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

Comment #71316 by BlazingArrow74 on September 18, 2007 at 12:28 pm

... Exactly ... I'm advocating a political party founded upon humanism; which is also an implied atheism ... The United States of America lacks this a the moment, and I think a political party of-sorts is the best way to consciousness-raising; Zeus-knows the media rarely exhibits anything of lasting power ...

... Now what exactly will the party's stance on certain issues be ? ... Who knows ? ... Maybe there can be multiple parties with a humanistic outlook; I just think there needs to be a clearly secular presence in the government becasue it's been broken down continuously here since 1776 ... Maybe there could be an alliance with the Libertarian party, or something could be amassed akin to the Green party ... I don't know ...

... Of course many atheists will want nothing to do with this idea, will not agree with the 'positions-taken', and will continue to flame me for implying something representative of all atheist people ... Above-all, I use "atheist" as an adjective: that's it; just as I am American, I don't pretend to speak for all Americans, as it's just an adjective ... Maybe we could all benefit from using labels such as these as purely-adjectives in our speech ...

... Thus, I am using this forum as an opportunity to see if there are any other atheist people interested in something like the above-mentioned ... No herding, no generalizations; just curiosity and discourse ...

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

Comment #71290 by BlazingArrow74 on September 18, 2007 at 9:39 am

... Mitchell, Dude, I really don't think you expect us to believe THAT YOU ACTUALLY THINK athiests who want some form of political action, like myself, expect us to agree on all things political, social, philosophical etc. ... I don't think anyone is even implying that as you suggest ...

... And the point isn't even to stop getting people to do things for religious reasons; at least in America, that is a Right-reserved ... and although I dont' agree with it, I feel inclined to defend it ... As far as I'm concerned, the only agenda, or aim that is seriously urgent is consciousness raising ... That must be done on a political level if atheist people ever expect to get any respect ... I understand that this is mainly an American issue, so if you're in the U.K. or elsewhere, this may be a bit-much ...

... Well, I'll shutup now; I just didn't want to be misunderstood ...

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

Comment #71047 by BlazingArrow74 on September 17, 2007 at 4:34 pm

... Really Spinoza ? ... How are you a dogmatist ? ... Do you mean in the purely academic sense ? ... I'm just curious.

4. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71003 by BlazingArrow74 on September 17, 2007 at 12:53 pm

... Hey Roach, how about "Original God of Gods" or O.G.G. ? ... I'm sure that-one will spread on street popularity alone ... {^..^}

5. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70994 by BlazingArrow74 on September 17, 2007 at 12:30 pm

... Wow, Teratornis, comment #70979 was very pleasant to read; please excuse a bit of what Harvey Keitel referred to so nicely in Pulp Fiction ... haha, but that was a rather impressive dissertation ... I just don't really agree with the following statement:

"And everyone who believes in anything which is imaginary has a strong vested interest in thwarting any sort of fact-based attack on faith in general."

... You'd be suprised at how many people I've come-across, so sheltered as they are, who've never even known it's possible not to believe in a god let-alone, have ever met an atheist person ... Granted, many of them are young, late teens/early 20s, but there are many people who really have no vested interest, mainly becasue they've never know otherwise ... Now if THAT's not a target-demographic, I don't know what-is !! ... haha ...

6. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70986 by BlazingArrow74 on September 17, 2007 at 12:03 pm

"Creation demands the existence of a Creator."

... Hmm ... I think we're on to something here ... so, maybe, a foundation demands the existence of a founder; and imagination demands the existence of something to imagine; origination demands an origin, and just-as-well, destruction demands a destructor ...

... Has it ever occured to you that maybe "nature" is a much better suited (and neutral) word to use when describing this ? ...

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

Comment #70980 by BlazingArrow74 on September 17, 2007 at 11:53 am

... Haha ... Welcome Wavefreak ... Yeah, if you scroll through the posts here, there are flashes of great humour !! ... But we could always use a bit-more lightening-up I'd agree ... However, this is an issue I take very seriously, as the implications are dire ... I-mean, come-on-now, we are talking about the social constructs built around the nature of reality !! ...

... @ Cap'n: there's a lot of critisism directed towards Mr. Sapient from us athiests who post here; actually, that's where most of the criticism here comes from ... I just wanted to clarify: that was the "issue" moreso than what you suggested ...

8. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70973 by BlazingArrow74 on September 17, 2007 at 11:38 am

... Oh-Brother ... Yeno, there have been many posts about athiest people needing to put some of their emotion to-the-side in order to make a more-clear point; but I think that advice is better suited for many of the religious, especially in their counter-claims ...

... Revcort, I don't think people here attack all things god-related ... In-fact, I anxiously await the day SOMETHING god-related is consistent with reality; then we'll really have a nice dialogue wouldn't you say ? ...

9. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70963 by BlazingArrow74 on September 17, 2007 at 10:40 am

... RevCourt, just to back-up Quetzalcoatl , it's not with "absolute certainty" that atheists claim, it's just "disbelief" ... Simple disbelief that is no more complicated than the "belief" many religious people have; however, "faith" seems to be another beast entirely because faith, if I understand it correctly, is the assertion to live ones life as if she or he were 'absolutely sure' a God exists; and this puts the believer into a de facto position of "absolute certainty" ...

10. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70953 by BlazingArrow74 on September 17, 2007 at 10:09 am

... The truth is, Brian, that many of us here believe that, although it may never be proven, it can be made so logically unsound to the point of near-folly ... If the probability of a God can be further-and-further deduced, the outcome will look starkly different than a 50/50 ratio ...

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

Comment #70948 by BlazingArrow74 on September 17, 2007 at 9:59 am

... Now this is what I call productive ... No, seriously !! ... For those of us who frequent this website, I think these differing views are giving visitors, who may not've even known these kinds of issues persist, a better understanding into our controversy ...

... I clearly see why Mr. Dawkins, himself, may never post to this thread ... haha ...

... I'd just like to make a couple points please: I really don't think the whole "with-us-or-against-us" mentality is being touted by anyone here (with the exception of maybe Yorky) ... I may be wrong, but where I think that misunderstanding may have-root is some-posts-ago when I was sharing my views on the nature of BELIEF ... If there are any who'd like to share their opinion on that all-too-important topic, please do: dissenters please !! ... It's a critical issue ...

... Also, I live in America, and have for all my life so-far ... I recently moved to the "most pious state in the nation": Texas, and have-yet to be treated disrespectfully by any of the faithful who I've disclosed my atheism with ... I've lived here for a year now, and should be moving back home to my native Chicago soon (unfortunately, not in time for Richard's U of C lecture); and yes, I've had a few dates cancelled, a few weird looks, and even a few people who preferred to act as if I don't exist upon learning of my atheism ... My point is that the image that America is some overly-religious-fanatical place hasn't been apparent from where I'm sitting ... Maybe it's the truth that those who are most devout in their faith have nothing to really get angry about or even defensive upon athiest dissent ... And in a way, that scares me more than the angry fanatics !! ... But the record so-far is that I've been so well recieved in the heart of the most pious state in America, I often wonder if there really are other places like Kansas !! ...

... And the reason I think I've been treated so well is becasue of my total lack of condescention ... At the very least, I've been able to elicit full-fledged conversations with many of the religious about their faith and my lack thereof ... I cannot stress enough, that mutual respect has gotten me furhter into converstaion than any other attitude I've had; and a genuine interest into their psyche really doesn't hurt either ... Believe me, I haven't been close to being convinced, so there should be no worries about 'playing with fire' ... haha ...

... I am a wannabe-musician, and my atheism does not define me ... I would very much like to incorporate my humanist views into music; that's probably the most powerful medium on earth ... But when I come here: to this website, everything that comes from my fingertips will make it appear that my atheism is the cornerstone of my life; and I think many people here can attest to that ... That is, at least, the direction this particular thread has gone-in ...

... For some, I think showing their anger outwardly, their frustrations, and pain will benefit what they are personally doing ... I don't think any of us would even know who Brian Sapient is if not for his approach ... I'd rather use that emotion exclusively in my music ... And that may be one of the only reasons you'll ever 'recognize that tune' ... Just something to keep in mind I-hope ...

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

Comment #70681 by BlazingArrow74 on September 16, 2007 at 3:22 pm

... Mr. Dawkins ... May you please read these posts and respond ? ... I'd really love to have your input on all of this !! ...

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

Comment #70658 by BlazingArrow74 on September 16, 2007 at 1:34 pm

... Hey-People ... Nobody here is selling t-shirts with a large "A" on them ... I believe that's the RDFs doing ... And nobody seems to be complaining about that anyways ...

... Just because you have something in common with others doesn't make you a sheep ... What I'm tired of are all the too-hot-to-handle folks that come here and complain about people like me: accusing us of "herding" ...

... The point is that we come here: to this forum -- we have that much in common in the least -- and many of us with a common aim, or at least a common opinion about the way the world should be as far as dogma is concerned ... Nobody is here to rob you of your individuality; please, stop with the whining and own-up to the fact that we have much more in common than we differ; Like-it-or-not, Brian Sapient is representative of himself, foremost, but also of the atheist IMAGE: being in the media automatically makes you representative of SOMETHING ... So, please, don't belittle that fact ... He wouldn't have gotten such an overwhelming response on his website if his presentation were truly personal ...

... Aoratos Philos, you took the words right out of my mouth ... There is truly a more social aspect to this problem -- the extreme improbablity of a god IS A GIVEN; only a fool denies that these people should be taken (meaning TREATED) seriously ... I think 9/11 is all the proof we need ...

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

Comment #70644 by BlazingArrow74 on September 16, 2007 at 12:35 pm

... How do you opine it irrational to take the blasphemy challenge ? ...

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

Comment #70640 by BlazingArrow74 on September 16, 2007 at 12:20 pm

... Hilarity @ Gaz !! ...

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

Comment #70632 by BlazingArrow74 on September 16, 2007 at 11:40 am

... Hey Yorker, I'd hate to see you go; I-mean, this is all just one, large, honest discourse and regardless of "neys" or "yeas" I think your opinion here is appreciated -- we're going to disagree on many things -- If Gandhi said 'there are as many religions as there are people', I'll say "There are as many egos as there are mood swings" ... Haha ... well, for the record, you've got my "yea"; just don't expect too many to even-respond ... Others have tried this sort of thing before and fallen flat on their faces ...

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

Comment #70626 by BlazingArrow74 on September 16, 2007 at 10:55 am

... Yeah ... I saw the debate with that actor-guy too, and I was a bit dissapointed because there were some things I thought could have been better expressed were Sam Harris, for example, included in the panel ... I agree, Mitchell, that everyone should not speak publicly: just becasue they can -- However, I think we may be on the edges of a circular argument; Who's to say that anyone "more qualified" such as Dawkins or Hitchens was available for that particular taping ? ... Who's to say that they were even considered given the nature of the media's biased history ? ...

... The only real point that I've been trying to make here is that diversity amongst atheist people should be encouraged: yes, to even-include so-called idiots ... At least this gets more people talking ... Besides, idiots will eventaully come-to if they progressively research, and if not, there are more-than-enough respected, intelligent individuals who already 'represent' the athiest community in some degree ...

... On a physical level, Mitchell, you are absolutely correct ... This whole in-group-out-group thing exists no-more than the borders that separate our nations ... But the point IS that WE created them, and therefore they do exist on some level; just as people created God, and therefore God does exist on SOME LEVEL ... I'm not being an apologist, so please, spare me the flame ... I'm just saying that the argument here really has less to do with what actually exists, and more to do with how to deal with these social constructs ... If the R.S.S. leaders got the opportunity to be on television, where Richard D., Sammy H. , and I hadn't, and to argue for a position that I hold dear -- nevermind how flawed -- I am all-for the publicity ... In a day where half-assed singers can screech their way into the spotlight and gain instant popularity, I welcome the notion ... No amount of fumbling-at-the-mic can take away such masterpieces as The Age of Reason, The God Delusion, Sam's online debate with Andrew Sullivan, The Beyond Belief Sessions, and the rich history of philosophy that so many have left behind, etc. ... If there was ever a time to increase awareness, it's got to be now ... I say we ride the crest of TGD's popularity as hard as we can: especially in America ...

... Bad arguments can be augmented and refined later; the effects of the crusades cannot ...

18. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70611 by BlazingArrow74 on September 16, 2007 at 9:53 am

... Jason: thank you for saying that better than I could've ...

... I don't think I understand what you mean phasmagigas ... May you please clarify ? ... Are you saying subjects like that are brought-up so they may be deemed irrelevant ? ...

... I think they are questions worth answering indeed !! ...

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

Comment #70605 by BlazingArrow74 on September 16, 2007 at 9:38 am

... For what it's worth, we need all the 'idiots' we can get our hands on to support the R.R.S. ... There are too many people out here who still think we barely even exist; I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of pride in order to be heard ... Brian and Kelly need our support; this is no time for elitism in any form ... Maybe it's high-time for more common representatives: ones who don't hold any college degrees or come from financially stable backgrounds ... The more diversity we can get, the more appealing we'll be -- and the more others will relate to us -- above all: this should be our aim ...

... and to Brake: as much as it grates the eardrum, it "just is" ... You either believe or you disbelieve; there is an in-group-outgroup; the difference here, with us, should be that to be a member of the "outgroup" affords you no-less respect, sincerity, or well-wishes and you're treated just the same as an in-group member on a day-to-day basis ... What we disagree-on as atheisits and theists alike, has no real-world consequence the majority of times ... and, to me, this is what matters more than any of our dissent ... However, I don't think the in-group issue is worth denying ... It's the truth; it should just be put in it's place as a fairly irrelevant fact ...

20. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70508 by BlazingArrow74 on September 15, 2007 at 7:34 pm

... Russell, you make a very fine point; However, I think there has been a general understanding of that underlying in our comments ... I think most of us understand that warming-up to scientific evidence won't appeal to certain people; that's why many of us are advocating for a sort of self-implosion amongst the religious brought about by an honest discourse into their identity ...

... At the very most, they will be able to rest on "faith"; but at the very least, they should admit to some kind of doubt ... The words "belief" and "faith" imply doubt or uncertainty, and-yet nobody wants to admit that 'they could be wrong' ...

... The truth is that Science can be taught in a way that almost anyone can understand ... The conflict that arises with religion has more to do with general intellectual honesty than any specific field of study ... The shorter, and therefore more appealing, chains of reasoning in the religious experience are much longer than they may seem ... If anyone actually sat down and thought through the supposed-short chain of reasoning in a miracle, or divine intervened experience, via loved-one or personally, I think they would find the chains much longer than they though; and with very fragile links ... The devout take too much for granted ...

... For any religious person to seem logically-sound, they must concede to some amount of doubt.

21. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70497 by BlazingArrow74 on September 15, 2007 at 6:14 pm

... Haha ... I understand you now Dr Benway ... Thanks for clarifying ... It's just a shame that belief is seen as something that can be so passive, lack-thereof has a category ... I don't think the nature of belief should even have an 'undecided' area ... Belief is not something that you are sure-or-unsure about ...

... One either believes, or does not believe ... For those who waver in the middle, they DO NOT-YET believe ... Even though you've clarifyed what you meant, you're still implying that belief or disbelief (to a youngster) is synonymous with 'being sure' and there's a comfy pillow of agnosticism in the middle ... This is not how belief works at all, and if that really is how our children are thinking, we have a serious problem ...

... I think many of us, especially myself, need to get back to the drawing-board and refine many of the notions that we take for granted ...

22. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70494 by BlazingArrow74 on September 15, 2007 at 6:05 pm

... Steve99: WOW ... It's encouraging to hear that agnostics are catered-to so as to be targeted politically that way ... Not quite there yet here in the U.S. ... I wonder if I'll see that kind of policy in my lifetime ? ...

23. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70492 by BlazingArrow74 on September 15, 2007 at 5:58 pm

... Dr Benway ... It appears that this is all a problem of semantics ... I disagree with your view that atheists are "sure" there is no god ...

... The correct definition of athiest is just the opposite of "theist" ... So an atheist believes there is no god (or disbelieves in god, however you prefer to say) just as much as a theist does ...

... There is no need for "belief" when you are "sure" of something ... I think your personal definition of atheist may be implying an arrogance that isn't really there ... And about "selling" the 'cause', well, I think the word "atheist" is fine; it just needs elucidation in pop culture ...

24. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70486 by BlazingArrow74 on September 15, 2007 at 5:37 pm

... Yes ... I agree with you Dr Benway ... I think atheists, many-times, do suffer from an identity crisis, as I do, and we struggle to define ourselves amidst all the criticism from other atheists who say: "there is no WE" ...

... But it's more important that we critique the faithful and ask them to define themselves; they are the ones with outrageous claims !! ... I think it has only been in my frustration that I've felt the urgency to define what it is that I BELIEVE; I've folded into their lack of rational and created a false sense of personal crisis ...

... The most pressing question that needs to be answered is: "What, or Who, is God ?" ... This can no longer remain a variable ... Until we can gather a universal quotient from this query, I don't think we (as a social species) will really move forward ...

... So many people like to define "God" personally; as the "God of THIS or THAT" ... and when we mention the "God of Abraham" as a 'starting point' of their belief, they like to snip here-and-there, until they've abridged God to some metaphysical aura ... This is not the God of the Bible ... This is ridicule of Logic, and probably the biggest cop-out of this millenia ...

... WE MUST DEMAND TO KNOW WHAT GOD IS and any inconsistancies should only expose the truth to the masses ...

25. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70453 by BlazingArrow74 on September 15, 2007 at 2:29 pm

""The living cell is complex structure that includes so many interactive dimensions that to believe these all came together by chance is so improable that even the most inteligent scientist looks like a buffoon if he/she expects us to believe such hypothetical nonsence. That these cells then gathered together ,and witrh no fore plan, designed the amoeba, let alone the human being is so outrageously obsurd that one must doubt the sanity of those that believe in this nonsense."

Muhammad Junaid, Abu Dhabi, UAE"

... The attitude that 'becasue we have a scientific recognition and understanding of something seemingly amazing and almost irreducible (also, seemingly) means there must be design inherent' is absolute folly ... One must remember that our science -- more than anything else -- is a historical one ... The pillars of our doubt and method have been crafted for centuries-on-end ... Our current understanding of the world relies mainly on the others that have had less-complete views on the same subjects ...

... We cannot go on with an attitude like Mr. Junaid's ... We cannot allow ourselves as human beings to give in to this folly that IS the ultimate in arrogance ... We must keep in mind that it is PERSPECTIVE that is the final frontier ... We will continue to refine our science as long as we exist; and we must always remember that as long as we search for answers and not questions, we will be promoting attitudes such as the one above ...

... There is doubt even in our working model of a cell ... There should be doubt, as it's just a WORKING understanding ... It WILL change, and no amount confirmatory information should ever make us feel that our handfuls of knowledge on the subject, from our SINGULAR perspective will ever allow us to think-it so amazing, and beyond-the-grasp-of-chance, that A GOD MUST have created it ...

... Sir, Muhammad, it is you that should doubt your own sanity (and also check your Biology books) ... Nobody here claims that anything gathered-together with it's own WILL ... Nobody here claims that the human being ISN'T amazing ... Rather, it seems, that you have underestimated the power of time & circumstance; You are in shock at the natural beauty around you and you yearn for an explanation ... I'm just here to remind you: Not even us scientists are sure ... We just present our evidence.