1. Bible drawn into Hong Kong sex publication row

Comment #41936 by NeoGothic on May 17, 2007 at 10:25 am

I almost forgot: "Stop Public Pornography"

http://www.nobeliefs.com/spp.htm

2. Bible drawn into Hong Kong sex publication row

Comment #41935 by NeoGothic on May 17, 2007 at 10:24 am

I've often thought that the 'moral' christians were a bunch of hypocrites to be so obsessed with preventing sex and at the same time to push a book that's loaded with sex. This is a perfect attack strategy: you could wring some good PR out of this by playing up the 'we're protecting children from filth' angle. The best part is that the moment they argue in favor of the bible we could play the 'hypocrite' card. I know it's easy in a logical argument, but it would be so sweet to hoist the christians on their own petard in something that public relations-wise can be seen as victory.

3. Evolution of symbiosis

Comment #31204 by NeoGothic on April 11, 2007 at 12:06 pm

The evolution of symbiotic species speaks deeply of a purely biological reason to cooperate, and not just between different species, but also in the same species. The "out-group" hostility that religion provokes is surely a major force for conflict in our world. On a related evolutionary issue, check out this link: http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/070411_chimps_cave.html It's an article about that same group of chimps that was observed using sharp sticks as spears to hunt bushbabies. They've now been seen using caves as shelter. Absolutley amazing.

4. In the Beginning

Comment #28681 by NeoGothic on March 30, 2007 at 11:40 am

Someone must be spiking those fundies' Kool-Aid. Childhood indoctrination must be damn strong to keep them believing in a book that was written by a nomadic tribe in the middle east between 5,000 and 4,000 years ago than in the repeattedly and independantly verified results of modern science. The ancient hebrews believed pi was exactly equal to 3! Would you listen to someone who got something like that so wrong?

5. Religious Conviction vs. Political Dogmatism

Comment #26730 by NeoGothic on March 21, 2007 at 11:45 am

"What makes this fight strange is that Cizik is no liberal. On the contrary, he supported Ronald Reagan twice and George W. Bush twice."

Wait a minute... That must be one giant helping of doublethink to champion the cause of fighting climate change while supporting King George. I wonder if he's noticed that Bush barely acknowledges global warming, let alone accepting that human industry is the cause. Still, I'll take progress where I can get it, even if it is from some whacked-out evangelicals. Hopefully they'll 'see the light' on a few other issues.

6. Atheists come in last

Comment #22850 by NeoGothic on February 23, 2007 at 3:32 pm

Bizarro, (what an apt name BTW) although now defunct, the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 in Article 11 states explicitly:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

The US of A is NOT a "christian" nation in any sense, nor are any of our legal documents, i.e., the constitution, based on anything religious. The founding fathers' religious beliefs were at most deist beliefs. The United States is, to quote another person's comment from another article on this site, "a legitimate child of the Enlightenment", specifically divorced from the values of christianty in specific and organized religion in general. Please do your research.

7. Is America Too Damn Religious?

Comment #22576 by NeoGothic on February 19, 2007 at 4:30 pm

Finally! There's hope for my country yet. Let's hope those people remember this debate and all the misery religion produces when we go to the voting booths in 2008.

8. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21311 by NeoGothic on February 8, 2007 at 3:47 pm

I'd be tempted to agree with him except that I've seen the evidence myself and I don't think he's interpreting it correctly. Now if you'd like, I could explain my theory of ID, otherwise known as Intelligent Dawkinsism, which shows an alternative viewpoint on the question of the exsistence of the Dawkins and also proves that the Dawkins is more intelligent than the writer of this critique. I'd also be happy to explain how the Dawkins is irreducibly adept.

There I go again, sounding like a fundy... I wish it weren't so easy to do. I might not slip into it as often. If only rational thinking didn't take so much work... Oh well.

9. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #21036 by NeoGothic on February 7, 2007 at 11:12 am

"The Dawkins Delusion"? Wow. That's an sd hominem if ever I've seen one. Let's take a look at the definition of 'ad hominem':

ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend their position with evidence, facts, or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.

Ouch. I thought Oxford professors were above name calling. I guess they can't all be like Richard.

10. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #20869 by NeoGothic on February 6, 2007 at 9:17 pm

MIND_REBEL said, "Sam Harris is a regular on Fox News. I'm glad that you guys are starting to wake up, and realize that liberalism is just as dogmatic as religion."

Ah, but you can't say this without admitting that you can have blind, dogmatic conservatism as well. Just look at the current "leadership" (I use the term loosely) here in the US. Ironically, most of those dogmatic christians out there who would delight in this poor excuse for a panel discussion are just as dogmatic about their conservative political stance.

On a side note I saw a cool bumper sticker a few days ago that read: "Liberals treat dogs like people while conservatives treat people like dogs."

11. World's oldest rocks show how Earth may have dodged frozen fate of Mars

Comment #20786 by NeoGothic on February 6, 2007 at 2:02 pm

FitzChivalry, how wrong you are. It's obvious that the Invisible Pink Unicorn was guiding the results of the tests to lead the unbelievers astray. We should be honored that She even considered to extend her Holy Hoof and intervene in our petty affairs. May the Blessings of Her Grace be upon you.

LOL... it's so easy to sound like a fundy. All you have to do is dispute hard evidence and say [insert god of choice here] did it.

12. Give us back our bones, pagans tell museums

Comment #20764 by NeoGothic on February 6, 2007 at 10:34 am

"We would like people to reconsider their relationship with the bones," said Paul Davies, reburial officer for the council. "We view them as living people and therefore they have rights as people. Because the ancestors can't give their consent in this way, the council speaks for the ancestors."


First of all, that anyone would take these people seriously (seeing as how they believe that thousand-year-old bones somehow repersent the intangible spirit of a living person) is ludicrous. And secondly, what makes this 'council' think that they can speak for (unproven) ancestors who would barely (if at all) understand our world. What if the 'ancestors', if they could understand the modern world, would want their bones to be studied so that their story might one day be told again instead of being lost to decay and the passage of time? The presumptuousness of the religious never ceases to amaze me.

13. Evolution Debate - Pigliucci vs Hovind

Comment #20477 by NeoGothic on February 2, 2007 at 10:09 pm

Ake, I have to disagree with you. I would never make the mistake of calling Hovind an adult, especially when he still believes in fairy tales.

14. God and gorillas

Comment #20291 by NeoGothic on February 1, 2007 at 2:55 pm

In the article, King said,

"I'm not talking about a set of beliefs. When I think about religion, what comes to mind are personal relationships with the supernatural, with God or with spirits, and compassionate action."

Wait a minute... Would soneone please explain to me how on Earth (or any other planet) she connects religion with compassion? Duff, you're so right about her going after the Templeton Prize.

15. No stoning, Canada migrants told

Comment #20259 by NeoGothic on February 1, 2007 at 10:17 am

As an American in a state with a lot of immigrants, I have to say that there's a fine line between totally allowing people to recreate the conditions they left behind in their country of origin and being excessively discriminatory. On the one hand, it's wrong to deny people the freedom to live where they want, espcially when they're fleeing from some kind of danger, be it war, disease, persecution, or anything else. Immigrants built my country with their blood, sweat, and tears; all sides of my family were immigrants and I'm grateful to each and every one of them. On the other hand, When you come to a new land that already has people in it (many apologies to the Native Americans, whom I deeply respect), you can't continue to live like you're in the old country. You are in a new nation with differnt laws and customs. The old cliche "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" is true. You should get along with others in public life more or less just as every one else does. What you do in the privacy of your home is another matter. The only time there should be any intervention is if the behavior is harmful to others and abridges their rights.

16. Sex and the Single-Minded

Comment #18762 by NeoGothic on January 22, 2007 at 8:33 pm

MelM's comment about a Culture of Misery brings to light an interesting trend: The vast majority of the christians hot button issues are about our life cycle, especially sex and reproduction. Now, if I were to have a religion grow up in a desert region where you had to work hard for every scrap of food and water was hard to come by, I too would cultivate beliefs that would place a premium on not having children I couldn't support. This goes to show that a religion's beliefs are arbitrary and are heavily influenced by your environment.

17. Christian Shrine Needs Two Exits, Israel Says

Comment #17800 by NeoGothic on January 16, 2007 at 4:02 pm

Wow. The religious fail to use reason even when building their temples.

18. Wash. school board restricts Gore's global-warming film

Comment #17798 by NeoGothic on January 16, 2007 at 3:54 pm

FHardison wrote: "On something as simple as the age of the earth? I can do the math, the lineage provided in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38 that give the genealogy of Jesus Christ (Matthew recorded Joseph's lineage, while Luke gave the family tree of Mary) places us at what right about 12,000 years today? "


What makes Frosty think that the bible can be cited as a reliable document for any information pertaining to the physical world? It was written by a bunch of old men who were uneducated by today's standards and thought the Earth was flat, over the course of several thousand years How you do verify the information in the bible? Can another person arrive at your conclusion by another method that doesn't include the bible? What about the Hindu Gita (their holy book)? It claims the Earth is far older than the date arrived at by study of the bible. And what of other religions? If we accept the claims of the bible and are honest enough to stick to the same standards of evidence we used on it, then we are forced to accept the truth of other, contradictory holy books. This goes along with the presumtion that faith (read: belief without evidence) is somehow a good thing and a valid method of knowing. The whole business is preposterous hogwash.

19. Wash. school board restricts Gore's global-warming film

Comment #17718 by NeoGothic on January 15, 2007 at 4:41 pm

FHardison wrote: "On something as simple as the age of the earth? I can do the math, the lineage provided in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38 that give the genealogy of Jesus Christ (Matthew recorded Joseph's lineage, while Luke gave the family tree of Mary) places us at what right about 12,000 years today? "


What makes Frosty think that the bible can be cited as a reliable document for any information pertaining to the physical world? It was written by a bunch of old men who were uneducated by today's standards and thought the Earth was flat, over the course of several thousand years How you do verify the information in the bible? Can another person arrive at your conclusion by another method that doesn't include the bible? What about the Hindu Gita (their holy book)? It claims the Earth is far older than the date arrived at by study of the bible. And what of other religions? If we accept the claims of the bible and are honest enough to stick to the same standards of evidence we used on it, then we are forced to accept the truth of other, contradictory holy books. This goes along with the presumtion that faith (read: belief without evidence) is somehow a good thing and a valid method of knowing. The whole business is preposterous hogwash.