheists form a loose collective based on their lack of belief, and possibly the understanding that religion is bad. Humans working together to help humanity is not a religion or special group, its the way things should be. Those who specify themselves as humanists almost have it right. They just need to let go of the idea of a unified cult of atheists. Its perverse and silly.

275. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34116 by konquererz on April 23, 2007 at 9:33 am

Devolved -

I was curious how you started out an evolutionist and then became a creationist? I grew up a fundamentalist christian believing in creation. When I got older, I studied for my self. The fact of the matter is, Creationism simply relies on things the DON'T have information on as evidence for creation. As said already, "we don't know, it must be god."

You cannot have all the answers to evolution because of one simply fact. WE WEREN'T THERE!
Since we weren't there, we simply take all the evidence for creationism and weigh it against evolution. You have to look at the evidence for something, not the lack of evidence for something else. The actual evidence for creationism is excellently sparse. The evidence for evolution is vast.

Don't mistake the missing information we haven't uncovered yet as evidence for a god that created everything. But because you do, I have serious doubts that you were ever a person who believed in evolution. If you really were, then I would guess your parents told you that and you simply believe what you were told. When you got older and some christian challenged you on evolution, you simply had no foundation of knowledge to combat it and flounder back into religious superstition. Take it from someone who has fought the battle of the mind himself. Read for yourself, both sides, not one side, and diligently continue your self education. Allow your self to make your decision on your own.

And to finish this extensively long rant, I would like to say that the Pope already let everyone know what his personal views were on Limbo, he just needed to wait to be Pope for god to "speak" to him and make it law. Utter nonsense!

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

Comment #33487 by konquererz on April 20, 2007 at 10:42 am

I share concern for Dr. Dawkins and this interview, but also cannot contain my excitement. Bill O'Reilly has been doing interviews for a long time, and knows how to make the conversation swing in his favor.

However, Dr. Dawkins has been arguing with people like this for a long time, and is not some sidewalk babling idiot brought in to punish atheists by making him look foolish to the world. Im sure the good Doctor has done his research.

I used to be a republican/fundamentalist who watched O'Reilly all the time. There have been occassions on which O'Reilly has yelled and acted like he won the arguement and I looked at my parents and we all knew he lost that fight.

He will always act like he just nailed his guest dead to rights, but the words Dr. Dawkins says, if said right, will resonate in the minds of those listening whether O'Reilly acts like an arrogant putz or not. Played right, logic and reason can never truly lose to yelling and ignorance. People will know the difference when this ends. I promise you.