Comments by v4ri4bl3

Comment #206177 by v4ri4bl3 on July 8, 2008 at 6:41 am

I hope, as I have not yet read all the other comments, that I am not parroting someone else's opinion. With that in mind, I would like to point out that this article is very useful to all of us who hope that the global Islamic threat will be eliminated. Granted, she isn't exactly asking for her fellow "moderates" to rally in protest against those imams and clerics who enabled the July 7 attacks, which she should be, but she is putting her life in danger in an attempt to justify moderation. What more has anyone else done?

It is great that we have brave allies like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, but she isn't taken seriously by Muslims anyway. They will just write her off as an apostate, look for someone to murder her, and go on about their business. This woman, on the other hand, actually claims to be a Muslim. This hurts those individuals who are trying to unify Muslims against Western society. And anything that upsets the mullahs, is probably worth savoring.

2. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!

Comment #196051 by v4ri4bl3 on June 19, 2008 at 8:49 am

MelM,

I believe that forcing visitors to select an Out of State parish is no different than having them select an in state one. Out of State doesn't imply that you don't attend church. It implies that your church isn't in LA.

Truly a sad state of affairs.

Best Wishes,

James

3. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!

Comment #195576 by v4ri4bl3 on June 18, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Dear Sir,

It has recently come to my attention that a bill, proposed in your great state of Louisiana, entitled "LA Science Education Act" has passed both houses of the legislature. By signing this bill, you would willingly deprive the children of your electorate the science education they so greatly need and deserve. Ask yourself for a moment why we are consulting religious propagandists for authoritative answers regarding Biology, when we should be relying on the sentiments of the experts in the field.

Modern biologists do not operate under the assumption that life forms on this planet may or may not have evolved over time. They operate under the empirically based assumption that life forms have evolved. The evidence in support of this well established scientific theory (keep in mind Gravity falls into this category) is so substantial that it is not expected to change much at all. The only expected developments include a better understanding of HOW life forms evolved. There is no question that they have done so.

It is unfortunate that this is even an issue. When your car is broken, you don't take it to a priest. You take it to an auto shop. When your computer has a virus, you don't consult your local imam. You take it to Best Buy.

If you want to make an informed decision on this issue, you would best rely on the experts. The National Academy of Sciences has an abundance of material that targets the "political controversy" over Evolution. Note that even the experts state outright that there is not an academic controversy.

• http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/

Do yourself, and the children of your electorate, a favor and stand up for science. If we are to compete as a nation against global threats, we must insist on a rigorous curriculum that is not constrained by religious opinions. The choice is yours.

- Infinitely Concerned,

James McDonald

4. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #149990 by v4ri4bl3 on March 26, 2008 at 11:35 am

For those of you as concerned as I am, here is the legal definition for Neglect in Wisconsin State legislature �" (d) "Neglect" means failure, refusal or inability on the part of a caregiver, for reasons other than poverty, to provide necessary care, food, clothing, medical or dental care or shelter so as to seriously endanger the physical health of the child.

[Source: http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=WI:Default&d=stats&jd=48.981]

Apparently the only reason that refusal to provide medical treatment would NOT be considered neglect is in the case of Poverty. If poverty is not an excuse this family can use, then I see no reason why they can not be prosecuted. I plan on making a phone call to the Marathon County Department of Social Services to make a complaint, however I don't know if this is the best idea.

MARATHON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
400 East Thomas Street
Wausau, WI 54403

Office Hours: 715-261-7500
After Hours: 715-261-1200

FAX: 715-261-7510

[Source: http://www.dhfs.state.wi.us/Children/CPS/ctyinfo/mrthon.HTM]

5. Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed

Comment #85374 by v4ri4bl3 on November 5, 2007 at 3:38 pm

I will concede that in light of the unfavorable opinion I have of Kelly, as well as Brian, of RRS, I think this article was pretty well done. It abstains from including the word fuck in every sentence...wait...make that all sentences, in fact, it appears to contain no vulgarity at all. I can say that I am in essentially 100% agreement with this article. It shows of good workmanship. Or is that workwomanship? Bravo.

I would recommend, perhaps, that she include blocked quotes for analysis in future entries. It helps the audience get an idea of specific statements being made that are being evaluated. For instance, take the example where the gentleman discusses Thomas Jefferson and plug a good chunk of it into the narrative. Then break it apart and expose its dishonesty. Also helps to provide support for your own claims using source citations.

I think Kelly can dodge a lot of criticism about her "supposed" lack of education etc., by just referencing some fact based sources and supplying the links as needed. Then if people don't agree with her conclusions they can research it for themselves.

6. 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' Religious Group Turning Heads at MSU

Comment #76345 by v4ri4bl3 on October 5, 2007 at 3:14 pm

Great group... though it is quite weird that theists such as Christians and Muslims are joining it. They seem to have missed the point.

I think the way the reporter presented it couldn't get any better. It further amplifies the comedy in my opinion. I hope people take it seriously. Then I can laugh even harder, especially if someone I know shows serious concern over the issue. That will put me on the ground for hours lol.

And Matt, I think the theists that join are the ones that actually believe the tenets of the faith hehe. They were probably coaxed into it but their friends. Now that would be extra funny as well.

7. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #76341 by v4ri4bl3 on October 5, 2007 at 3:05 pm

Gizmo,

I don't disagree with you. I think that we he said was fairly tame. But because I know how disgusting he can be on his own website, that is where I am drawing conclusions.

Notice that the criticisms themselves are not even actually discussed here. Everything is about confronting the other person face to face and showing "spine". These have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Besides, if they really didn't care about anonymous criticism, why even talk about it? If it was me I probably would laugh it off if it wasn't something I could debate about.

I think the part that demonstrates his character is referring to everyone's supposed lack of integrity or "spine". Pretty amusing none the less.

8. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #76330 by v4ri4bl3 on October 5, 2007 at 2:06 pm

steve99,

From what I can tell, judging from my experience with this group (primarily Brian & Kelly), these individuals are extremely arrogant and stand-offish.

Whats funny about Brian's statements here is that he refers to everyone's lack of courage or lack of integrity when they criticize the RRS. I think this kind of irrational defensiveness demonstrates an underlying ego problem. He probably takes any criticism as a personal attack on his character. Which is why he responded so belligerently to my suggestion that he attempt to create a positive perception of his group when debating Christians.

I made the suggestion because I believe that half the battle, in winning opinions, is won by character appeal. It obviously has not importance for the meat of the argument discussed, but charisma is what separates successful and unsuccessful leaders.

I think when Christians watch Brian or Kelly speak, they think they are being talked down to, belittled, or that Brian and Kelly don't care what they think. Funny, it seems that they really don't care. But, at least, pretending to care and showing a fair level of respect will definitely have a greater impact on winning a debate.

Oh well. Not my problem.

9. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #76322 by v4ri4bl3 on October 5, 2007 at 1:21 pm

We just confronted eXcommunicate in our video chatroom. I hope his spine prevails and he chooses to retract some of what he said in this thread soon.

Not that I expect it, it would just be nice considering the time we spent. I won't say more in an attempt to be the bigger man.

Let me guess. Because the only individuals with spine are those who support you? Is that what you are trying to say?

10. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #75024 by v4ri4bl3 on October 1, 2007 at 11:45 am

Jack,

I do hope you were able to, at least, catch your breath before allowing the second part of your opening statement to belie the first.

Obviously Christians and atheists disagree on the validity and necessity of faith and religion in our lives. As an atheist I agree that, based on reason and objectivity, we can conclude that believing in something for which one has no evidence is not an effective means for understanding our world. However, this doesn't give me any right to belittle and castigate those who think otherwise.

but again, I talked with a few of them and I have every reason to believe they think Christians are idiots for the same reason I do: because they have an idiotic belief system.

So, do you or do you not think Christians are idiots? This statement seems to confirm that you do. Because you "talked with a few of them," you seem to think you have reason to call them all idiots. I think that is despicable. We disagree. And that is ok.

What part is lazy, exactly, about my critique of these individuals?

I have been berated by them first hand for merely a disagreement. I would hope that such things were beyond those who consider themselves purely rational. I was obviously wrong, and I am thankful that the experience has made me more perceptive.

Gizmo,

The tirade is history, but served well in shaping my current view of the RRS. I attempted to make my criticisms to them on their forum. The post was removed and I was berated.

I don't really care how they use their money or how they dress. I care about how they treat people.

11. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74992 by v4ri4bl3 on October 1, 2007 at 9:54 am

In the last 2 years my moderators have exposed over 20 people who have come to our site to speak negatively of the Rational Response Squad and claimed they were atheist, these people were actually Christian. We think about 15% of the people online who claim to be atheist are people who speak negatively of us. However, for some odd reason not a single person came up to myself or any of the 17 other people we had there representing the Rational Response Squad to say a bad word. Why is this?

Are most of the atheist dissenters actually Christians? Are they just too wimpy to confront us in public about it? Or are most of them (as I suspect) frauds?

You're definitely not one to talk about speaking to people face to face. If I recall, your 30-minute verbally abusive tirade against me was not made aware to me, nor was I contacted to respond, nor was I given any medium in which to do so. You felt perfectly happy to hear your own voice, in your basement, with your friends.

My name is James McDonald. I live in Miami, FL. I am also an atheist. I think the RRS is an embarrassment for us atheists who will be tossed in with the stereotypes you help nuture.

I conclude this because you expect to be taken seriously by people, and yet don't feel that it is important to speak professionally, or treat people with respect, or consider opinions you disagree with. You are unwilling to have civilized conversation. And you treat Christians as if they were all idiots, simply because you disagree with them. Instead of opening up opportunities to de-convert Christians you are actually shutting the door in their faces because you don't give them any respect. If I was a Christian, you would give me good reason not to be an atheist.

Make all the self-gratifying justifications you want to try and hush criticism. Trying to claim that all your critics are Christians is laughable and petty.

Why haven't I confronted you in public? Maybe because I don't know you. I don't care to know you. And most of us don't have a public medium to make such statements. And I most certainly would not waste my time at a convention, MERELY to tell you what I think of you. If you would like to hear such criticisms face to face, perhaps you should contact me for an address where YOU can drive for such a meeting. Unfortunately, most of us are not drawing funds off of website contributions, and we work full time. Have a nice day.

12. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74651 by v4ri4bl3 on September 29, 2007 at 8:19 pm

Yorker, right as always. I should definitely consider my position before I talk to anybody as high and mighty as the RRS. I mean, look at me, just a normal guy, pays taxes, works full time. But the RRS are like the god of atheism. I should have known better than to make any comments to them. Perhaps if I were to kiss their asses first and agree with everything they say! Yes, thats it! Yorker you are truly brilliant. If only one day I could aspire to be anything close to you or the RRS. Then my life would truly be fulfilled. Until then, I will continue to do my best to agree with everything you say and support the RRS cause unquestioningly. Thanks for such a marvelous opportunity.

13. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74642 by v4ri4bl3 on September 29, 2007 at 7:29 pm

Yorker is right.

By criticizing anything the RRS does, Smart Patrol, you are definitely being egotistical. I mean how can you question them! It undermines the entire effort. If you aren't going to say something nice about the RRS then don't say anything at all. That would be egotistical.

14. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74638 by v4ri4bl3 on September 29, 2007 at 7:05 pm

I'm sorry Yorker. I didn't mean to disagree with you. I should have definitely rethought ever questioning anything you say. Please take all of my posts that were ever unsupportive of the RRS or you and take them all back. Just pretend everything I said is exactly as you would like it to have been.

Just let me know if there is anything else I can do for you. I will never examine anything you say again I will merely repeat it. I am bound by your will. Is there anyone in particular that you would like me to engage so that I may spread your viewpoints while annulling theirs? I would be more than pleased to do anything you desire.

15. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74624 by v4ri4bl3 on September 29, 2007 at 5:59 pm

Roach,

Initially I went to chat with them for some session they were doing prior to the Nightline debate.

I started in with my suggestion that they be careful not to let the interviewers portray them in a negative light or allow themselves to come across as uncaring as these were impressions I got from the interview. Essentially I got the idea that they took at as a big joke. Also I thought questions like "What do you have against God?" were loaded.

Well it became apparent soon after I started in that they weren't having any of my criticism at all. One of their crew called me an asshole and someone at one point suggested I put my comments in their forum. Needless to say I was a little frustrated but I did put my suggestion in their forum. It was an honest attempt to help.

Well that post I made was immediately moved to a section for "Trolling." Soon after they made a 30-minute audio response were they basically took pride in any type of verbal abuse they could throw at me. It was a pretty disgusting display.

Highlights include: the statement "This isn't fucking Burger King," which was Brian's analogy for we don't care what you want or think; along with them both mocking several of my statements in "baby-voice."

So, while I did not speak to them personally, this is about as close to it that I ever want to get. Totally disrespectful, egotistical people.

16. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74617 by v4ri4bl3 on September 29, 2007 at 5:40 pm

I'm an older person and they've been fine with me, maybe it's because I support them.

I think everyone here should just re-read that statement several times to get a really good feel of why we are criticizing the RRS.

These individuals are abusive, demeaning, and hateful towards anyone who DOESN'T support them. And that is wrong. Its uncalled for. And that is why people like myself won't be counted in. I refuse to support people who can not treat others with common decency. Especially, when those individuals are the ones who the religious will look at and say, "See, this is your perfect example of an atheist." I don't want that. No thanks, I'll pass.

What's worse is they will be just as hateful to anyone who questions their tactics, even those who may have supported them.

Initially I would have. I thought the blasphemy challenge was interesting and heard they would be debating against creationism. But when I questioned some of their tactics they were extremely verbally abusive towards me, to the point of slander. No thanks. I'll pass on this crew.

17. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74322 by v4ri4bl3 on September 28, 2007 at 5:52 am

And you sound like you have some personal jealousy issue with the RRS having won RD's support which is destroying your objectivity.

Jealous, hardly, disappointed, most certainly. I have great respect for Dawkins because he carries himself with dignity and he has manners. I have found that the speakers for RRS have neither. And when choosing someone to support, this is extremely important. I guess maybe not to you.

I certainly can't conclude how you have reasoned that my personal dislike of the RRS, based on their lack of decent conduct, means I am not objective. Not once have I attacked their arguments here. I have merely stated how they have behaved towards me.

Keep in mind that you are just one person, they most likely don't give a shit that you don't like them.

That is a very likely assumption. And they don't need to care. Unless of course they are trying to get support from people like me. In that case it pays not to be an asshole. Something which must have slipped under their radar while trying to determine how to sway public opinion.

Your last point leads me to think you're one of those who don't understand that self-criticism without positive action is just destructive.

I would argue that self-criticism is action, if you choose to utilize it. The fact that RRS is closed to any criticism and doesn't respect people, means they AREN'T taking any action. The fact that they don't care what the atheist's they are trying to rally think, is inaction. So to that point I would agree that it is destructive. But only for them. I did my part by caring enough to criticize. And I will no do my part to explain why I think they are a poor representation of atheists in general.

If there's anything I've learned from years of managing creative people and getting results, it's that keeping people "on their toes" means nothing unless the intent is to support and achieve. Any other motive makes it a fucking stupid idea.

If getting results by going with the first draft method is acceptable to you, fine. Some of us prefer to review our work and improve it before presentation. That is the only point here. If you do not adhere to a self-critical, continuously improving framework, you are doomed to repeating the same mistakes, over and over.

18. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74303 by v4ri4bl3 on September 28, 2007 at 4:41 am

You all sound like a bunch of apologists for the RRS. If this group was actually open to criticism, it would ask that you ignore their mistakes and follow their cause anyway.

And mistakes aside, those are expected, if the RRS wants respect, then they have thoroughly fubared any they would ever get from me. And I will continue to repeat who despicable they acted towards me because it is a first hand account of their true character. And when it comes down too it, weak character is enough not to support someone. Whether they are right or wrong in an argument, if you can't act like anything other than a sniveling 4 year-old, then you have lost any respect you might have garnered otherwise.

On another point, I think its great that atheists hound atheist groups. Its that type of internal self-criticism that keeps a group on its toes, prevents it from ignoring its own delinquencies and helps ensure its rivals won't catch the criticims first.

19. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74174 by v4ri4bl3 on September 27, 2007 at 2:19 pm

LB,

They recording a nauseatingly long audio response on their website, in regard to my suggestion that they take the show seriously so as to avoid unwarranted criticism, that was, basically, just a long rant about how much of an idiot I am and how they will do whatever they want to etc. Add an expletive every 4-5 words and you get the idea.

It was basically like having an argument with a maladapted group of 4-year olds. Except 4-year olds have more of an excuse for such behavior, and they might actually engage in "conversation". This wasn't a conversation. It was basically them ranting about how much I suck and that they know what they are doing.

It was shockingly immature. I totally didn't expect it. So instead of me making an honest attempt to help them understand why, to me and also the religious, they looked like jerks to people because of their composure, I actually just discovered that they were everything as negative as they portrayed and worse, pathetic really.

20. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74158 by v4ri4bl3 on September 27, 2007 at 1:36 pm

The Rational Response Squad, at least in my encounter with them, are nothing less than a mirror image of everything I dislike in the religiously fanatical: intolerant to criticism, abusive, totalitarian, and egotistical.

I made a suggestion to them regarding their appearance on NBC, was it, and was presented with a 30-minute long castigating diatribe audio response full of slander, abuse, and ridicule, to an extent I have never suffered at the hands of the religious.

Hence, I find, at least those I am familiar with: Brian and Kelly, to be absolutely despicable examples of human conduct. They are devoid of self-control and humility and appear to favor nothing less than their own version of idealogical dominance. How prideful do you have to be to award yourself the position of judge and jury: "The Law" over what is and what is not rational? As if they were the self-appointed mind-police of the modern world.

Even if our opinions may coincide or our goals might intersect, I will, assuredly, never condone anything done by these individuals, and it is a pity that they were able to win Dawkin's favor. They portray everything that is the modern atheist stereotype, and can easily be used as fuel for those arguing in their opposition to discredit disbelievers as a whole.

To hell with the Rational Response Squad.

21. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #60690 by v4ri4bl3 on August 2, 2007 at 5:33 pm

Excellent article. I caught myself thinking, "Wow. Dawkins' writing seems to be improving quite a bit," before I realized it was written by someone else.

No offense to Dawkins. I think he's brilliant. But I also think this guy is a better writer.

He doesn't seem to use too many words or, it would seem, any words that don't fit well or flow easily. A nearly perfect article.

I agree it is amazing to think how certain individuals are comfortable following this line of reasoning. It is so patently erroneous and yet they seem to fly by with it, no problem. But then again this is the whole problem with religious ideology in the first place. Convincing yourself that it is acceptable to believe nonsense.

22. Bible drawn into Hong Kong sex publication row

Comment #41863 by v4ri4bl3 on May 17, 2007 at 8:08 am

Funny how one's perspective of a book changes his acceptance of it's content. If the book is considered sacred, there can be no criticism, but when the book is considered with all its peers, it appears so much more toxic.

23. God grief

Comment #41860 by v4ri4bl3 on May 17, 2007 at 8:04 am

I feel that this is a very honest and well written critique of Hitchen's book. While I have not read more than a couple of pages so far with how busy I am, I think its great that we can have such different opinions about the same system of beliefs. Some of us more strident, some more sympathetic. Open criticism like this is so truly important. Even if we don't like the message or necessarily agree with it, it does give another perspective. Thanks to the website administrator for posting.

24. Christians and Atheists to Debate Existence of God in First-Ever 'NIGHTLINE FACE OFF'

Comment #37793 by v4ri4bl3 on May 5, 2007 at 5:50 pm

Riley,

This really has nothing to do with my pride. It has to do with their conduct. The fact of the matter is I merely tried to provide open honest criticism and was attacked for it. As I said, to disagree and dismiss is so easy to do I don't understand what makes these people so pathetically hostile.

As for their points, I would still argue that they are wrong. Having absolutely no respect for people merely because you think they are irrational is not going to do anything. As they said they are only trying to gain like-minded people. I would think it would be their intention to draw the interest of everyone. If you look into the ethics of public speech and also into persuasion you will find that it is much less likely that you will gain someone on your side if you treat them like idiots than you will if you actually have empathy with the opposition. Their really is no excuse for these peoples behavior, other than they have a right to be this childish.

I was wrong in thinking that they actually intended to win people to their side with this debate, which is what I would assume was the purpose of ANY debate. They are not concerned with winning anybody over, they just want to laugh at the expense of people who hold irrational ideas. Very honorable indeed.

25. God Exists. A Formula Proves it.

Comment #37656 by v4ri4bl3 on May 5, 2007 at 12:29 pm

I like the part where he says God is not of Space, Time or Matter and yet he can use PHYSICS to prove God exists. Does anyone else find this laughable?

It really is pathetic that they didn't get a group of real scientists to disseminate this obvious BS. When something is true you don't have to interview sources who are completely incapable of validating a claim like the Baptist Minister and the Catholic individual. I think thats enough to place you 99.99999999999999999% certainty that this guys is full of S**T.

26. The moment a teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy

Comment #37641 by v4ri4bl3 on May 5, 2007 at 12:12 pm

What is curious to me is how much Hate it would take to inspire such actions? I mean, we know that these people are not all idiots. Some probably have a decent education, are literate etc. The attacks were coordinated. But it would seem that in order to do such a thing one must rile up so much Hate inside as to lose all compassion for people such as this innocent young girl.

If this isn't proof that religious faith is a problem I don't know what is. There is no arguing about the motivations here. How long will it take until we can agree that there is nothing virtuous about the beliefs which inspire this magnitude of disgusting hate.

27. Christians and Atheists to Debate Existence of God in First-Ever 'NIGHTLINE FACE OFF'

Comment #37586 by v4ri4bl3 on May 5, 2007 at 7:42 am

Hello Friends,

Thanks for your responses. There are several ways in which I agree with you unfortunately my fears were validated by a disgusting episode I encountered last evening.

After attempting to bring my concern to Brian and Kelly they decided that instead of actually telling me why they though I was wrong that they should slander me instead. They recorded an extensive Audio radio post in which they essentially try to smear everything about with me, merely because I disagree with their approach.

My argument is not that people should not answer questions honestly, but that there are certain standards for intellectual conduct which are important to being effectively persuasive. I of course invite open criticism of this but after having read around online about Speech Theory and Effective Argument I can say that I still think I have a good point.

You must have empathy with anyone you are trying to convince of a different position. Brian and Kelly don't have that. They have blatantly made it known that these people are idiots and that they don't have any intention of being at the very least Respectful to them. This is one instance where I think Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are far more persuasive than Brian and Kelly.

Until last night I would have considered this rather trivial criticism and would have thought Brian and Kelly were unintentionally portrayed as disrespectful. Then I get slandered by the both of them. Listen to the original recording and my response and let me know what you think.

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=84495076

28. Christians and Atheists to Debate Existence of God in First-Ever 'NIGHTLINE FACE OFF'

Comment #37539 by v4ri4bl3 on May 4, 2007 at 7:41 pm

Hello,

Recently it came to my attention as it did to so many Atheists that we would be soon having a long needed debate about the existence of God. The TV Station is ABC, and we are told that this will be a grand debate between two of the "Rational Responders" Brian Sapient and Kelly, and two creationists Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.

You can imagine my joy at realizing Atheism would be getting mainstream television. So, I was in a rush to see the ABC Teaser for the debate. What I got was discomforting.

In the short video clip we learn about the debate and both Kelly and Brian are interviewed. I have a problem not only with the questions they were asked during the interview but also with their responses.

It is obvious that Atheism is considered extremely unpopular and does not benefit from wide acceptance. It seems then very important to approach the issue with care and passion. I feel that Brian and Kelly came across as not taking the issue seriously.

How can we not take the issue seriously? Which of course I would argue they do but when we are dealing with an audience who is obviously NOT ON YOUR SIDE it is very important to at least APPEAR to take the issue seriously.

When asked what he has against God Mr. Sapient felt it was a good time to laugh...

You are posed in front of an entire nation of Christian believes and when asked the an intentionally provocative and emotional question...you laugh? Is this the portrayal that Atheists want?

It seems obvious that Christians are not bad people as a whole. Most of them are our friends and family. They do the things we do and hold many of the opinions we hold. But they differ in their convictions and I would argue are more prone to self-deception. But to laugh at something they hold dear is really not the way to win their hearts.

Most Christians associate God with certain virtuous character traits such as Love, Compassion, and Sympathy. So it needn't be pointed out that when you make an argument against God they automatically become defensive as they see this as an attack on their principals.

Continuing, we get mostly laughter and smug discontent from our Atheist heroes. People, who I would assume understand the weight of the argument which they are weighing.

But actions tell a different story. I recently discovered through a mutual friend that Brian and Kelly were available to contact through a semi-video/chat conference. So of course I felt the imperative to point out my concerns.

I logged into their conference and essentially laid out the arguments I have here. What I received in return was not appreciation. Not thanks for the concern I have for the individuals and their convictions. Not a polite thank you and dismissal. What I received was Kelly telling me how I know nothing about the situation, essentially attacking my character and calling me ignorant and Brian saying something like I should "put my arguments in the FUCKING forums and try doing my own ABC interview." So instead of actually considering that my arguments might hold some integrity and concern, they felt it necessary to attack my character and forever change my respect for these two individuals with whom I would have thought held much in common.

Well Brian and Kelly I suppose I should be thankful. Thankful that you helped me confirm my own deep concern that the wrong people would be at the front of the Atheist enlightenment. You have helped amplify me fears that the same individuals who would be advocates for critical thinking would be unwilling to turn criticisms inward. That I feel is tragic and I am deeply offended by individuals I would have hoped were more open and honest.

Truly I hope that they do well. And with sincerity I hope they move people to be more open-minded. I just fear they will turn off Christians much easier than they were able to turn off one of their own.

James

29. Now Muslims Get Their Own Laws In Britian

Comment #36622 by v4ri4bl3 on May 1, 2007 at 7:09 pm

I don't really respect this article much either. It sounds like nothing more than hearsay. Without an actual look at the practices going on it's impossible to determine if it is acceptable practice or not. This whole thing sounds like someone shouting "THEY ARE DOING A BUNCH OF WEIRD STUFF BEHIND CLOSED DOORS!!!"

30. Religion & Culture Panel

Comment #36620 by v4ri4bl3 on May 1, 2007 at 6:58 pm

Well I am glad everyone enjoyed it as much as they did. I am in agreement with Hitchen's on pretty much every point but I am also a bit wary of such a over-bearing voice for the cause. While he wouldn't bother me in conversation I can see why he intimidates, or even offends people in the debate. It's not because of the argument he brings to the table but it seems some of his mannerisms could use a quick tune up.

I don't see how shouting at hecklers is going to be well received even though he probably had good reason to. It seems that Hitchen's just lays it all out on the table and doesn't give a damn. While I am interested to see how this approach works I am dreading the annoying blogs about how obnoxious Hitchen's is blah blah blah. Perhaps if he addressed the points a little bit differently. For instance, he is obviously not against the parts of religion which are merely social history etc. He is all against irrational and unjustified beliefs. Maybe he could have put it that way. I would have explained that the problem is when people do not think critically enough about their beliefs. But thats just my opinion. Maybe he will rile things up for us. I will be buying his book obviously lol.

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

Comment #34431 by v4ri4bl3 on April 24, 2007 at 3:41 am

Hello Chambers,

Not intending to clog these comments with an argument I will attempt to address your questions quickly.

"Question: Mr Dawkins said" we are working on it" an answer to Mr O'reilly's question? What is that? I really wonder?"

This is an honest answer. We don't know where the universe came from and we are trying to understand that. No need to make up fairy tales in the absence of knowledge.

"So what? I am a believer in God as well! I have police record whatsoever? men might have a high risk to be bad if they don't have any faith..."

This is a poor argument and I suggest you do your homework. I believe the statistics for prison population when Atheists made 10% of the U.S. population was that they made up .2% of the prison population. While this could lead you to say faithful are more likely to commit crimes I don't believe that and that was not my point. You obviously have taken offense where none is needed but you also seem to agree that Atheists have no basis for morality. This is simply untrue and a horrible stereotype. My morals come from my upbringing and from my own empathy. Do a little research on Sociopaths and the Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex of the brain and tell me again that people only get their morality from a belief in god.

"The Universe is a book written by God with 400 sentence-like thousand kinds of animals and plants, and you still say there is no evidence because you do not know how to read this book..."

You can in no way substantiate your claims here. They are purely driven by your own beliefs and by absolutely 0 objectively verifiable data. I don't think you could get 5 people in the whole world to agree on the "right" way to read the bible. Why is that? Well, its because we don't know who the author's are and they aren't around to tell us what the passages mean, if they should be taken literally or metaphorically etc. Your argument simply has no grounding. And yes I do agree that life originated from "slime" if you would be so bold. If you disagree, and you are a male, ask your self what it is that you put in a cup at a fertility donation center. Doesn't that look like slime to you? Guess what, under the right conditions and about 9 months time it can create human life. From slime to baby in nine months and you're going to tell me that evolution could not have done something similar in billions of years?

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

Comment #34286 by v4ri4bl3 on April 23, 2007 at 6:10 pm

Dear Mr. O'Reilly,

I wanted to respond to your recent interview with Mr. Richard Dawkins regarding Atheism. I was so excited to see him on TV as I am obviously a fan. Perhaps you should have read his book Sir. All of your rebuttals to Atheism were fully treated in his book and I feel that you are on the losing side.

For one, I do feel it is tragic that people such as yourself try to stereotype Atheists as immoral. This is a horrible argument for Christianity, in and of itself, but more importantly it is ridiculously false. I am an Atheist Sir. You will find no police record for me. No crimes, no violence, theft or tax evasion. You will find this in excess among Evangelical preachers, however. How dare you, Sir, pile all of us on a heap with the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. I think any honest Atheist would agree that bad men will be bad with or without religion. The sad thing about religion is it gives bad men a leg to stand on. When you can support your atrocities with scripture from Leviticus and Deuteronomy, you just may get more support.

My second point is to address how you feel that it takes Faith to be an Atheist. This is actually a joke Mr. O'Reilly. Deny for me that you were born an Atheist? The truth, as you and I both know, is that we are all born Atheists. We are indoctrinated to believe whatever beliefs are popular in our cultures regardless of any empirical, or objective evidence to support the ridiculous claims made in the Bible, or the Koran etc. It takes absolutely 0 faith, to see that there is no evidence for a god, and to conclude therefore that there is no reason for belief in one. Does it take Faith to believe there are no fairies, trolls, or a Lockness Monster Mr. O'Reilly?

The difference between men like you, at least in your religious preference, and Mr. Dawkins and myself, is that you accept a Truth merely because you desire it. It is definitely desirable to die and go to paradise. I'm sure thats what the 911 hijackers felt as well. And I mean no disrespect to compare you to them. You are most certainly not them. But the standard by which you determine your religious convictions is near identical. No Mr.O'Reilly, something is not True because it is Desirable. Something is True merely because it is. You may want Jesus to be you Lord and Saviour, and it may even be great if he is. But there is no logical reason to believe this is so. And you are left with scarred intellectual integrity.

Have a good day.

Sincerely,

James McDonald
Miami, FL