1. What is science for?

Comment #191839 by Summer Seale on June 12, 2008 at 1:06 am

Hi everyone,

I know I am weeks late in posting in this thread. I've been busy.

After reading everything posted in here, I just had to chime in with this incredible revelation:

ASMarques is a really fucking deluded asshole.

That's all the debate with him that I'm willing to partake in at this time, and I do know that he said he left the forum. I post this here as a sort of exclamation point and final statement of fact for the historical record.

2. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #114240 by Summer Seale on January 21, 2008 at 3:51 pm

Highwayman429 -

What fear? Did I say I live in fear? Or...are you simply assuming? Because...unless I actually said something like that, where else would you get that idea?

("She's so... violent! It must be a reaction out of fear! Our leftist dogma tells us that this is so. There is no other reason for such feelings other than fear. We just have to re-educate her in the camps.")

3. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #114227 by Summer Seale on January 21, 2008 at 3:24 pm

@ Everyone....

I know...I know, it's awful isn't it? Simply awful.

Why can't we all just get along?

I know! Let's all get together, go over there, and paint pictures of flowers and trees and doves and just... show them. I mean, people are reasonable, aren't they? Let's just show them, and they'll understand. I know they will. I have faith in the human spirit to understand and find compassion in all things. I really do. Let's just smile and hold hands. Nobody needs soldiers. Nobody needs guns to kill other people. These are all just bad things. They are! I know they are. My secular humanism tells me that people are really good inside and nobody is really evil. How crude a concept, to call others evil; or the enemy - let's stop dehumanizing them. They really are so sensitive and actually care what we think of them.

I just know they do. I can feel it. I have faith that we can stop wars just by thinking good thoughts and showing people they can live differently than they do. And then there will be peace and love and justice everywhere, and we'll never fight another war again.

Gandhi showed us that we can all just love each other and get along and win over bad things. He showed the Nazis too. Or...well, he didn't, but he would have.....

....after he would have been killed in the gas chamber. But...they would have come around....

...eventually.

Oh whatever! I just know it works! I know it does! I believe! I do! I do! I do!

4. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #114172 by Summer Seale on January 21, 2008 at 1:38 pm

RE: Waterboarding

Sorry, I still don't care. I really don't. People have argued this before with me, over years now...and I don't care. I don't. I simply...couldn't care less. I have better things to do than to worry if the likes of KSM are getting their asses handed to them by the CIA. Really...couldn't care less. I lose way more sleep thinking about good people around me having a hard time in the economy, or people getting hit by accident crossing the street, than I do worrying about if we torture KSM or not.

Actually, I tell a lie: I do care. I do want him to be tortured. I want it, I applaud it, and I cheer it on. You probably hate me for it, and that makes me happy as well. I want the enemy to hate me. I'm an atheist who really...applauds the incredible suffering we bring upon the Islamists. In fact, you may think that George Bush is a bloody murderer, but he's a teddy bear. I wish Dick Cheney was in power. I wish he was in power, giving the power to the CIA to eviscerate certain people in a very slow fashion with a very rusty and dull knife. Then you can talk to me about torture, and then the argument to me will only be whether or not it is applicable in that level of cruelty on the basis of making their screams last longer or not for my enjoyment. Other than that, I laugh at their pain. I really do. I laugh...the same way they laugh...when they hurt people. You'll think me insane for saying it, you'll think me a fascist, but that doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is winning against them, and making them bleed so much that they forsake their god forever. That's what matters to me. Your platitudes, your pieces of paper, your laws and regulations at the EU and in the UN do nothing to stop these maniacal bastards from having their way with you. Nothing. You sit there and support...nothing. That's fine - your right. You have every right to do so. I have the right to support my own vehemently insane George Pattons who made the enemy fear him more than they feared their own defeat. That is the goal of war, and you're really...really...stupid to forget it.

Want to know how we won World War II? We tortured people to death. Not in torture chambers, mind you, but by bombing the living hell out of them. We bombed Berlin until people there saw the rubble bounce over and over again. That's torture. That's what gave us victory over Germany. Sucks to be them. That's war.

Japan? We tortured people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki with a nuclear bomb each. Extreme? No, it wasn't extreme. It was what was necessary to win the war. In fact, it was almost not enough, because even after those bombs had dropped, some commanders rebelled to try to stop the Emperor from raising the white flag. Two nuclear bombs, and it was barely enough. And that's torture. That's torture far worse than waterboarding, what we did to those people. And it was barely enough.

So torturing KSM? Cry me a river. I say we do to him what we did to Hiroshima. Watch his skin peel slowly off his body. That's what he wanted to do to us, and we should give it back to him in kind. Same with Zubaideh. Fuck'em and let them rot.

P.S. Argue all you like. Really. You'll never, ever, ever get me to concede that this is a bad idea. Never. You'll never, ever win me over. Agree to disagree if you like. But you'll never, ever, win me over to your side. I've seen too much to care about them. Maybe you haven't. I have. I have a bone to pick, and I'll pick it until I bloody die.

5. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #113943 by Summer Seale on January 21, 2008 at 4:07 am

Oh and one more thing:

You forgot one last point. For all the propaganda about how Bush should be impeached, remember that the Democrats control congress since 2006. They hate Bush. They really, really, hate Bush. If they had any real grounds for impeaching him, they would do it in a snap. They don't, so they aren't going to. It doesn't matter what you want them to say is reality, it matters what the reality really is. If the enemies of Bush have the power and don't impeach him, it's because they can't.

6. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #113942 by Summer Seale on January 21, 2008 at 4:03 am

@thirdchimpanzee,

Going to sleep right now so maybe I'll answer in the morning in detail, or maybe not. I'm busy. But:

1) Lying to Congress regarding WMD. Sorry, false. Everyone thought he had WMD. The French thought he had WMD. Blix thought he had WMD. Israel, Russia, Germany - all thought he had WMD. Al Gore gave a speech during the Clinton administration saying that he had WMD. Clinton bombed on the premise that he had WMD. Kerry said during the Clinton years that he had WMD. Biden said that he had WMD. Jordan said that he had WMD.

Saddam himself said that he had WMD.

The last is the most important. If Saddam showed that he didn't have WMD, it wouldn't have happened. He didn't, so it did happen. It's too bad for him. He's dead and gone, and I couldn't be happier about that. Going on about who should be "blamed" for it is really stupid in my opinion. He's dead. Move the fuck on and get on with life already.

2) Revealing the Identity of a CIA Agent: Sorry..it was Colin Powell's Deputy, Armitage, who revealed the identity. There was no malicious intent at all - it was thoroughly investigated. Again..another BS charge with no evidence.

3) Sanctioning Torture: Waterboarding isn't torture. We train our own troops by waterboarding them since years and years and years to show them what hard interrogation is like. If it was torture, we wouldn't be allowed to do it to our own troops to train them. We are allowed, we have been allowed, we do put them through it, so it isn't torture. Plus...I couldn't care less about the people they are waterboarding. We're talking about them waterboarding KSM and Zubaideh. You know, it's too bad they're being waterboarded. If it were up to me, I'd opt for 2 hours in a concrete room with a rubber hose, without cameras. I'd also enjoy throwing acid in their faces for encouraging that particular practice towards unveiled women in their time in the field. They're lucky that they are suffering waterboarding instead of getting a vindictive bitch like me in charge. You're lucky too, because you have less to complain about. Count your blessings.

7. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #113918 by Summer Seale on January 21, 2008 at 2:11 am

What amazes me is that the American public doesn't seem to have the stomach for impeachment this time for real crimes that affect the safety of our nation and personal freedoms.

Again...I'm in the minority here....but...

Bush hasn't actually done anything illegal that you can impeach him for (as far as anyone currently knows). He's bent the law, he's suspended some things, but he has the power to do that. You may not like that, but that's the law.

Example: contrary to popular secular belief and zeitgeist, suspending the Geneva Convention for terrorist suspects is not against the law, nor is it against the Geneva Convention itself. The Geneva Convention only applies to uniformed combatants. In fact, under the Geneva Convention, a captured terrorist could technically be shot in the head upon capture because they're breaking the rules of engagement in a really bad way. The fact that we don't shoot them in the back of the head means we're being better than the Geneva Convention allows us to be at the very least. That may not meet your requirements for humane treatment but..again...it's not against the law.

On the Patriot Act: again, that's not against the law either. That was passed by Congress. It's...entirely legal. You may not like it, but it is not unconstitutional.

On other issues where Constitutionality was debatable, it has been taken up by the Supreme Court which, on several issues, sided with the plaintiffs and against the Administration. And...in every single case, the Administration followed the legal decision, and complied within the alloted time frame.

There was the issue with the spying, which could be deemed to be unconstitutional, but that is still up in the air. Also, because they were acting within certain boundaries, even if it is deemed to be against the law, the boundaries that were set by the courts from years ago may very well absolve them of doing that sort of thing if they stop when they are told. Some of these points are very complicated and either are within boundaries which allow flexibility to do certain things in emergencies, or to even set precedent and then go to the courts for permission. Also, a point not mentioned by Democrats is that half of the oversight Comm of Congress are Democrats...and were fully informed about this program. In fact, some of them even wondered if this program went far enough. So if you're going to indict Bush for it, you're going to have to indict the Democratic leaders as well.

I know that Democrats like to go on about how Bush should be impeached etc....but there is seriously, really, no legal justification. You may hate that, you may really loathe that, you may think he's a "murderer" for Iraq and all the rest, but that's just your opinion, and not law.

That isn't to say that I defend Bush on his stupid religiosity. I don't. But he couldn't be prosecuted for that either. Being religious is not against the law. Promoting it via the government is, and the only thing that he's truly done to promote religion, so to speak, is the religious charities program he pushed in 2001. Again, that's debatable and he's not breaking the law so far as we know, even though I totally hate what it does.

8. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #108751 by Summer Seale on January 7, 2008 at 2:17 pm

@Steve

I just watched some of your youtube videos and I gotta say, you totally rock. I love your style <3 =) Totally serious too. =) I'm saving that link.

9. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #108592 by Summer Seale on January 7, 2008 at 10:00 am

It is good to see an Atheist debate a Jew

As if this is an uncommon occurrence.

Judaism seems to get a pass due to political sensitivities

Don't forget all those Jews in the White House and the Media.

and the ease with which Jews

And non-Jews

label people anti-semitic.

Q.E.D.

I would have liked to see Harris take a more stern approach in his book (End of Faith) on the Jews.

I have no idea where that came from but maybe the following will make it clear...

Although he is half Jewish (ethnically).

Which means...you criticize "ethnically Christian atheists" for not being hard enough on Christianity...with that term?

And he fails to talk in depth about the racism that is inherent in Judaism.

Unlike...spreading the Arab culture and language and race through conquering the world for Allah.

A religion that actively promotes racism... the worst of all worlds.

I'll remember that as soon as Jews start knocking on my door to tell me to convert or I'll be going to hell or have a midnight decapitation crew show up to convince me of the error of my ways.

Edited for clarity.

10. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #108583 by Summer Seale on January 7, 2008 at 9:33 am

@MaxWeiss

God, he's cute.

Seriously. Sam Harris is a hottie <3 Don't make fun of me for saying it. It's just true. =)

11. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #108448 by Summer Seale on January 6, 2008 at 11:31 pm

Oh and I should add I'm not a weather scientist and I don't follow it too closely anyway. And pointing to some numbers put out by NASA, and fixed later on, does not put me in league with creationists trying to teach the "controversy". =) I actually am pretty convinced something is happening, but I'm not sure how much of it is due to us yet (especially after reading several essays/columns and stuff and seeing some NOVA programs on how the middle ages were far warmer than our current warming is etc...) I'm just saying that I still think there's a lot of hysteria surrounding it, and even the scientists who were interviewed around Gore at the time of winning the prize said that he was going too far in creating hysteria as well. =)

12. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #108447 by Summer Seale on January 6, 2008 at 11:25 pm

I *definitely* don't want to help turn this into a global warming thread but it is worth pointing out that some data is...not as you would have sometimes read. =)

NASA had to readjust their readings lately: http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html

That blog is closed cuz it moved and it has some other very interesting entries here: http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/

Again, I'm not looking to feed a battle here but it is worth pointing out that while this story made big rounds on the right wing blogs, it got no play in the mainstream media that I am aware of. I think it's kinda sad because, when a scientific organization has to fix a mistake on data we've all been hearing about, it would be nice if we hear about the fix as well. =)

13. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #108046 by Summer Seale on January 5, 2008 at 10:35 pm

@Roland_F

Don't forget to add that the goblin in the book planted the evidence to fool the unbelievers and test your faith! =)

14. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #108038 by Summer Seale on January 5, 2008 at 9:54 pm

@eXcommunicate

I *totally* agree! That's one of the main problems with it being "divine". Basically, it's all justification for views held over two thousand years ago.

If you know about Judaism, that is *exactly* what modern day Judaism is btw. It's an evolution of ancient Judaism. And it evolved because it *had* to. Because the temple was destroyed. All the books in talmud and midrash and all the other stuff are commentaries to justify workarounds for the problem of not *having* a temple anymore. =) Because the bible doesn't adapt, they had to make up stuff to adapt it to their new reality. That tells me it's totally the product of people and not divine at all.

BTW, because of that, you could argue that Christianity is really just a strain of "midrashic" judaism trying to survive in a new world with no temple and no land as well. Islam is very different from that btw and does not fit in that particular time period/history at all.

Of course Judaism and Christianity have evolved a lot more since even the destruction of the temple etc....Islam never has. But you can see that all the justifications are non-divine in nature so it sorta kills their argument if only the recognized reality that...there never *was* a god in the first place. =)

15. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #108033 by Summer Seale on January 5, 2008 at 9:22 pm

@roach

I totally agree and I *totally* agree with Sam Harris too: if the bible is so great, why isn't it great for all time and not just for one time? It's basically all made up crap. I mean, it's nice stories and stuff in some respects, kinda like all myths can be. But that's all it is: a series of *myths* (with some history thrown in like names and places at times or references to them). I'm just trying to explain how Judaism is *different* than what most people think it is here....and honestly I'm a bit surprised that in an intellectual community of atheists, so many glaring errors can be made about the differences of religions. =) I mean, it's one thing to know it's all junk realistically speaking. I know it is. You know it is. We all do. *BUT* at least I can see why people argue a certain way and why they don't address or do address or explain certain things differently than others.

I mean, honestly, my main beef with Christianity and Islam is that they are trying to convert me. I have less problems with Christians trying to do it because they're not giving me an option to do it or die. But conversion is the biggest frigging piece of nonsense I can think of and the *biggest* reason why they're a problem. Do you *THINK* for a moment that if Muslims and Christians had the same tenet of *non-conversion* and *non-preaching* that Jews have, that we would even have a *problem* with them half the time? That's my number one problem with religions. My main problem with religion is that they're trying to tell me how to think and what to do. I want none of it, but at least let's start with those trying to *intrude* into your personal and daily lives.

Again, I'm totally not of the opinion that Judaism is "right" at all. I just don't have as much of a problem with it right now because it isn't asking me to follow it or be condemned to hell or try to kill me for refusing. That's like...my number one concern. I'm rational *and* practical. =)

16. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #108031 by Summer Seale on January 5, 2008 at 9:07 pm

BTW, I'm totally not excusing the genocide of other peoples etc....I think it was just a regular thing back then for one tribe to try to wipe out another. The bible doesn't show that Jews were special in their brutality or enlightened in their views. It just shows that they were just as stupid and brutal as pretty much most other people around them at the time.

But that was back then. They've sorta evolved a bit since then. You can't really say that after about the fall of the first temple that Jews have been a power oppressing others. It's pretty much been the other way around.

17. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #108028 by Summer Seale on January 5, 2008 at 9:00 pm

@Paine

Correct me if Im wrong, but looking at the Old Testament Jews are supposed to massacre non-Jews and drive them away from the Promised Land. That seems like a pretty huge claim, per se.

Yes they *did*. Those are people that are mentioned by names (as in specific tribes) and not generally, and they *did* do that. At least, as far as the bible is concerned. (A lot of that is made up too) But, it doesn't say to drive all non-Jews from the land for all time etc...there are no blanket orders to massacre all non-Jews in the old testament. It says, for instance, massacre all the phillistines. Well, okay, Phillistines were massacred (we're not sure if they all were and some probably left for economic reasons etc..and not because of the "huge *might*" of the Jewish armies heh). But after that...it doesn't say to move on to all other peoples (it does say to fight other tribes, just not more than several and they don't....exist anymore). So you can't say that Judaism tells Jews to fight and convert everyone today because it *doesn't*. Also, they didn't convert them etc...they just fought them to the death like anyone else back then with a brutal and stupid nature. =)

So no, they don't have to kill all non-Jews in the promised land.

18. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #108027 by Summer Seale on January 5, 2008 at 8:55 pm

@eXcommunicate

thanks! =) well i'm actually no expert at all but i've read up on a lot of this. btw, there *are* "spiritual" jews, but judaism's core is *not* like that at all. it's very different. we should realize the differences between religions, like sam harris says. it's very important. you can't blanket argue with them because if you do, they'll say 'oh but that doesn't apply to us!' =)

imo, there are lots of reasons - as a jew (i'm not, btw i'm a total shicksa) - not to follow judaism. and in fact, most of the big zionists at the start of the century were...atheists! =) herzl had *NEVER* been to a synagogue! ben gurion was basically an avowed atheist. a *lot* of the big names in atheism were jews. in fact, most israelis are *not* religious at all. you'll probably find more buddhists in tel aviv than you will jews half the time (i'm *not* kidding!) =) a lot of the zionist movement was more *anti-religious* than you guys. they were pissed off people at religion. most of the kibbutzes that started were *communist* =) most people don't even know that. some of the really really old ones still around still actually are (they even used to wear the old communist blue worker outfits etc...)

in fact, if you ever seen the movie (or read the book) "The Chosen", you'd know that *most* religious jews were *very* against the idea of a jewish state because it went against their religious doctrine of waiting for the messiah. it is only *after* the state of israel was born that most of them came around to the idea. most of the zionists literally fought with religion and threw off the yoke of it to declare they didn't want to wait anymore. that was a biiiiiig fight.

19. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #108019 by Summer Seale on January 5, 2008 at 8:36 pm

Oh and I have to amend that:

The other reason I suspect the rabbi can't really defend Judaism to a non-Jew is how is he gonna tell a non-Jew why he should follow Jewish Law? It's not the same as Christianity where the whole point is to tell somebody how they have to do this to be saved (there is no "saving" in Judaism). The same applies to Islam as well (altho the concept of "saving" is different in some respects).

Then again, Harris is born of a Jewish mother, so technically he's Jewish no matter what he says (i.e. I'm an atheist!). But I doubt the rabbi wanted to turn that into a Jewish law argument. =)

For the record, again, I think Harris won by a landslide and is really really cute as well. =)

20. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #108014 by Summer Seale on January 5, 2008 at 8:25 pm

Mr. Wolpe claims that the only answer to philosophical questions into the nature of existence is god. Why? What about all the other religious claims? What about Buddhism, Shamanism, Hinduism, etc. Don't any of those offer viable alternative hypotheses to monotheism when it comes to those questions? If not, why not?

Judaism does not actually make any claims about other religions, really. Again, people here don't appear to understand the difference with Judaism vs. Christianity vs. Islam, and this is not a good thing. Most people here seem to assume/tag on their perceptions of religion based on Christianity and apply it to Judaism and Islam. They're *totally* not the same thing at all.

For the record, the rabbi wasn't not being very Jewish in his claims. Like I explained, Judaism is not about revelation at all. You don't follow Judaism as a Jew because you feel God's presence. You follow his rules because...he told you to. There is no other reason given. There is nothing about salvation or revelation or any of that in Judaism. It's just as vapid a reason as ever, but it *is* a very different reason. Some Jews claim to "feel god". Whatever. That is not necessary for Judaism. Jews follow the commandments because they are *commandments*, not because they have any feeling one way or the other about it.

Christianity started because some Jews wanted more than just to follow rules for the sake of following rules because they were told to. That is a MAJOR difference. Do not apply Christian theology and assumptions to Judaism. It means that you really don't understand what you're talking about. =)

And again: Jews don't go around converting others (apart from religious Jews trying to make other Jews more religious and generally being a total pain in the ass towards them and stuff on the sabbath). They're forbidden from going around converting people. The reason is simple: they are a set of tribes. They're not *interested* in telling other tribes what to do religiously or otherwise. You don't have Jews going around telling you what to think about God if you're not a Jew. That doesn't happen. I mean other than rabbis defending God in general in a debate, that is. =)

I suspect that the reason the rabbi did not defend Judaism as it is, is because he can't. You can't argue with a non-Jew why they should follow Judaism because, again, you're not allowed to seek their conversion.

21. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107795 by Summer Seale on January 5, 2008 at 11:25 am

#155 notsobad

It's called "sarcasm". =)

22. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107792 by Summer Seale on January 5, 2008 at 11:17 am

Haha....you obviously haven't seen a South American football(soccer) match or an India-Pakistan cricket match! Wars have hung over the outcome of these games.

Okay then, obviously we should eliminate all sporting events as well. It is time that we realize just how dangerous a poison it is to the mind and that we take steps to eliminate this sort of confrontational tribalism once and for all. I suggest that some here write a book entitled "Letter to a Soccer/Football/Cricket Nation".

And after that, we should also try to eliminate national holidays like July 4th as well! All those fights breaking out around hot dogs and beer on sunny days once a year is simply intolerably irrational! Everything *must* be rational. Everything.

I also suggest that couples only be allowed to date after filling out forms to see if they are compatible or not or prone to bouts of anger towards each other. That's the best way to eliminate domestic violence, of course. Let's make sure that we *prevent* as much violence or anger in the world simply by telling people what they can or cannot do, or what is simply good for them.

Pubs and bars? We have to close those as well. No need for them, really. Dating? You'll be issued with permission slips and you will be checked when you are out to see if you have yours properly stamped and signed! Also, anything to do with love will be put on hold and properly assessed as to whether or not it conforms with the best possible advancement of the human species as a whole. Too many fights between lovers and it has to be stopped.

Breeding will be licensed as well.

and YAY FOR CHEERLEADERS ;)

I feel that this isn't gonna die very easily....

23. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107778 by Summer Seale on January 5, 2008 at 9:56 am

#130 Radesq,

Wow, what it must have been like being in front of those crowds and yelling over and over again "We've got Spirit yes we do! We've got Spirit how 'bout you!?!" I can't imagine. ;)

It was fun.

24. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107668 by Summer Seale on January 5, 2008 at 12:43 am

#113 Teratornis,

Wow. I didn't know I woulda caused such a fuss. =)

I think it's really well written, and I agree with most of it. In fact, for argument's sake, I'll say I agree with all of it, so we can end the discussion right there. =)

I will say, tho.....that when somebody says you really overanalyze something, and you come back with a huge dissertation analyzing that statement that is even bigger than the last analysis you did....maybe they have a point. =)

Still, was interesting and kinda funny as a reaction. I think. =)

BTW, I used to smoke and I quit cold turkey (I'm really proud of that too). I know Hitch says he could probably quit but he likes it even tho it's a stupid habit and all, and I don't know if you smoked ever, but smoking changes your brain. Like, literally, the way you think and perception and all that. Like when you're a smoker, smoke smells okay to you. Now that I quit, it smells horrible again. And space and time feel different when you're quitting and stuff. Its hard to describe. But the point is that it is an addiction and it changes the way you feel and think about some things, and it doesn't matter what rationale there is for quitting smoking, you still won't "feel" that way until AFTER you've quit. It's a catch 22. So it's not that Hitch believes that smoking benefits outweigh the disadvantages for rational reasons. It's that he *thinks* they do, but only because his body is telling them it does, even tho it doesn't. But smoking isn't the same as sports. =)

I'm not saying it's impossible to quit (look at me!) but arguments, rational or otherwise, do not usually make somebody quit smoking. What made me quit is just that after a few years of doing it, I thought it was stupid, really sucks, was a total waste of money, and I figured out that my body was lying to me when it was telling me I needed it. Also I sorta got "bored" with it. I figured out after a while that it wasn't feeling as good as it used to when I first started, and maybe it never would again for real. I wasn't ever a heavy smoker btw, so I can't even imagine how hard it would be to quit if you were....

Also I tend to do a lot of physical stuff, like I rollerblade and bike and surf (a lot less recently) and do other things, and when I felt smoking really cutting down on my breathing, I started to worry.

25. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107646 by Summer Seale on January 4, 2008 at 10:38 pm

#108 Don_Quix

Ya, I was. 4 years, captain too. And...see, I could analyze that as stereotyping girls which is a primitive association of the sex drive. =) I'm blonde too. Does that make me hotter? (You don't even know what I look like! =) ) And some guys have to realize that a LOT of girls are cheerleaders in HS. 1) It's nothing special and 2) We're just as cute as the non-cheerleader ones. But thanks anyway. =) (I know..I know, you were kidding. But see what I mean? =) )

BTW, I *DO* agree that the same emotions at play in religion are at play in sports team association and all that. I'm not saying it's not true. I'm just saying it's silly to really make an issue out of it. =) *Believe* me, I know that some sports fans would blaspheme their religion over their sports team ANY day! =) I mean I *know* this is true. =) And ya, it's tribal and exclusionary and whatever (although anyone can root for any team and be accepted), but it is just for fun mostly and it's not like they're actually sending armies out to *kill* people and convert them to their way/team. =) Basically, it's not a real problem.

That isn't to say that the soccer hooligans in europe are not a problem sometimes. But we don't really have much of that here in the states. =) Sure, we've had lots of fights between team fans and whatever, but I think that's just part of human nature. And all our societies generally have way bigger things to worry about than red sox fans going against yankee fans in some bar during the world series, or eagles fans getting into fights with anyone else =)

Except Raiders fans. They're the worst.

Oops. Sorry. =)

26. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107643 by Summer Seale on January 4, 2008 at 10:13 pm

#106 Don_Quix

I was a cheerleader for 4 years in HS. I know what a football game is like, thanks. =)

It didn't make me a total fanatic btw. I liked cheerleading cuz it was fun and it was social - fun being the key word. I wasn't a huge sports fan, I was just into having fun at the games. And I still think that trying to rationalize sports teams, much as it totally makes sense and all that, is a bad idea. It's the kind of thing that regular people can point to and say "look at those egghead atheists - they're boring, and they not only want to take away our god but our fun as well". It's the sort of thing which gives intellectuals a *bad* name. Leave people to their sports. Fighting religion is a big enough fight as it is anyway. Why make it even worse? =)

27. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107639 by Summer Seale on January 4, 2008 at 10:01 pm

Jewish University? Are there universities in america where only jews are allowed? Same with other religions?

No, not where only Jews are allowed, the same as where anyone can attend a Catholic or Lutheran university, as far as I know.

28. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107638 by Summer Seale on January 4, 2008 at 9:54 pm

I just think that taking a rationalist approach towards team sports under the guise of atheism is carrying it on a bit too far. =) I'm not a huge sports fan, but I could see why some people might think that this is just plain ridiculous. =)

29. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107631 by Summer Seale on January 4, 2008 at 9:33 pm

#92 Teratornis,

I think pretty much everyone, on some level, understands this. But breaking it down, as you just did, makes me also understand why a lot of people really don't enjoy the company of "atheists" and "intellectuals" much at all. Sorry to have to put it this way, but you're seriously taking the fun out of everything when you overanalyze something like this...

Maybe it's just me, but rooting for a team at a game or whatever...that's just fun. Trying to break it down into what makes sense or doesn't makes sense on a rational basis is just plain stupid, in my opinion...

30. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107595 by Summer Seale on January 4, 2008 at 7:47 pm

#62 I-am-a-7

I thought they were both great.
But....
I still don't understand what Rabbi Wolpe thinks that God is.
He didn't explain much about his rapture with divinity.

Again, this is where Harris would probably have to explain that there are very big differences between religions.

There is no "rapture with divinity" in Judaism. Judaism isn't about revelation at all in the sense that most Christians (or people in Christian societies) think of what religion is supposed to represent. Judaism is mostly a set of cultural rules to be observed because....they're part of that tribe. That was the whole point of Jesus: merely following the rules doesn't mean you are in touch with god. Jesus's point (if there was a single man named Jesus, but you get my drift) was that Jews needed a spiritual revolution to be in touch with god.

Put simply: being a good Jew means just following the laws because you *are* a Jew. You don't have to believe it is right or makes any sense. At least, a lot of Judaism is like this. It is a set of laws to be followed because "God" said so a very long time ago and made a covenant with the Jews. You don't even have to "feel" god exists - you just have to obey the laws.

It's a tribal thing. That's why they refer to each other, partly in jest, as "one of the tribe", etc.... yes, it's a tribal thing.

It's also a pretty stupid reason to obey rules. But one of the good things about Judaism, unlike Christianity and Islam, is that it does not seek to convert you. If you are not of the tribe, they're not interested in your becoming one of them. They don't try to force it on you and they are, in fact, prevented from trying to convert others to Judaism. In actual fact, it is very very hard to become Jewish. To become a Jew, you have to *really* want to become a Jew. You have to be turned down 3 times (for real) before they even consider you. And then you have to study, take tests, etc...

Now some might say that this is extremely exclusive and excludes everyone which sets a bad precedent. And I totally agree. But then again, it also means that you never have armies of Jews, or even people bothering you at your doorstep, trying to convert you to Judaism. That has never happened, and it just can't happen with Judaism.

That's something I can respect.

BTW, I do find some things about Jesus's line of thinking very valid as well (about an internal revolution etc..) if you actually believe this stuff (which I don't). Some of that line of thinking is actually just as nice and interesting and I can appreciate it as well. I don't, however, find anything redeeming in Islam at all.

31. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107573 by Summer Seale on January 4, 2008 at 7:04 pm

#39 Ine

Extremely well put by Harris.
In my opinion, he crushed that Jew.

I would be very, very, careful about throwing that term around as a pejorative. I'm an Atheist, I don't believe in the god of Abraham, but I also recognize that Jews have been oppressed and massacred simply for their religion like almost no other in history. When people snarl that word "Jew", it conjures up a fucking hell of a lot more than just a rejection of religious ideals. The rabbi was quick to point that that Judaism is hard to talk about sometimes in a religious context because it also can represent a people. And we all know exactly what "Jew" meant from outsiders for a lot of world history when they were talking about them.

My suggestion is to not use that term in such a way.

And, for the record, while I totally disagreed with the rabbi on his entire stance, I thought he was funny, smart, likable, and he listened and responded well. Yes, he made some assertions that I completely disagreed with. But of all the debaters I've seen so far, he was definitely the best one, and the one with the most respect as an individual for our side (it appeared to me).

32. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106836 by Summer Seale on January 3, 2008 at 2:42 pm

I'd just like to turn all of you towards the embrace of Gffnarffph and his ten thousand arms as represented by his sacrificial sons here on earth.

In THE SCRIPTURE, Gffnarffph is clearly shown to be the One most powerful God of Gods and I feel him every day in my life whenever I praise his Tentacle of Might. If you believe in him for long enough and praise his word, you just might be able to feel and summon his love in a Divine Strike against your opponents who may not understand that HIS is the ONE TRUE WORD. Sad, but true, there are those who would oppose Gffnarffph - those mostly from the tribe down the river who piss in the water every time we go bathing. They believe in the false word of Gorgresh the Terrible, and we must defeat them for this reason alone.

Our old and crumbling papers are true, as everyone knows. Theirs are false and yellowed with age, whilst ours are ancient and revered. Our say that they are true, so they must be, and our feelings on the matter prove that this must be so: Gffnarffph rules supreme with his ten thousand tentacles which are one. And every Monday, we partake of his succulent flesh with a little beer and seaweed so as to become one with his body which surrounds us and embraces us in his wet suckers. We feel them sticking to our skin every time we praise his name, all praise to Gffnarffph!

Christians make me laugh in the mighty face of the power of Gffnarffph! Gffnarffph rules over them and they know not, and they shall be cast down for it in their ignorance! And even if they are not cast down NOW, I *KNOW* that Gffnarffph SHALL PUNISH THEM AFTER DEATH! While I may be unable to defeat the foes of Gffnarffph now, I am comfortable in the realization that they shall suffer at SOME POINT in time for their non-belief!

So, I praise the idea of a Christians Out campaign! For then, you shall be out in the open...

...and Gffnarffph grows hungry.

33. A War On Science

Comment #105618 by Summer Seale on January 1, 2008 at 8:54 am

Radesq,

You're right and I am sorry because I didn't mean to imply that you said otherwise. I was referring just generally to a lot of liberal vs. conservative attitudes here. But I've totally ranted against the evangalical wing in the party before and I have already decided that if Huckabee is to be nominated, I'll probably just vote with the Democrats this time. Not that this is a major problem for me because I did vote for Gore in 2000. =)

And you're right: it's high time the right stopped pandering to the evangelicals. It upsets me to no end. I'm an atheist and I still have some conservative values, and they have nothing to do with my belief in religion whatsoever.

34. A War On Science

Comment #105556 by Summer Seale on January 1, 2008 at 1:15 am

"Proper science only prevailed in this case because there was a sensible judge in place to rule on the case."

The judge in question is actually a Republican judge appointed by a Republican and religious president. =)

Just because somebody is a "conservative" on some issues does not automatically make them a fool. I wish some people here would remember that from time to time. =)

35. The Pagan Christ

Comment #103593 by Summer Seale on December 26, 2007 at 8:56 am

Krisking,

Just because a billion people think something is true does not make it so.

For thousands of years, almost everyone in the world thought that the world was flat and other gods walked the earth. I presume you think that, even though they had numbers on their side, they were extremely wrong.

Numbers alone do not make a good argument. If you didn't take things on faith, perhaps you would have thought this through by now.

36. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98794 by Summer Seale on December 14, 2007 at 10:51 am

To be honest, I actually thought he was the more articulate of the two. Of course, there is a language barrier, but even so, I think he came out ahead.

I don't think so at all. I think his view is full of crap. You think it's a good thing to be "nuanced" the way he wants to be?

Okay.

How much "nuance" should we give creationists? Do you actually "listen" to evangelicals?

My guess is you don't.

My guess is, also, that TGA doesn't either. My guess is that Timmy has never, ever, written a column saying that we should listen to the evangelical point of view and hope for a reformation within that movement. He simply disagrees with them, doesn't care about what their viewpoint is, and thinks they are just flat out wrong.

Which makes him an Islamist apologist, and also makes him full of shit.

37. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98791 by Summer Seale on December 14, 2007 at 10:31 am

Um, well he did actually call Mohammed an illeterate paedophile in the debate, so I'm not sure I entirely agree with that. It would be interesting too see what the next islamist he encounters says about that.

Ya, because in that setting he knew he wouldn't get beaten up for it.

Face it. The guy is a gutless twerp. Seriously, he is. He's giving liberals a bad name.

You know what he reminds me of? I'll give you a cogent paradigm (wow! I love using big words =) ). Ever see Red Dwarf? There's an episode where a creature steals Rimmer's anger, and he becomes a total caricature of a "liberal" guy with shorts and sandals, smoking a pipe, and totally not "getting it" when they have to fight this alien and kill it. He basically becomes the mockery of what an intellectual liberal is, and it's brilliantly played out and I totally love it. I know you guys gonna say it's just a TV show and all that, but my point isn't that I love british comedies (which I totally do), but that this guy was the exact same kind of caricature.

Sorry, sometimes appearances *do* matter. And anyway, it took him a year to apologize for what he said, and he only seems to have done so because he was afraid of that withering look that Ayaan was going to give him. He just comes across as somebody who has only one genuine emotion: fear. He totally is afraid of anything around him, so I don't really care what he says because he's gonna change his opinion as soon as he walks into another room.

Maybe it's a girl thing? I dunno. I just think this guy is a wimp and that he deserved to get his ass kicked.

I totally <3 Ayaan.

38. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98780 by Summer Seale on December 14, 2007 at 9:36 am

How about some serious critique of what he said, not what you felt he said?

Because I didn't think what he said was genuinely felt.

I actually find myself siding, somewhat, to a degree, with Bonzai about this. TGA has a different emphasis from AHA, but his statements about liberal values made it clear he is on-side.

He's on whichever side is holding him by the ear or the scruff of the neck.

Are we really going to attack anyone who disagrees even moderately with our heroes (such as AHA) this way? Shouldn't we stand back and consider the details of the arguments? Why all the ad-hominems?

Yes, because I think the guy is a wimp. He has no convictions. He only has hoops he jumps through to justify whichever position the wind happens to blow in his face.

The way I feel about it is important, and I'll tell you why. Perhaps a guy like that will provoke a lot of discussion here, but out in the real world, people would roll their eyes at such a display and not even listen. He's what people point to and label "liberal bearded lefty" as a slander to make a point, and I don't like it. He's not doing our side any favors.

I have a friend who is a conservative on some issues and who gave me that line because he hates - hates - Bill O'Reilly for being what liberals can point to and say "that's their position". He thinks Bill is an idiot. It's the same thing with this guy. People on the other side can point to this guy and say "that's a classic wimpy liberal who won't stand up for anything", so I loathe him for it - because in a way they are right. They wouldn't dare point to Ayaan that way, because they can't. Because she stands up and fights for those liberal values whereas this guy just smirks and shrugs and apologizes and fawns over anyone who is about to kick his skinny little ass across the room for being in the way.

I can bet you that if he debates an Islamist next, he'll be apologizing for saying he agreed with Ayaan in part. I would be willing to put money down on it. The reason Ayaan kicked his ass was because she couldn't find his balls to kick first - the guy doesn't have any.

Ya, I really didn't like this guy. Sorry. =)

39. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98776 by Summer Seale on December 14, 2007 at 9:10 am

Hey, give the guy a break. He basically apologised and said he was wrong about that.

He didn't apologize. He groveled. And then he groveled for the other side and apologized for groveling for them as well. It was a disgusting display.

All I could hear coming from his mouth the entire time was a begging, whimpering, cry of "Please..don't hurt me..."

Made me sick.

40. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98774 by Summer Seale on December 14, 2007 at 9:00 am

As a religion, Islam has been more tolerant than Christianity for most of its history.

No, it hasn't.

That's a fact.

No, it's not.

41. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98759 by Summer Seale on December 14, 2007 at 8:21 am

"It might be because he called himself a liberal and you have a preconceived notion about what it might mean."

I'm a liberal too. =)

But, I'm sorry if this sounds mean and all, TGA comes off as a smarmy wimp. If he had been threatened as Ayaan was, you would be able to see the stain on his front trousers in five seconds flat. I read what he said last year when he called her an enlightenment fundamentalist. Now, after having seen him uhm and ahm his way around like some apologetic idiot, I have even less respect for him. Ayaan kicked his ass with a single look. It doesn't take much to understand why he's so afraid of Islamists after seeing that sorry little display.

42. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98589 by Summer Seale on December 13, 2007 at 10:58 pm

I think it was sad that the one most important question from the audience was put towards TGA and was left unanswered.

It was when the reporter asked him what if it really IS that bad? What if they really ARE in trouble?

TGA doesn't want to answer that. He doesn't want to face that. Only Ayaan faces that. And that, in answer to another audience member, is why so much vitriol against her is coming from the left and liberals alike.

Because they've been raised not to think of anything as being problematic other than their own culture. That's their biggest mistake.

The problem with Hirsi is the same problem I face too: as a liberal, I had a hard time coming to the conclusion that not everything I was believing in was true. Some cultures aren't equal, or parts of it, and have to be fought and/or reformed. Hirsi is saying that not only are Muslims wrong about Islam, but that liberals are as well. And she's saying it as a liberal. And people like her opponent don't want to face that fact because, heavens forfend, they ever agree with anything on the "other side of the aisle". The thing which disturbs me the most is that liberals appear completely willing to understand and accommodate nuances with Muslims in general. But there is no way in hell they will do the same for things said on the right. With Muslims, there is a happy medium they are willing to reach. But with conservatives/republicans - forget it. No way. Never. No "nuances" with conservatives - they're all evangelical anti-abortion creationist idiots. Nevermind that many Muslims are as well. Christians = Bad. Muslims = Good. I don't buy that. I think they're all pretty bad, but some will argue about it (even in court or the ballot box) and some will just try to cut off my head.

That, to me, is a big problem. I know a lot of people here feel the way that TGA does about Islam. I just would like people to realize, as Sam Harris says, not all religions are equal. Really. Believe me, I have *so* many problems with others. I just feel that Islam is currently the biggest threat right now.

43. Sudan demo over jailed UK teacher

Comment #92642 by Summer Seale on December 1, 2007 at 2:37 am

These poor, oppressed, people...

44. Pupil defends teacher in Muhammad teddy furore

Comment #91667 by Summer Seale on November 28, 2007 at 11:41 pm

I know that what I'm about to say is going to ring completely false with most of the people here but here goes:

This is what you get for not having a believable foreign policy towards these sand tick countries which makes them believe that if they don't behave, you will seriously go in and kick their fucking ass until they scream uncle.

Period.

I love most of what people fight for here, but leftist dogma of peace and love and understanding is not gonna do the frigging job, k? Your flowers and wishes for a peaceful world isn't gonna cut making it come true. I know, I know, most of you are peace loving hippies and that's fine. But I still think that a religious zealot as a Marine ready to pull the trigger for western values is doing a hell of a lot more than most metro urban atheists who just write about how the rest of the world sucks and why can't everyone respect ideals like they do? Now, I'm not a Marine and even if I were, they wouldn't let me fight (how sexist is that? but whatever) but I do support the marines in their fight as well as the other soldiers and seriously...I don't understand how people here just can't see that.

If the Sudanese *really* thought that our *instant* and *first* reaction to this would be to send fifty cruise missiles into their grand palace or whatever else they have of importance over there, I can *guarantee* you that they wouldn't have arrested her in the first place. They'd be scared shitless to do so. That's how you're going to change these societies before they get down to destroying ours: scaring the living shit out of them.

Look at what happened with the british soldiers and Iran. Does anyone here actually think that Ahmadinejad would have even *thought* of doing that if he *really* believed that the UK's instantaneous response would have been a bombing raid to put him in his place? I don't think so.

Idealism is nice and dandy, but the world isn't an ideal place. For rational people to make up fantasies about it being so is kinda nonsensical to me.

And for your information, just to remind everyone here, nobody ever got to the age of reason in the west - the same one you all tout - without spilling a hell of a lot of blood for it. You think that was in vain?

45. Islam and the modern world don't mix

Comment #91661 by Summer Seale on November 28, 2007 at 11:09 pm

But...but....

...Islam is a religion of peace!

46. The absurd world of Martin Amis

Comment #90495 by Summer Seale on November 25, 2007 at 10:53 am

I think anyone who speaks out publicly against Islam is "very brave indeed", Vinelectric.


And on another thing...doesn't anyone else find the whole "I'm against Political Islam" to be about the most *stupid* argument ever? I'm against "Political Nazism" too, but I guess Nazism has some "wise" teachings about community action so it's alright with me? What kind of stupid and moronic argument is this? It's such a dodge. But oh, Islam is "religion" so we can't mock it or show it for what it is. "Kill all the Jews" in Nazism is not okay, but in Islam it's "taken out of context". Bullshit.

And that's another thing: context. Islam must be the most context-ridden religion I have EVER come across. Seems like you need a billion pages of justification to explain every single phrase out of Mohammed's mouth. It's *totally* ridiculous. What's this about it being a simple religion to understand and all that crap? If it's so peaceful, why do we need reams of explanations to explain away all the genocidal and insane rants from "the Prophet"? It's a damned Nazi cult is what it is. You can explain Adolf Hitler's statements in "context" as well. It doesn't make them any more right, and ANYONE would know that the explanation would amount to the same thing anyway: a steaming pile of bullshit.

47. The absurd world of Martin Amis

Comment #90464 by Summer Seale on November 25, 2007 at 8:18 am

I'm on Fanusi's side. =)

The Bible is downright stupid for much of it if you take it literally. But it's the one being "quoted out of context" most of the time even if you do. Islam is the one which is not being quoted out of context. Defending Islam for not being as bad as what the extremists believe it to be is the utmost form of liberal cognitive dissonance. I'm a liberal too, but I'm not so open minded that my brains have fallen out of my head either. Just because Islam is by and large of the "third world" and belonging to non-pale penis people doesn't mean that it isn't completely full of shit. I'm sorry, it is.

And anyone who goes around defending Islam as some sort of anti-racist crusade is a total moron as well because anyone can tell you who has been to Israel that more than half the Jews there are non-white as well.

As are most Christians in the world today.

They all really do suck. But, I'm sorry, Sam Harris is right: nobody lies awake at night worrying about the Amish. And there is a reason for that. The only people who are quoting Islam out of context are the morons and rationalizers who think that Islam is a "religion of peace". It isn't. It's just as moronic, barbaric, sexist, racist, brutal and filthy an ideology as us anti-Islamic "extremists" claim it to be, and I will brook no exception to that statement. It is one of the scourges of humanity, it oppresses a billion people who could be doing better things with their lives and the entire world, and it should be thrown into the dustbin of history for all time.

I hate it, I hate people who defend it, and I hate people who go around claiming that people like me are the irrational ones. You don't fight extremist ideologies with love and flowers. You fight it with another gun and another set of harsh words, because it is the enemy. It is my enemy, it hates me, and I hate it back and I like that it hates me. I revel in the fact that it hates me. I thrive in its hatred. And hopefully, one day, I will see it just as dead as it wants me.

Anyone who disagrees can "fuck off".

48. D'Souza - Nothing to Refute Here

Comment #86935 by Summer Seale on November 10, 2007 at 1:17 pm

Flagellant,

I agree up to a certain point. =) However, if we are a site about reason, if we are to argue reasonably, then accepting even the *premise* that these God-Bozos use to argue with is caving in to unreasonable behavior.

I do understand the point you're making initially, yes. It's good to explain things for what they mean so the argument can be understood. *But*....it really upsets me that we even have to. Why should we? Why should we even feel as if we have to make cogent and reasoned arguments against the drivel from the other side?

When some idiotic mad person comes up to you and starts talking about how aliens rule the world in the guise of lizards, do you actually start to consider their arguments and how to refute it in a logical way, or do you just sorta flip them off and tell them they're a total moron and to get some medical care right away? If you do the former, then I have to ask why. If you do the latter, then we're all being hypocritical when we give these God-people the time of day.

Seriously, Kelly's essay was actually great, but the real response should have been derisive laughter which chills to the core of the other side. Derisive, degrading, and cruel. It's time that Atheists make it quite clear that we no longer are going to play in the sandbox with the other people who like to play at make-believe and take it for reality, because we've grown up now. And their insistence that we can still play at make-believe, and their ruination of anyone who doesn't agree that this is reality, deserves only mockery to put them in their place.

That's my point. Sorry I blew my top there tho. =) But like...wtf? Seriously. For anyone who starts going off on me in my life about how I have to "Find Jesus" or "Mohammed" or anything else, I like to instantly talk down at them like they are bad little children who really don't understand anything yet. I'll tell them anything outrageously stupid such as "I have a pet unicorn that you can't see and you can never meet, but if you believe in him you'll be really happy!" which equates to a huge flipping bird in their face because they know exactly what I think of their whole initial premise and how I have no respect for their ideas whatsoever.

That isn't to say that I don't think that celebrating Christmas or Hannukah or Eid as a cultural phenomenon isn't perfectly fine and dandy. That's great, I'm all for it. But to actually believe in the Big Man In The Sky(tm) makes somebody a total lunatic in my book.

That said, I like being polemical. I hope people understand that. =)

49. D'Souza - Nothing to Refute Here

Comment #86704 by Summer Seale on November 10, 2007 at 2:24 am

Flagellant,

I completely disagree. I mean, you go right ahead, but I think it's a waste of time. Why play their philosophical con game? I refuse to believe in something which they say exists and which they refuse to reveal to me in full. Why beat around the bush? If somebody is going to sell me a car, I will look under the hood. They refuse to even show me the whole car, let alone what is under the hood. Sorry, I'm not buying. Anyone who buys into that argument, anyone who says to at least listen to the salesman, is a total frigging idiot. He's lying. He's lying to you, lying to me, lying to the world. Either that, or he's a total dupe who has been conned by another liar. Either way, he's full of it. You know it. I know it. Debunking it with philosophical araguments on their level is just validating their stupid little game.

God people: Put up, or shut up already.

That's my "philosophical argument" for them to deal with. There may be nothing new about arguments in atheism, but then again there isn't anything new about proving something in court or a lab or just daily life either. It is either real or it isn't. They want me to believe? Fine. Prove it to me. Get God's ass on the stand and let's see what he has to say for himself.

I don't deal with second-rate spokesmen.

50. D'Souza - Nothing to Refute Here

Comment #86695 by Summer Seale on November 10, 2007 at 1:48 am

I have absolutely no problem believing in a God.

If Dinesh wants me to believe in a God, he can ask his God to introduce himself to me. I'll be happy to meet him and chat anytime. Until then, I don't believe he exists, and there is no BS convoluted mental masturbation which will convince me that I am wrong. I don't expect Dinesh to think that Zeus exists without my proving it to him, so why should he expect any different from me? The fact that he does makes him a real idiot in my book. Dinesh, why don't you believe in my fucking teapot as well? You bloody heretic. May you burn in hell forever for not believing in it.

I get upset at people wasting time and words trying to convince others that God exists, for hours, days, years, centuries...wasting valuable time which would be better spent doing something far better for everyone involved. It bores me. They bore me. If they want us to believe, then pull him out of the fucking hat already.