1. Saudi Marriage Officiant : 'It Is Allowed To Marry A Girl At The Age Of One'.

Comment #198869 by swordsbane on June 24, 2008 at 3:19 pm

"Who says all men are ferocious wolves?"

You're kidding, right?

This coming from a society that says that if a man does something "inappropriate" to a woman, she is most likely to be held accountable. The Islamic world is the only culture I know that institutionalizes the phrase "She was asking for it."

In a society that condemns women for the lack of self-control in the male population, why should the men be anything other than wolves, and why should we expect them to be anything more?

2. 1968 Supreme Court case of Epperson v. Arkansas

Comment #185801 by swordsbane on May 28, 2008 at 3:30 pm

"What is Intelligent Design?"

"It's not Creationism."

"So what is Intelligent Design?"

"Evolution is wrong."

Yeah.. Nothing new going on here.

3. Car dealership advert tells atheists to 'shut up'

Comment #185603 by swordsbane on May 28, 2008 at 7:10 am

Let me first say that I have no problem at all with this advertisement. It is very correct. They have every right to say that and even make the advertisement and have it broadcast.

I can't help but wonder what would happen if another group was able to make an advertisement that told Christians that their views should be ignored and they should just "shut up and sit down" Does anyone here think that it would last longer than a few hours on the air?

They can't have it both ways. Either we can all say the same kinds of things, or we can't. Right now in this country, that kind of speech is not tolerated out of the mouths of atheists, but if this ad stays on the air, it proves it IS tolerated if it is out of the mouths of Christians.

That is NOT free speech. That is the tyranny of the majority, something we are supposed to be protected against.

4. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172217 by swordsbane on April 29, 2008 at 10:57 am

"But he offers that perhaps it's because Marxism itself acts something like a religion in its appeal to a higher power -- the Party, rather than God. And in this Dawkins may be absolutely right, though it reveals that an atheist philosophy can indeed operate as a religion, and therefore offer a logical pathway to evil deeds.

He's not getting it. ANY set of values/morals/beliefs are subject to fanaticism. It happens when what you believe is true is more important than anything else, even other people's lives. Atheism isn't immune, of course, but religion is FAR more prone to that sort of thing, and that is simply a matter of history. I know he's trying to understand Dawkins and all (at least he seems to be trying), but really... How close does he have to be to the answer before it bites him on his backside?

5. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #171263 by swordsbane on April 28, 2008 at 11:55 am

We're going to be in trouble when they figure out we're responsible for Global Warming. We know how to use lawyers, but they can throw rocks better.

6. Soldier Sues Army, Saying His Atheism Led to Threats

Comment #169687 by swordsbane on April 26, 2008 at 2:53 pm

As wrong as this is, you simply cannot deny the power of god as a motivator for combat. The best modern example is probably suicide bombers.
I have spoken to a few friends that have served in Afghanistan and i believe the thing that makes the taliban hardest to fight is that they have little to no fear of death.
Who really wants to die? What better than to comfort yourself (or read: 'indoctrinate your subordinates') with the fact that after a bullet eviscerates your cerebral cortex you will awaken, glowing in white, next to a bearded old bloke and his pearly gates?

I disagree. Many suicide bombers are chosen from among those who have nothing to lose, and given comfort by having their families recieve money when they die, not necessarily having a diety to believe in or a divine crusade to fight, and it is unclear how many of the terrorist leaders actually believe in what they're saying and how many are using the faith for political ends.

On the other hand, self-sacrifice tends to increase as society's become more and more secular. The old adage that there are no athiests in fox-holes is turning out not only to be false now, but that there have historically been MORE athiests in armies than in the populations they defend, and that being in military service is the greatest conversion mechanism getting people away from religion. There are always exceptions to the rule, but even the crusades brought far more people who felt that their religion justified trying to get rich off the Muslims than true Christians out to right a wrong. Papal endorsement just gave them an rationale for what they did.

Add to that that religious people are far more likely to pick and choose those they protect from among those that believe as they do, wheras athiests are more likely to just do their job.

7. Atheists An Increasingly Outspoken Minority

Comment #129633 by swordsbane on February 19, 2008 at 11:51 am

As a man of faith, Bishop Hanson still has a key question for those who don't believe in God.

"Where do you place your trust in times of need? Where do you place your hope in the time of a crisis of confidence?" Hanson said.

That should be bloody obvious. It bothers me that he even asks that question, either because he himself can't wrap his brain around the answer or he thinks that we haven't thought to come up with one before he brought it up.

Moron.

8. Potentially Habitable Planets Are Common, Study Says

Comment #129557 by swordsbane on February 19, 2008 at 9:55 am

I find it odd to call these potential planets "habitable" though. I mean I admit that they are certainly going to be more habitable than say... Venus or Jupiter, but on the other hand, what sort of data do we have on probable atmospheric composition and pressure? Is Venus an abberation as close as she is from the sun or is Earth the abberation and Venus is more common instead? If it's common, those likely candidates look a lot less likely.

I think it would be a cool project for SETI to have a look at a few of the closer stars that are good candidates for "Eartlike" planets and work on getting a signal of some sort beamed to them. Thirty - fifty light years out seems like a good bet and it has the potential to actually reach someone on the other end of the call within an acceptable span of time. I think it's past time we started talking instead of just listening.