1. Laugh at Sudan

Comment #98233 by NeuroTrumpet on December 13, 2007 at 10:19 am

I don't know why everyone raves about this guy so much--or more pressingly why his YouTube videos get posted on RichardDawkins.net.

He mostly regurgitates the novel comic musings of other skeptics, and the fact that it's in video format is unnecessary since he's basically reading something that would do just fine as a blog. There isn't any added visual interest--just a guy with a bland background talking into the camera.

I really don't mean to sound like a jerk. I just don't get it. Yeah, he's funny--but why's he HERE?

2. Mr. Deity

Comment #21173 by NeuroTrumpet on February 7, 2007 at 9:29 pm

Lucy to God:

"You are UNBELIEVABLE!"

Ha! Did anyone else catch that?

3. No stoning, Canada migrants told

Comment #20244 by NeuroTrumpet on February 1, 2007 at 8:51 am

Politically-correct ethnocentricity aside, there should be a point when human decency should override behavior resulting simply from the basis of cultural or religious standards. Talk about apologetic...

4. Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

Comment #17983 by NeuroTrumpet on January 17, 2007 at 8:36 pm

I think some people might be confused...

This is a satirical article from a satirical online journal. Sorry, though, if I misinterpreted your posts

5. Without God, Gall Is Permitted

Comment #16213 by NeuroTrumpet on January 5, 2007 at 2:57 pm

"They want to make belief itself not simply an object of intellectual derision but a cause for personal embarrassment."

I'd be embarrassed for anyone who believes in Zeus or Marduk, too.

"The reviewer of Dr. Dawkins's volume in a recent New York Review of Books noted his unwillingness to take theology seriously, a starting point for any considered debate over religion."

Do we take fairyology seriously? Or astrology? All three concepts contain the same amount of evidence.

"The new atheists are separated from the old by their shallowness."

I'm not sure Schulman read Dawkin's book. There is a lot of creative inspiration to be found in the bible and older (e.g. Greek) myths, and Richard thinks theology should be taught academically (I think much the same way Roman mythology etc. is taught?). It doesn't, however, mean we should believe it.

"The new atheists remind me of other students from more "open-minded" homes--rigid, indifferent, puzzled by thought and incapable of sympathy."

Does anyone feel that these traits fit you?

"They seem instead to be preaching to people exactly like themselves--a remarkably incurious elite."

I think "incurious" is precisely the opposite of athiestic. Without it, athiests would be indoctrinated.

6. Hybrid embryo work 'under threat'

Comment #16203 by NeuroTrumpet on January 5, 2007 at 1:43 pm

I truly don't even understand this reasoning.

"Tampering with nature." Huh?!

As if selective (artificial) breeding isn't "tampering." The only difference is the level of accuracy in manipulating the genes.

I also think it's not so different from using animal insulin to treat human diabetes. They didn't seem to have too much of a problem with that half a century ago. I guess we just need the moral zeitgeist to catch up?