1. Indian village proud after double 'honor killing'

Comment #181382 by AfraidToDie on May 17, 2008 at 5:01 am

I can only thank the Flying Spagetti Monster that I wasn't born in a shithole place like that. I bet their percentage of atheists are real low too, and unnaturally so.

2. Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear

Comment #179746 by AfraidToDie on May 13, 2008 at 3:50 pm

3. Comment #179143 by JamesDB - This is nice bit of news but in the end really doesn't make a difference. It doesn't matter who is on whos side, just that the evidence doesn't support the religious. Having einstein now proven to not believe in religion is just another thing that will be disputed anyway seeing as christians don't pay attention to evidence.

You are correct in that it would not sway our (collective atheist) opinion if Einstein was a theist. However, I consider it very important that statistically a high percentage of the upper echelon of scientist profess atheism. Rationalism (which I believe is the strong suit of science), is our mantra. And having Einstein (toward the upper tier of the very top scientists I would assume) in the atheist camp is of great consequence in my mind.

3. Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear

Comment #179147 by AfraidToDie on May 12, 2008 at 7:24 pm

I am curious as to the timings of these writings compared to when he was quoted as saying "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."? Was this from his early years? And then in his later years he referred to a "cosmic religious feeling". At most, he sounded like a deist? Perhaps he just didn't want to be labelled with the scarlet "A"?

4. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177184 by AfraidToDie on May 8, 2008 at 5:50 pm

17. Comment #177180 by Spinoza - False.

OK, you might be right about me being wrong (sounds like the making of a country song), but I'm still look'n, and I'm using genetics as my excuse :-)

5. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177177 by AfraidToDie on May 8, 2008 at 5:40 pm

RD.."You have sensible things to say about sex and love, and you have no need to yell when you are talking sense."

Sorry, based on the clip link provided by adonais, Rabbi Shitly is wrong on sex too. When I see a hot looking female walk by, I know better than to make my wife feel bad by gawking; but come on, if you don't take a sly double take on an obvious physical attraction, then that's no different than putting on Catholic Priest attire and claiming to be holier than the common man; it's a charade. Sorry RD, he's wrong about "sex and love" too.

6. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155740 by AfraidToDie on April 5, 2008 at 1:25 pm

210. Comment #155594 by irvine.intervention : linke to Hitchens v Hitchens

Thanks for the link! I finally got thru all 12 10 minute segments. I somehow got the impression that C's brother was not that religious, more of a deist, and this may be a case where he is just riding on his brother's coattails.

7. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155511 by AfraidToDie on April 4, 2008 at 4:00 pm

163. Comment #155350 by al-rawandi . . . My predictions that came true"

Now if you can somehow rise from the dead (or make your dead body disappear) we might start worshiping you big Al. And, "you wish" you could blow your own horn :-)

Artful_Dodger (or any Christian or theist who thinks my atheism will take me to hell): Please tell me why you think it is that I cannot believe in christ? I cannot do it! Is it because my skepticism is holding me back? Must I just "let myself go" and give in to something I just cannot seem to accept. How do I do that, and which old stories do I "let myself go" and start believing in? Must I choose the story that offers the most pain if I don't. Christ offers me eternal hell or eternal happiness? Wow, what a gap! So, I decided a long, long time ago to not let fearful things that do not add up to reason, make me believe in something I cannot bring myself to believe. Please, I would love to know what changes you think I must make in order to believe in "the growing awareness of the reality of God". And if I still can't do it, do I still go to hell?

8. Faith healing church parents charged over toddler's death

Comment #154114 by AfraidToDie on April 2, 2008 at 5:20 pm

101. Comment #153821 by corruptmemory
This is aimed at no-one in particular, but I will throw some more ideas into the mix:

You've pretty well covered this very rationally, and I agree with everything that wasn't over my head (most, I hope). I also understand FF's outrage about the absurd justification of infanticide, as I have posted similar feelings. And if someone is shooting anything for the pure pleasure of killing, I am very much against that, even though I have done a great deal of killing in my past youth. From a pure ideal (my ideal) standpoint, I look up to vegans; from a pragmatic standpoint, I eat meat with no guilt. I think this is sufficient background to see why I consider it outrageous for anyone to consider killing children anywhere near birth. I agree there is an arbitrary line where many people may draw it differently, but that is why I have no problem with drawing it between the second and third tri-semester. I'm not sure where it is drawn in the US, but wherever it is at the moment is just fine with me as long as the religious right don't change it. However, when someone raises the question of "what is the difference between one day before birth and one day after", and are just pointing it out that they just want to debate it, that is what I call "arguing for the sake of arguing". They are asking for debate and enjoy arguing either side. I am happy to say that most of the debate, comments, and points that are made on RD.net are done from the side of the argument the poster believes. We all have a sense of what is right and what is wrong, and most post their arguments from the side they think is "right". When someone posts comments like "What is wrong then with parents deciding to kill their child moments after it comes out of the womb? How about days after? 15 months after?", am I to assume they are just asking the question for the sake of argument, or am I to believe they really believe it is OK somewhere in that time frame. I think FF's frustration and mine is that we'd like them to say exactly what they do believe, and then if it really is as ridiculous for us as it sounds, back it up with "why" you believe that bullshit, not say "this is not really what I believe, but for the sake of debate or argument…". I think I've been beating a dead fucking horse, but that better than killing a live one!

9. Faith healing church parents charged over toddler's death

Comment #153660 by AfraidToDie on April 1, 2008 at 7:17 pm

64. Comment #153653 by SweatyPalmSunday
I am very pleased with the many intellegent responses that have been given to my initial question (which was intended to be serious). As AfraidToDie has pointed out, I have recently joined this site, but I have been reading it for over a year, and certainly am not intending to stir up controversy for its own sake. Other than the subject being a bit touchy, I don't think I wrote in an inflammatory style. I think this is a serious question, and clearly so do some others.

13. Comment #153382 by SweatyPalmSunday
While I disapprove of the parents' (lack of) reasoning, I can't say that I am fundamentally opposed to the outcome

And you also said "I tend to agree with the old saying, "I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it."

I really hate discouraging anyone for voicing their opinion, especially if you've been "on the sidelines" for over a year before deciding to comment. But "infanticide" is not just a "touchy subject", it is ridiculous, as in unworthy of debate, and I don't believe it is even relavant to this thread. And you are not "fundamentally opposed to the outcome" of what the parents did, and agree with "I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it."? Oh, your points are "meant to probe one's own attitude toward their philosophy"? If you aren't just stirring shit, I believe you might be very sick. But then again, maybe I'm just having a cranky day. I reserve my right to apologize when I read your future posts.

10. Faith healing church parents charged over toddler's death

Comment #153629 by AfraidToDie on April 1, 2008 at 5:25 pm

37. Comment #153552 by FightingFalcon
Wait a second - are people in this thread ACTUALLY contemplating infanticide? What alternate universe did I freaking stumble into?

You are "right on" FF. After reading just a little bit of the insanity spouted out by SweatyPalmSunday, I am convinced they are related to Wooter, just trying to cause controversy. I think their agenda is Pro Life, and trying to play with "drawing the line". Come on SweatyPalmSunday, confess you are a Pro Lifer! I like drawing the line before the start of the third trimester, but for anyone to suggest you have the right to take the life of a baby after it is born is absolutely a fool or f'ing with us. Sweaty just joined the site, so I think it is a Wooter!

11. Beware the Believers

Comment #152319 by AfraidToDie on March 30, 2008 at 5:18 pm

Did you write the book of love, and do you have faith in God above?
If the Bible tells you so
Now do you believe in rock and roll, can music save your moral soul and
Can you teach me how to dance real slow?

Anybody remember this, and all the discussion about what it meant? There are parallels in that it is all about what you read into it. Mabe Don McLean knows what it means?

12. Beware the Believers

Comment #152175 by AfraidToDie on March 30, 2008 at 11:01 am

Hey Doc D, if it makes you feel any worse, we're laughing at you now and not with you. The reason is quite obviously because you are (for some of us) our mentor (along with DD, Eugenie, Sam, Hitch). Even though I am 60, I look up to your knowledge and outspoken views so much that seeing you perform rap (so totally out of character), just cracks me up every time I see it. I can see why you don't "get it", because you are just your average "uncool" (I just aged myself again) genius. You are "the master", we are the students, and you are the funniest wrapper I have ever seen (except for Dan D)!! Two thumbs up for this video.

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

Comment #152120 by AfraidToDie on March 30, 2008 at 7:20 am

126. Comment #150315 by FightingFalcon:
I don't know - for anti-government Libertarians like myself….. I've grown very hostile to government intervention in private matters such as this

SteveRoot is correct… "This is one of the proper functions of government". Libertarians are often on the edge of "extreme", especially those that believe in absolutely no government, which is anarchy in my book. Where do you draw the line FF? Do you want government to provide infrastructure? Do you want only state laws to prevail? I don't like government surveillance, and I certainly am leery about many actions government may take. However, I believe government can and does have an ever evolving positive role to play in society. Our Bill of Rights is the grand goal to keep in mind, and government is the tool to insure we try and keep it to the forefront. And, FF, I want our federal government to take money from you too (just like all of us) to make sure our infrastructure and rights are maintained. Right now, it's not doing very well, but I sure as hell don't want anarchy to be the solution. And yes, I believe our government is required to get involved to save some people from themselves, especially the remaining children in the Neumann family of whacko's.

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

Comment #152102 by AfraidToDie on March 30, 2008 at 6:00 am

2. Comment #149726 by Lucas
Child abuse, pure and simple. These people should be hanged. They're lucky as hell that I'm so far away from Wisconsin

Lucas, I am curious if you really feel you would do something physical to these people as you insinuate? I'm guessing you are just expressing how strongly you feel, but would not really take to action? These people are obviously very ignorant, and perhaps mentally ill. I do think that those that dedicate their lives to the supernatural have varying degrees of mental illness. I wonder what the remaining teenagers think about what happened, since they probably had to watch their sister's slow demise?

16. Comment #149762 by pulsar1z
There are some people that just have not evolved intelligence

I'd think the parents deserve a "Darwin Award", but I don't think there is any way to write this up to contain any humor.

35. Comment #149801 by heafnerj
Only in America....where child abuse is defended on religious grounds.

We keep getting the blame for all our religious lunacy when it is obviously Good Britain's fault. You wouldn't allow religious freedom in your country, so all the worst loonies jumped on boats and came here. We are still struggling to rid ourselves (by natural selection) of those who carried whatever f'd up gene that causes irrational belief. Just a few more thousand years (thanks to you) and we'll be rid of it.

15. Expelled Overview

Comment #151786 by AfraidToDie on March 29, 2008 at 11:36 am

133. Comment #151545 by clearthinker
I also saw an interesting interview with Stein - what do you think of this?

It runs along the same line as the trailer to the movie, nothing new. However, the proposition that even "asking about" what happened before the big bang can get you fired is very hard for me to believe took place. I am an atheist, and I'd love to know what happened before the big bang. I think there is a lot of science trying to bring forth hypothesis as to what might have happened before the big bang, which will have to stand up to scientific critique. However, to simply say that a god is the only explanation "before" the big bang is just trying to introduce the supernatural at an arbitrary point in time (a very long time ago) because science hasn't adequately come up with anything yet. And when science does find evidence to support what happened before the big bang, theists can then interject a god before that. God seems to be getting farther and farther away using that logic, but it doesn't stop the ID'ers from believing he intervened a mere 6k years ago. It is all so absurd. Please believe what you want, but theism must be channeled into the only area of academia it belongs, and that is philosophy. I think it would be great if theism and the many areas of philosophy were all part of our public education system in a philosophy classroom. The point is that it has no credence to be placed in science academia. However, I can't imagine theists wanting religion in open discussion in a philosophy classroom. It might expose the minds of their loved ones to views outside the area they chose for them to be brainwashed.

16. Sci-fi guru Clarke to have secular funeral

Comment #147511 by AfraidToDie on March 20, 2008 at 6:56 pm

19. Comment #147020 by joshuaslocum

Thanks for all the fantastic advice. Now I just need to file that where I can get to it in case my wife dies first. It just seems so odd to take care of such detail arrangements well in advance of your own death, especially when I don't attend to that much detail pertaining to life.

Here's a question for everyone with an opinion on funeral services: I always hear that a funeral service provides "closure" for the family. The same comment is heard by those missing a body. They need the body for "closure". I for one, do not believe I have ever needed whatever "closure" is supposed to represent. I don't believe attending a funeral has ever done anything for me except make me feel detached and weird. Is there really such a thing as "closure", or is it just a bunch of bullshit as I suspect?

17. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #144360 by AfraidToDie on March 15, 2008 at 5:53 pm

13. Comment #144292 by Damien Trotter - What I would like to know is where the good professor gets all his energy from! Book tours, lectures, writing, compiling (the above), TV programs and radio, personal apearances, world travel.

For some reason, he thinks he only has one life to live, and he's trying to make the most of it!!

18. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #144135 by AfraidToDie on March 15, 2008 at 7:02 am

65. Comment #144129 by phasmagigas the offended woman, she was the one who had contemplated if we were descended from a fish, an ape or even a rock! yup, she needs to do a bit of reading.

She might be living proof that some of us did actually evolve from a rock, and not very long ago either!

19. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #144134 by AfraidToDie on March 15, 2008 at 6:55 am

Dadamo, thanks for the link. My favorite:

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centures since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly. - Isaac Asimov, in Canadian Atheists Newsletter, 1994

20. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #144124 by AfraidToDie on March 15, 2008 at 6:37 am

Steve, no doubt Evolution is a very good reason for doubting the existence of a creator. But is it the primary "seed" of knowledge that brings most to atheism? I think not. By RD using this as his foundation for the origin of his atheism, it opens the door for creationists to say "see, this is what teaching Evolution does, it causes atheism". Reason causes atheism, not any branch of science. Now RD can speak for himself, but I find it very difficult to believe that he needed any knowledge of evolution to doubt the existence of a creater.

21. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #144119 by AfraidToDie on March 15, 2008 at 6:15 am

35. Comment #143984 by Ian Bamlett - I have never believed in any kind of religion, and my knowledge of evolution is that of an interested amateur at best. Is Richard really saying if he hadn't come to a full understanding of evolution he might still have faith? Doesn't this play right into the hands of the creationists who can then play the evolution = atheism card?

I agree with WhoDatNija that this point by Ian was excellent, and it always just got under my radar. At a very early age I was cultivating the seeds of doubt way before high school. And well before I ever heard anything about evolution it was apparent the whole church and bible scene was total "bullshit" (to use Rd's term lol). As all the arguments go, "we" don't need to prove that god doesn't exist; it is up to the believer to show a single bit of evidence that a god exists. Evolution, DNA, or any science knowledge is not needed at all for individuals to come to their own conclusion that there is no sky fairy.

I'd like to see RD look back very carefully to his youth and see if there isn't a really better time line between when he had doubts, and those doubts turned to total skepticism, and then just where his knowledge of Evolution started coming into play. I'd like to believe he had total skepticism way before he started learning about Evolution?

22. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143254 by AfraidToDie on March 13, 2008 at 6:46 pm

50. Comment #143126 by al-rawandi - So name one place where declaring yourself a Jew gets you killed. I am a bit of a stickler for facts when comes to statements of facts.

I'm going to take a couple of uneducated guesses, since it sounds like a trick question. If not killed, perhaps making such a declaration might make one somewhat uncomfortable: Iran, Iraq, Abilene Tx, Harlem, Muskogee Ok, East Berlin. I'm only serious about the first two.

23. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #142677 by AfraidToDie on March 13, 2008 at 2:19 am

14. Comment #142517 by drive1: Dawkins spoke about childhood indoctrination into religion. "Isn't it a remarkable coincidence, almost everyone has the same religion as their parents?" I think Richard needs to update this part of his talk, in the light of the recent Pew Forum Survey.

Beth's response (#18) answered this completely. Another twist on our US stats is that I'd venture to say a large percentage of those who "change" religions, are simply men marrying into the Catholic religion because "they have to". They know full well we'd do almost anything for "the prize"! I know a lot of men that married into the Catholic church, and really don't give a damn about it.

Although such a simple point, I think it is one of the most potentially thought provoking points a theist can hear. If you happened to be born in China, India, or Saudi Arabia, what are the chances that you would be Christian, and why? If there is any potential for change, this is a great seed to plant.

17. Comment #142569 by mesomodel .. drive1: Yeah. He could update it with something that has more punch. Like discussing this kid. His reason couldn't override his parents' indoctrination. Solution? Kill.

I'm afraid theists would only use this as a "see, that's what happens when you start to question God". They'd consider it a product of "doubt", brought on by all the secular movements.

27. Comment #142647 by Teratornis

As usual, Mr. T's posts are too long to put in block quotes. But I do want to say that post was very informative and well thought out. It was a great recipe for a casual debate and how to gently promote more free thought with a theist. When I first started frequenting RDF, I initially would cringe when I got to some of your posts because of the sheer quantity. However, I've learned that the quality is outstanding as well and I look forward to reading them. If I ever have to go to a theist gang fight, I want to take Mr T with me, along with Mr Z (Steve that is), Paula, Max D (it's the gloves), and more. There's a lot of RDF'ers that I really enjoy reading and I think it would be fun to rate our top 20 all-time favorite posters some day, because there really are some great thinkers here. Other interesting posters I enjoy off the top of my head is Sara95, Lucas, Robotaholic, Mitchell Gilks (maybe it's just his avatar :-) , Irate Atheist (sometimes you just need comedy), AtheistJon (where r u these days), Diacanu (should be toward the top of the list), Sturmundrang, and many more that I can't remember off the top of my head right now. I apologize in advance for missing some of you. Perhaps your name or avatar doesn't stick out. Is there anyone else in your top 10 that I haven't mentioned already?

24. Two More Fleas

Comment #142549 by AfraidToDie on March 12, 2008 at 5:51 pm

42. Comment #142525 by HourglassMemory... What worries me is that half the people might actualy be convinced by one of these books and go back to the "Agnostic 50/50 position", not to mention go religious again.

Reason and atheism IS "the light". You cannot return to "the dark side". OK, perhaps one exception, and that is to lie for personal (monetary) gains. When you have so many fraudulent "born agains" bilking millions from the misguided, perhaps we have some good insight as to why someone with a math and science background might want to "cash in" too. Prostitution has many forms!

25. Out of the Blue

Comment #142083 by AfraidToDie on March 12, 2008 at 12:56 am

I wonder what Voltaire quote you were thinking of.

I was just confusing my Frenchmen!

26. Out of the Blue

Comment #142080 by AfraidToDie on March 12, 2008 at 12:34 am

147. Comment #140972 by AfraidToDie: …Perhaps if Voltaire had been around in the computer age he might have switched his famous quote ("Je pense donc je suis") around to "I am, therefore I think"?

I cannot believe no one corrected me on this. I cannot believe my memory is so bad that I screwed up the "who said it" part. I was just watching The Science Channel and watched the very tail end of a show regarding religion's role in forging an understanding of the properties of light. I was fascinated by that description, and just wondered how religion could possibly forge any good science. Although I caught only the last 5 minutes, I'd guess it could have been described more accurately as "how (in spite of religion) science forged an understanding of the properties of light". Anyway, back to my self correction. They mentioned that Des Cartes (rang my bell, as he's the one who coined the "Je pense, donc je suis" phrase, not Voltaire) was somehow part of the theorists stating something to the effect that light was from god, and it was Newton who devised experiments to show the scientific characteristics of light. Since I screwed up the quote, perhaps I am misinterpreting the jest of the show? Anyone else see this segment?

27. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141588 by AfraidToDie on March 10, 2008 at 6:59 pm

Robo, that link don't work?

28. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141465 by AfraidToDie on March 10, 2008 at 1:13 pm

I don't know if I'm a five or 7, but I'd love to get inbetween those two in Mitchell Gilk's avatar, even if they were my neighbor's wives... but only to covet.

29. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141346 by AfraidToDie on March 10, 2008 at 9:37 am

My initial thought was that nothing else could be written any better to expose the sheer stupidity of this religion. I hope it appears on the front page of every newspaper.

30. Out of the Blue

Comment #140972 by AfraidToDie on March 9, 2008 at 9:56 am

"145. Comment #140969 by corruptmemory " …there is a lot of supporting evidence that we are modelling various elements of the brain well. We have simulations of simpler organisms such as insects and worms that can pass them selves off as the real thing. Also, remember that the simulation these folks have of the tiny fraction of the brain they are modelling shows very good results compared to "the real thing". After all, it is also a scientific endeavor and needs to progress in stages where each stage is tested against the actual human brain.

Excellent points! It is a least fair to say there is scientific approaches to pursuing AI, totally unlike what we hear the theist's approach to pursuing god (old text from a couple thousand of years ago written by tribes). I am very excited about where AI research is going; it's just the age old argument about what self consciousness really is and can we pull it out of the realm of philosophy? But perhaps it is quantifiable? Is the emotion fear no more than the "bottom line" numerical equivalent of what the body's I/O devices are tell us: a) eyes fight-or-flight hormones dilate your pupils to improve vision, b) heart pumps faster increasing blood pressure to accelerate the deliver of oxygen (so you can run like a fucking deer), c) lungs breathing rate increases as your lungs take in more oxygen, d) adrenal glands secretion for faster action. All of these could be quantifiable by I/O devices and the "net" result would be to give the AI device a "flight-or-fight" result, of which other options would then have to be weighed to make that decision. It seems likely to me that millions of years of evolution has allowed us to interpret all those bio responses as "fear". Certainly, we can attain that with AI computing power and advanced I/O devices? Perhaps if Voltaire had been around in the computer age he might have switched his famous quote ("Je pense donc je suis") around to "I am, therefore I think"?

31. Out of the Blue

Comment #140963 by AfraidToDie on March 9, 2008 at 8:30 am

"got to stop sometime. That's the message from Intel co-founder and computer visionary Gordon Moore, whose 1965 prediction that the number of transistors on a chip would double roughly every two years proved startlingly true. But Moore's Law, as it's known, can't apply indefinitely.

One of the reasons is that in the next 15 years the transistor will approach the size of the atom (the theoretical "wall"). However, in another article I was reading it talks about:

".. this year, IBM will begin selling its work-around to the transistor-density problem, a vertically stackable chip that moves data 1,000 time as fast as what we use now"

And as "Mr T" mentioned, speed may not be the important factor anyway. My problem with all this discussion is that somewhere between the lines I hear gigantic "leaps of faith" about how computer simulation could somehow gain consciousness. That is all interesting (and fun to ponder on), but that assumes that consciousness can somehow be quantified. As far as I know, there is no science to back any of this up. At the end of the day, AI could only simulate consciousness, and that is only perceived from humans. You could carry on a conversation with an AI machine, and it might very well sound as intelligent as most humans. To imply that shutting down a computer program would be anywhere near the moral implications of murder (other than affecting other humans or environment), is absurd. It is a "leap of faith" that has no scientific backing that I have heard of yet. It sounds very much like the hypothesis (not scientific theory) theists make regarding their god. It would be absurd to think that anti-abortionists might one day protest outside the Big Blue headquarters just because they decide to re-boot and make software changes, or replace their program altogether.

32. When blasphemy bit the dust

Comment #140509 by AfraidToDie on March 7, 2008 at 3:25 pm

He concluded with a worry about what his forebears, "many of whom were non-conformist ministers" would make of his liberalism on the Day of Judgment, but suggested that he would have "far graver things to worry about on that particular occasion".

Are you sure this article isn't from The Onion? It is truly some funny shit!!! Hats off to "the enlightenment".

33. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #139397 by AfraidToDie on March 5, 2008 at 5:58 pm

299. Comment #139375 by ungodlystheist: …And if we accept evolution, there is plenty of scientific proof that form came first, and consciousness arises within form, and not seperate to it.

Now this says it the way I wish I could have in the first place - very logically. You can "believe" in reincarnation all you want, but it is no different than "believing" in a god that you can neither prove or disprove. If any of you believe in reincarnation, the burden of proof is upon you. Let's hear one bit of evidence you have? Perhaps the new collider will discover the Higgs particle carries potential for your "reincarnation". Sorry to be so sarcastic; I just thought that anyone skeptic enough to proclaim they were atheist would never "believe" in reincarnation, or ghosts, or karma. And yes, I'm AfraidToDie, but (as my Forum signature states) "not so much that I would accept The Irrational".

34. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #138959 by AfraidToDie on March 5, 2008 at 1:44 am

266. Comment #138743 by qster: I know that this might be like bringing pork chops to a barmitzvah but reincarnation is not such a crazy idea. Consider that all mass is energy, all thought and mind (and spirit) is energy and energy can neither be created or destroyed - what is to say that my energy is not recycled into another being?

I don't know what u r smok'n, but pass some over here! If you believe any of that crap, well, then you've just branched off the road of science toward the town of unfounded mysticism. I'd venture to say if you believe in some form of reincarnation, then you probably believe in ghosts as well (however that life spirit made it to the new host must be hovering around somewhere)? It's all part of a believe in everlasting life… it's irrational. "...reincarnation is not such a crazy idea.." YES IT IS!

35. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137959 by AfraidToDie on March 3, 2008 at 4:48 pm

After reading most of the threads here on Buddhism, I must admit that I get the same feeling about that area of "belief" as I do with the other major religions. Even without the negative aspects of the other religions, it still reeks of mysticism. And yes, I don't know hardly anything about it, but none of the information written in these threads helps me with it either. It may very well be much more than I can perceive (not unlike a god), and to me it sits on the fringe of supernatural. Arguments I read make it sound like it is all things to all people and there is an answer for everything based on someone's interpretation and explanation. It almost sounds like that if a person is a really happy Buddhist, perhaps they wouldn't even be bothering with point and counterpoint discussion. In the 60's I was probably close to a Buddhist state of mind once, but then after about 6 hours I came down and reality set in. Anything that involves "teachings" that don't involve science can be lumped with religions as far as I'm concerned. Teachings like "not misusing sensual pleasure" are so abstract it ranks up there with the ten commandments. Besides, I don't want to stop "misusing sensual pleasure".

36. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137037 by AfraidToDie on March 2, 2008 at 7:48 am

64. Comment #137012 by AtheistJon: …Arrogantly proclaiming how stupid GW Bush is…… and ….. Hitchens ….he doesn't care what the party line is. He uses his own brain to think about issues.

Both statements, whether I repeat them out of context or not, are absolutely true. Bush is of average intelligence, making him appear to be an idiot since we expect a lot more from such a powerful leader. And even though Hitch is arrogant and would be tough to swallow if he was on "the dark side" (you know, the side that claims to be in the "light"), I'm very glad he is on our side. I must be German, AtheistJon, since I love all kinds of humor…. Yours too. Even though you sound like you lean a little too much right, anyone that's avatar involves drinking a glass of beer and quotes a lot of jokes sounds like a fun person to be around. With the sense of humor you appear to have, surely you must see some of Maher's outrageous comedy somewhat funny?

37. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #136981 by AfraidToDie on March 2, 2008 at 4:51 am

41. Comment #136937 by AtheistJon : If Atheism cannot live without being tied to leftism, then I don't want any part of it.

So, where will you go then without atheism…. To a religion. Doubt it. That does raise a very interesting question about the political affiliations of atheists. It does seem to be predominately "left" of center; at least that is the way I interpret the majority of the posts I've read. Or at at least, the posts that appear to make left or right-leaning comments. Anyone else seem to get the feeling that more atheists lean left?

By the way, I am a big Bill Maher fan. Most of his comedy makes me laugh a lot. I disagree with him on the illegal immigration stance he takes, and certainly on his views on marriage and his anti-children rants. But, he's a single guy and enjoys all the action his celebrity status affords him. Those who have never had children (and help raise them) can never understand the respect that motherhood should get. Without Mothers there would be no evolution for us humans. Edit: all us guys have to do is spread the seed, and I like my job!

38. The Giant Tortoise's Tale

Comment #133906 by AfraidToDie on February 27, 2008 at 2:37 am

There is a true story about whaling that inspired the fiction Mobey Dick which has quite a bit in it about the whalers picking up these tortoises and carrying them for emergency food. It is a wonder they didn't become extinct with all the whaling that went on. For those of you who enjoy true stories that have great historical significance, yet have intrigue that matches good fiction, pick up a copy of "In the HEART of the SEA - The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex" by Nathaniel Philbrick. This is the true story of one special journey and their tragedy after being sunk by an irate whale (I say "good for the whale"!), and the efforts to survive deep in the Pacific Ocean. These giant tortoises played significant cameo roles!

39. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133771 by AfraidToDie on February 26, 2008 at 6:19 pm

342. Comment #133690 by Bonzai on February 26, 2008 ……"I have a fear of flying"

Hmm.. no kidding, doesn't seem rational for someone who is so into technology and science. :)

It is quite easy to understand that the curvature of the wing has more surface area, causing the air to move faster over it's surface than the flat surface under the wing, producing lift. That is quite easy to understand, yet, as I get on the plane and ponder the massive weight of all the passengers and countless luggage below, I can't help but wonder how all that shit gets up in the air. So, though I've flown around a million miles, I still have a fear of flying, thinking each time I am tempting fate. Oh yes, I don't believe in fate either :-)

40. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133766 by AfraidToDie on February 26, 2008 at 5:58 pm

318. Comment #133652 by Steve Zara

There is a serious flaw in the "Stalin and others were atheists" argument that I have not seen mentioned. This argument assumes that everyone following these leaders were mindless puppets. At the Nuremberg Trials after World War II, it was established that "I was only following orders" is no defence.

We need to understand those who followed these leaders, and there is plenty of evidence that many Chinese worshipped Mao as a god.

I believe it was total FEAR of torture or death, not unlike the Christian god; the first is here and now, the latter is after death and for eternity. The latter don't affect atheists for obvious reasons (like, we don't believe in one), but to be around during Hitler's control would be a moral nightmarish delimma. If you say anything as they take the Jews away, you would be taken as well. Your choice at that moment is life or death. Just think of the last time when someone appearing to be dangerous in a group was confrontational and your choice was to either ignore and hope nothing happens, someone else will confront them, or you decided to turn and walk away. Those can be very scary choices, but nothing like a definite life and death choice like many that lived under the Nazis had to make. Once you give in, it becomes easier to give in each time, until you must somehow accept your inferiority. At that moment, that's when Hitler, Stalin, and Mao become like gods. My logic tells me that eternal damnation is a very similar psychological experience for those that have spent their whole life in the church. It's all about fear. That's my unfounded opinion.

41. Pakistan blocks YouTube over blasphemous video

Comment #133278 by AfraidToDie on February 26, 2008 at 2:39 am

16. Comment #133200 by prettygoodformonkeys Please line up here to offend Islam…. Fuck Islam.
I slam Islam. Muhammad sucks. Pin the tail on Muhammad… Next

Muhammad is Gay! …Hey, they can't find us by our avatar can they? I think I just blasphemied (try saying that 3 times).

...fullfilling a completely useless "free-speech" urge

What? You don't like Saturday Night Live? Come on! The problem with Islam is they need a lot more Fuck, so I agree… Fuck Islam

42. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133264 by AfraidToDie on February 26, 2008 at 1:57 am

193. Comment #133226 by William Sierichs Jr.Lenin probably abandoned Christianity in his mid-teens, but Stalin spent time at a seminary studying to be a priest in his later teens, and reportedly wrote religious poetry in his 20s. So Lenin and Stalin were brought up with school prayer, the 10 Religious Expressions and church services, and look how they turned out!

Unfortunately, I don't believe being brought up in "the church" lends itself at all to the proposition that Stalin and Lenin were NOT atheists. Many, if not most of us atheists were brought up in "the church", and look at us now. For my experience, the church was not making me an evil person; it was just not logical to gather so often and get so emotional over supernatural stories that made no sense. "The church" promotes evil deeds when it persecutes (or holds in contempt) those who do not believe the way they do. I did not see that in my church. Could Lenin or Stalin's experience with "the church" have influenced them to persecute and torture so many later in life? There is nothing in atheism that remotely promotes persecution and torture because atheism does nothing to change one's views on good and evil.

43. How he was sentenced to die

Comment #132566 by AfraidToDie on February 25, 2008 at 1:37 am

I'm curious as to what a "23 year old student" is doing in that particular area? It's not a place I would consider going to school. Is he associated with some activist group that the Afgans detest. No matter why he is there, to say he most certainly does not deserve prison is an extreme understatement! Just curious about how and why he is there?

44. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #132543 by AfraidToDie on February 25, 2008 at 12:46 am

14. Comment #132535 by Richard Morgan Can rationalists and theists interbreed? Would they want to?

I'm sure that was rhetorical as we've proven our species (males) will breed with anything that moves, and sometimes when it doesn't.

45. The coming religious peace

Comment #132089 by AfraidToDie on February 24, 2008 at 6:12 am

43. Comment #132052 by Titus I suspect that education is the key

What demographic contains the highest percentage of atheists? Everything I've read points to the scientist. So, why is that. It's a combination of #1 IQ and #2 education in my mind. The real question is why there are "some" very intelligent people who still believe in a supernatural being?

46. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #128186 by AfraidToDie on February 16, 2008 at 12:33 pm

8. Comment #127965 by Rtambree When she was in London last year at the RSA, there were two large security guards there, but still I got right next to her when I walked out at the end (and no one even checked my ID, bags or ticket when I walked in). I could've had my choice of attack if I was so inclined.

Hopefully they use a little profiling, although normally not politically correct these days. Rtambree if you look like you just popped out of a bottle someone rubbed, perhaps you’d get a little more scrutiny? They couldn’t stop Bhutto from attack, so if they want to bad enough, they can just about get anyone. The answer is to get a lot more to stand up and say the same things, so that attacking them all is almost impossible. That’s why every major newspaper in the world should have run those blasphemous cartoons instead of cowering down to Islamic threat.

47. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #126242 by AfraidToDie on February 12, 2008 at 7:05 pm

A very happy Darwin Day to all, wishing only theists achieve one of his awards :-)

48. Blasphemy

Comment #122629 by AfraidToDie on February 5, 2008 at 5:23 pm

Blasphemy by Daniel Dennett, Secular Phillosophy…Let us all just remind Muslims everywhere of what they must surely know: blasphemy is not a capital crime in any society worthy of respect.

“blasphemy is not a capital crime”? BLASPHEMY is not a crime of any kind!! Is it blasphemy when a theist claims they feel pity for an atheist? Blasphemy is either criticism or ignorance, neither of which is a crime.

49. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #122626 by AfraidToDie on February 5, 2008 at 5:10 pm

Timothy Jackson seemed to be quite apologetic, and never argued "for" religion or claimed any strong personal belief in a god (or Jesus). If he was really Christian, he caved in because he at least knew he had no argument that made sense. He could only try and challenge Hitch on his statements such as MLK wasn't really Christian. I came away thinking Mr Jackson may be coming into the light of rational thinking. If he had a "flock", he's going to have a hard time keeping them together after this debate!

50. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #121388 by AfraidToDie on February 3, 2008 at 10:49 am

166. Comment #121347 by Dinah:
I am confused (not an unusual state of affairs). This bloke Simmons doesn't believe in evolution, but stated he wasn't a Christian, didn't believe in the biblical account of creation, and wasn't an Intelligent Designer. So according to him how did we get here? He spent the whole time trying (unsuccessfully) to rubbish the arguments of PZ Myers but never actually spelt this out. Or did I miss something?

I think this is an excellent point. One I “blew off” after the debate got started. Perhaps Simmons should have been pressed more on “what the hell” he actually WAS? If he was just being dishonest, was it to try and throw off PZ? Isn’t he putting himself in jeopardy with his colleagues as being quoted as not being Christian and therefore labeled as a liar in any debates? That would almost be like RD starting off his debate saying he didn’t really believe in evolution, but was there to defend the science behind it. Perhaps I missed something as well?