1. Science of the Soul? 'I Think, Therefore I Am' Is Losing Force

Comment #53063 by dirtpiggy on June 29, 2007 at 7:10 am

Salvatore:
If you got no soul and know it, you still got soul.

–– Charles Bukowski (approximate quote)

Your quote was better, here's the original one:
If you're losing your soul and you know it, then you've still got a soul left to lose.

I guess he's just referring to morality here.

2. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #51487 by dirtpiggy on June 23, 2007 at 5:31 am

Bonzai, I think you will find this link very interesting:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-bibleforbids.htm

All pro-lifers should read this article. Amazing.

3. The Conversion of the Casual Evolutionist - You can't spell love without evolve

Comment #44259 by dirtpiggy on May 23, 2007 at 10:26 pm

I had a chuckle. But knowing why we feel things doesn't change the actual feeling.

4. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38247 by dirtpiggy on May 7, 2007 at 10:15 am

Atheism sells like great rock music. Listeners identify with the lyrics. Also, now that the silence is finally being broken on a large scale and religion's dark side is mercilessly exposed under a sharp light, it's only to be expected that the most desperate addicts reinforce the misgivings of the misinformed and disillusioned masses by painting it a darker shade of black.

Everything in this article drips of venom. "Sam Harris, a previously unknown neuroscience graduate,"... what's that supposed to mean? Less credible? Would it have been better if the books were written by a TV show host?

"And it's a very ill-tempered debate" Ms. Bunting, I invite you to see some of the programs and debates Dawkins and Harris have appeared on, and please tell me which side has been more ill-tempered, and I'll guarantee you that these people you're slinging mud at are some of the nicest most well-mannered people I've seen when faced with aggressive verbal attacks from believers.

"In recent years, research has thrown up some remarkable benefits - the faithful live longer, recover from surgery quicker, are happier, less prone to mental illness and so the list goes on." Come on, throw me a bone here. Recent years, as in the last 100 years? What research, where? Who performed the research? The pope? I thought this was a rather hilarious claim from someone who demands proof of deconversion as a consequence of reading something specific.

She basically accuses books about atheism to be a money-making scam, but lo and behold: "but one suspects that they are going to do very little to challenge the appeal of a phenomenon they loathe too much to understand"

Dear lady, no effort is being made to challenge the appeal of religion. Religion and religious belief are being challenged. The view that religious faith is a virtue is being challenged. There is a HUGE problem with the view that "you have to believe in something". The GREAT authors that you have mentioned have been spending their time trying to expose the facts and free minds from dangerous myths, not win popularity contests or establish cults. Religion is old and dying. The basic human values that got tied into the tradition doesn't need your tired dusty old rituals and myths to sustain their existence.

5. How to defend your faith with an electric wheelchair

Comment #30384 by dirtpiggy on April 8, 2007 at 12:26 am

Reality can be onionesque at times...

6. Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Comment #30344 by dirtpiggy on April 7, 2007 at 5:24 pm

86. Comment #30334 by cheshirecat

I would say that people have a natural belief in the continuation of the soul or spirit of an individual. Even in religious cultures that have no God have some form of belief in the afterlife or ancestor worship. Just as you have to learn your own religious culture you have to consciously reject belief. It is not natural to belief that death is the end.

Deriving truths about death from children too young to understand it, is as productive as asking them where they came from.

7. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #30342 by dirtpiggy on April 7, 2007 at 5:11 pm

49. Comment #30330 by Blake Stacey

First, it is an empirical statement:

1. In any discussion of atheism (skepticism, etc.), the probability that someone will compare a vocal atheist to religious fundamentalists increases to one.

Following this statement comes the second half, which is a judgment:

2. The person who makes this comparison will be considered to have lost the argument.

I'm not trying to make "fundamentalist" a taboo word. The point is that it's not logical to stick that word upon somebody when "strident", "vocal" or "inflexible" are actually the qualities for which you think they need criticism.

Sorry if it seemed like I plagiarized your post, I honestly only read it now! Great post. :)

8. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #30339 by dirtpiggy on April 7, 2007 at 4:45 pm

7. Comment #30249 by Jef

Also, it seems to be something of a fashion in theistic circles to use terms like 'dogmatic' and 'fundamentalist' as buzzwords, without ever really getting to grips with what they actually mean, or explaining how they apply to what has been said. Why does this annoy me so much?

When you call an atheist "fundamentalist", it stands in stark contrast with EVERYTHING atheism is about. Atheism is about reality, proof, probability. Atheism is the rejection of dogma.

Almost worse than this mud-slinging contest, this neener-neener name-calling, is the fact that we become so conditioned to it, that we barely register when they tar vocal atheists black with their "I'm rubber you're glue" propagandist slurs. The most infuriating thing to me is that it slips by me most of the time, because they use the words "fundamentalist" and "dogmatic" so often. It should not be acceptible to hear ANY atheist being called fundamentalist.

9. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #30333 by dirtpiggy on April 7, 2007 at 4:33 pm

Short summary of article:

"It's easter. Dawkins and Harris are party poopers and I'm sure I've got a quote here somewhere that's marginally flawed. Oh bummer, not really. Well, I can quote them on insignificant things and make them sound weak. I am a puffed-up windbag. Jesus died for your sins. I don't really have a point. Stay classy, San Diego."

There was one point of emphasis (a lighter patch on a swirly grey sea of inconsistent thought and pointless babble):

What's really bothersome is the suggestion that believers rarely question themselves while atheists ask all the hard questions.

What to say...? E. J. Dionne Jr., you do not question God or the Bible, and that's why you're still a Christian.

*SIGH*

10. Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Comment #30323 by dirtpiggy on April 7, 2007 at 3:27 pm

81. Comment #30312 by Yorker
"Is that Dutch or Afrikaans, dirtpiggy?"

Afrikaans :)

11. Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Comment #30321 by dirtpiggy on April 7, 2007 at 3:15 pm

Spinoza wrote

Like the atheists who think we shouldn't be trying to convert theists (dumb people), and the atheists who think we should be... we might have an atheist schism :|

What an idyllic world it would be if we could just all agree. We all know that when someone says they're an atheist, all you can be assured of is that the person doesn't believe in a god/gods and doesn't subscribe to any religion. It doesn't specify political/philosophical view and (I'm sad to say) it doesn't guarantee morality, or greater than average intelligence, even though it's statistically more probable. How can there be a schism in a group of people who are bound together by one principle? "Oh my goodness, Randy* doesn't use the same toothpaste as I do!" Well, it so happens that I believe that it would be a better planet without cockroaches and we should wage war on their asses, but Randy thinks they're a vital part of the eco-system and the biosphere. I think Sam Harris is a champ, but Randy can't get over the "HE SAYS TORTURE IS OKAY" thing. I think most of the people that post here disagree with more than one person every day, on a wide variety of topics, from the historicity of Jesus to public misinformation on global warming. There are many agreements, but no set of guidelines to adhere to. I would hope that we're primarily humanistically inclined, and for the most part, that's the feeling I get. Perhaps atheists today are cohesive in general as a consequence of being a minority group. Either way, if there is really a large group of atheists who wish to form a club of "intellectually worthy" atheists who have to apply for membership or something, I guess you could start your own forum. Would you close the membership at a specific number of people? Would you exclude converted theists, or have applying members write an admission test?

Did you really just generalize theists as being dumb, btw? I think a lot of the atheists here come from a theistic background. The fact that deconverted Christians like me are here, means that theists are deconverting. And I am really, really happy for the people who find their way out of that psychological house of mirrors. I'm still trying to get my head around the fact that you would PREFER if religious people remained deluded...

*Randy is fictional.

12. Crucifixion 'makes God into a psychopath'

Comment #30258 by dirtpiggy on April 7, 2007 at 10:59 am

26. Comment #30182 by Yorker

Even if we do nothing, religion must eventually die because of its weak, poorly thought out and most of all, static nature. We live in a progressive, dynamic world, that fact cannot be denied.

Haha, you sound like a web designer. great point though ;)

13. Crucifixion 'makes God into a psychopath'

Comment #30257 by dirtpiggy on April 7, 2007 at 10:54 am

15. Comment #30157 by Logicel on April 7, 2007 at 5:19 am

If any bit of the Christian tenets can clearly show that religion in general is derived from ancient and pagan beliefs it is the sacrifice made by God of his only son to atone for sins which he himself made possible and then pretends that his subjects have free will to choose to either commit or not commit sins despite the fact that he is all knowing and is very hard to understand.

This whole post was inspiring. Bravo Logicel!

20. Comment #30169 by bouwe on April 7, 2007 at 6:07 am

"Gee, little Jimmy, I'd LIKE to forgive you but someone has to PAY for your sins. I can't just forgive you because justice must be done....I tell you what, little Jimmy, son, I love you so much that, even though you DESERVE to be PUNISHED, I'm going to let you off the hook by getting Bobby, your older brother, to get wacked IN YOUR PLACE. Isn't that nice of Bobby? Now thank me and my son Bobby for doing you such a good turn. I know it doesn't make any sense, I know that making another (innocent) person suffer for the sins of the guilty ISN'T JUSTICE anyway, but if you force yourself to believe this absurdity, I will forgive your sins." Father starts whipping his son: "See Jimmy? See how much I LOVE YOU? By BOBBY'S stripes, YOU are healed of the imperfections of Original Sin. Aren't I GREAT? Don't you just want to WORSHIP me?"

Totally. Awesome. I was reminded a lot of Bill Hicks.

14. Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Comment #30224 by dirtpiggy on April 7, 2007 at 8:33 am

On pseudonyms:

I on purposely chose this username to match my myspace name and url. I struggled a bit to get a short, numberless name that's unique as an url, but it turns out that combining two short words is an easy way to do it. :)

15. Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Comment #30210 by dirtpiggy on April 7, 2007 at 8:14 am

Re: 63

Thanks teapot. I actually deleted my mob line along with some other things to shorten the post :P

(Hehe, baie naby, maar ek verkies grondvarkie... so half en half 'n Invader Zim reference, so dit kom eintlik van die Engels af.)

16. Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Comment #30196 by dirtpiggy on April 7, 2007 at 7:55 am

Why are these books selling so well? Why are rooms packed whenever one of them speaks? That's the interesting question.

That's a lovely post, etny. :)

17. Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Comment #30194 by dirtpiggy on April 7, 2007 at 7:49 am

First off, I apologize that this post got so long.

Spinoza said

But I don't want that... I WANT atheism to be an elitist position.. I want it to REMAIN true that most of the most intelligent people on earth are atheists, and most of the least intelligent are theists...

I do not understand why people would want Atheism to be an elitist position.

"I want it to remain true that most of the intelligent people on the earth are atheists" - that makes sense, and I don't think you have to worry about that. "...and most of the least intelligent are theists..." what for?

There will always be deluded, evil and stupid people. These are the people who religion gives a license for causing the most harm in society. If 90% of the voters in a democracy are religious, they can make decisions detrimental to the atheist 10%. I think work should be done to try and enlighten the religious sector. It's not about winning or losing. I say "enlighten" because all religions are based on the fallacy that there is a
god, and a set of man made rules and beliefs supposedly inspired by God.

I want atheism to be the default mainstream position, as the most logical and globally beneficial one.

Reason #1:
Children should not have to be forced to experience the cognitive dissonance of trying to believe the Bible or other religious text, lest they go to hell. All religions are, simply put, brainwashing cults.

Reason #2:
Less fighting over differences in (most probably fictional) doctrines, increased respect for human life. I think that religion justifies viewing other people as evil. In some religions, the message is "look away, they're going to burn anyway." If you have to cut yourself off from feeling sadness or horror at the others going to hell, it also makes it more acceptible to treat "heathens" in an inhumane way, e.g. killing & torture. It's okay, they were bad. Consider the recently documented Phelps family. They have no respect for others' feelings, because all other people are bad in their eyes.

Reason #3:
Updated morals. Not interfering in others' harmless private matters, such as sexual orientation. Treating people of different genders and races equally, increasing global empathy and respect. The belief that Jesus wiped out all past and potential sins of praying believers has the net effect of making evil okay. What a convenient religion.

Reason #4:
A greater understanding of the mechanism and practise of science, unhampered by superstitious fear. Stem cell research for the greater good of humanity and at the expense of cells with as much soul as the skin scraped off your knee in a fall. No more faith healing of the HIV infected, no more condom bans to help spread the virus. Less superstition induced death. Abortions freely and safely available. Birth control freely available.

Reason #5:
Proper unbiased education, based on research and not doctrine.

Reason #6:
No more blame shifting to the supernatural. No killing for the Lord, no tax-free propaganda for the Lord. Oil wars are oil wars, no more "God gave me the go ahead".

Reason #7:
The global focus shifted to humanity rather than God. It is taught in the Bible that you should keep your eyes on the Lord, but I can't see how this serves any other purpose than a brain anaesthetic. Instead of taking your kids to church, go through their homework with them. Instead of praying that your husband stop beating you, get the hell out of there. Don't give your money to the church, give it to welfare organizations. Reverends and pastors get rich off of spewing nonsense while people in other parts of the world are dying of famine. Don't picket abortion clinics, teach your sons and daughters that sex causes babies, and there are more than one way of preventing unplanned pregnancy.

Reason #8:
A more realistic and practical focus of time. Life isn't a test run, bummer.

18. Dawkins vs Haggard: the Python Edition

Comment #29915 by dirtpiggy on April 5, 2007 at 1:22 pm

Oh my goodness, the video gets better every time I watch it... Priceless hahaaaa!!!

19. Kansas State School Board Bans Pokemon Due to Evolution Content

Comment #29759 by dirtpiggy on April 4, 2007 at 3:11 pm

Intelligent Design theorists believe that the world is only six thousand years old, that a supreme being designed the entire Universe but somehow remains outside the universe to avoid the pesky question of who designed the creator, and that rampant homosexuality amongst dinosaurs is what led to their fiery destruction at the hand of God.

AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA! Sweet.

20. The Most Hated Family in America

Comment #29722 by dirtpiggy on April 4, 2007 at 12:54 pm

Fishpeddler, I vote for you as referree of the week. And I agree, the moods of the bible are many and varied. It's been a few years since I've actually read it, but I have to confess, the Afrikaans version doesn't read smoothly at all. I think it bothers me a lot that most of the names sound silly.

I just read a small passage from the KJV, and it was almost nice, it read a bit like "Aesop's fables", but more tragic.

God makes a nice commandment.
For some reason, the people refuse to listen.
God scatters them like a whirlwind and leaves behind desolate inhabitable land.

Oh, now I remember why it's been a few years!

21. The Most Hated Family in America

Comment #29717 by dirtpiggy on April 4, 2007 at 12:13 pm

Posted by anotherclinton

Fred himself has what people have called a "Noah Complex"--that is the coming Apocalypse will admit but a family of survivors, and Fred thinks it's his disturbing little brood.

I thought so! "Be fruitful and multiply", indeed.

22. Creationism debate continues to evolve

Comment #29673 by dirtpiggy on April 4, 2007 at 2:31 am

Thanks Logicel :)

I think whenever someone encounters someone who doesn't believe in evolution, you should ask that person why they think we haven't figured out how to eliminate the aids virus from a person's bloodstream, or why new flu vaccines have to be developed constantly. People seem to beileve in the medical sciences in general, but they deny evolution while it is supported by an equal amount of evidence from research as say, cancer.

But I forget; God planted fossils. Hard evidence doesn't seem to play a role in affecting most people's judgement anymore.

23. Creationism debate continues to evolve

Comment #29607 by dirtpiggy on April 3, 2007 at 2:53 pm

Creationism is completely born of religion, there is absolutely no science behind it. How are teachers supposed to teach it? I don't understand how people can even suggest that it be taught in a science class (get this, not even Biology or History... science! Chemicals and falling objects!). I guess people have forgotten what science means.

"Hi kids, today we're talking about the origin of species. The Bible says God made you from dust in a day, he made the man first and then took a rib from him from which he made a woman. See, it all makes perfect scientific sense. Yeah, you can all pretty much go home now. Everything else we teach in school is just going to contradict this one fact."

Why don't parents let teachers teach their kids what has been tested and proven to work in the real world, and if they disagree with something, tell their own kids at home "your teachers are wrong", sadly still exerting a negative influence on their own children, but how inconsiderate to want teachers to teach things that they know are lies, and spread their RELIGION to other gullible children under the camouflage of ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC FACT? Also, if the kids are taught evolution in school, and their parents tell them it's baloney, they'll have been informed, and they will have both sets of information to consider. I guess that's what the parents are afraid of. Nothing angers me more than parents that try to keep their children from thinking, except parents that try to keep other people's children from thinking as well.

Another thing I do not understand: Christians believe in the virgin birth, but they don't clamour that it should be taught in sex ed that the Holy Spirit might impregnate you. They believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and don't ask that schools teach the process of resurrection in Biology. They don't ask that it be taught that the earth is flat in geography. Why do they seem to be able to work around every fact that basically proves their religious doctrine to be false, except evolution?

I just thought of something rather humorous. A Christian once told me "how can you not believe in God, when you look at a baby? A perfect new little human being?" Actually, watching an embryo's cells divide and watching the ball of cells become a little creature, is probably very close to watching something evolve before your very eyes. No God necessary, just add sperm! The entire process of a human forming can be explained with science. If reproduction can happen without God, why should he be involved at all? Those creationists had better get a move on with removing reproduction being taught in Biology.

24. Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare!

Comment #29287 by dirtpiggy on April 2, 2007 at 1:34 pm

posiedon

I'm so glad you posted Nick Gisburnes' banana vid, that guy is awesome. :D

I KNEW he was going to bring up the pineapple subject, and I laughed my arse off!

25. Mr. Deity

Comment #28257 by dirtpiggy on March 28, 2007 at 2:34 pm

Blargh! Episode 9, not (
*ah-hem*....

26. Mr. Deity

Comment #28256 by dirtpiggy on March 28, 2007 at 2:33 pm

RE: Comment #27367 by Graham

My guess is that Larry is the Holy spirit, and that his name is random (they don't give a lot of information about the holy spirit in the Bible, do they?). But I'm probably wrong.

Anycase... episode ( is my fav one so far! Except for the beginning of The Really Big Favor...

27. She's No Fundamentalist: What people get wrong about Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Comment #24764 by dirtpiggy on March 8, 2007 at 11:37 am

That does sound rather awesome, to be sure. And we can probably look forward to "Hitchens is Not Great" in the month following the release. ;P

28. She's No Fundamentalist: What people get wrong about Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Comment #24754 by dirtpiggy on March 8, 2007 at 10:31 am

Beth

Especially at the part you quoted, I thought that Christopher Hitchens was doing a clever little dance to avoid being seen as chauvinist.
"Men will laugh at almost anything, often precisely because it is—or they are—extremely stupid." He came very close to making the generalization that men are "stupid", which is baloney, and he very obviously added that weak line to massage sensitive feminine readers' egos.

Despite the fact that he's not a perfect journalist or a perfect person, I appreciate the positive light he's shedding on Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I respect the risks she took and the decisions she made, but most of all I admire how she speaks her mind.

29. She's No Fundamentalist: What people get wrong about Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Comment #24724 by dirtpiggy on March 8, 2007 at 8:17 am

melisande

I googled the article you mentioned.

First reaction: I was taken aback. I felt as if it was being said that we're incapable of generating humorous content, that we're bad at it.

I'm thinking now, that if one person thought up something incredibly funny, and you have a man and a woman each recite it/act it out, I would probably laugh harder at the man's version.

My point is, men and women are different, and men are better at some things, and women better at others. When I think about the commedians I adore, they're mostly old, rude and male. I haven't heard a female commedian that even remotely compares to my favourite male commedians.

If he meant to say that women are eye candy and males have to work for their eye candy using their superior brains, I would be offended.

30. Why there are almost no genuine atheists

Comment #24526 by dirtpiggy on March 7, 2007 at 4:55 am

...what crafty evasion of vocalising these "good reasons for refusing to vote for an atheist for president"...

31. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #24403 by dirtpiggy on March 6, 2007 at 12:33 pm

The only reason that I can see why David Robertson applies words like 'evangelical', 'faith', 'preach' and 'fundamentalism' to Dawkins, is that he knows, deep down, that there's something wrong with the concepts described by these words. He's trying to say "but you are just as bad as I".

People like David Robertson, over-sensitive, neuroticly defensive Christians, clearly have a severely polarized view of the world ("strong atheism must be fundamentalist atheism, we have no room for detailed explanations!") and their lack of confidence and excess of bile is telling of an inner conflict they might themselves not be aware of.

32. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #24385 by dirtpiggy on March 6, 2007 at 10:14 am

Every word reeks of pettiness. The only reason that I can see why people like David Robertson throw words like 'evangelical', 'faith', 'preach' and 'fundamentalism' at atheists, is because those words form a major part of religion and religious people know, deep down, that there's something wrong with the concepts described by these words. They are trying to say "but you are just as bad as I".

People like David Robertson, over-sensitive, neuroticly defensive Christians, clearly have a severely polarized view of the world ("strong atheism must be fundamentalist atheism, we have no room for detailed explanations!") and their lack of confidence and excess of bile is telling of an inner conflict they might themselves not be aware of.

33. Books on Atheism Are Raising Hackles in Unlikely Places

Comment #24147 by dirtpiggy on March 5, 2007 at 3:22 am

MaxWeiss, I am in total agreement with you.