1. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #81255 by moai on October 24, 2007 at 1:56 pm

First of all, Hitler wasn't an atheist.

Second, while Stalin and Mao were athiests, they did not perpetrate their atrocities because of their atheism. There is nothing about atheism that necessarily leads to mass murder or genocide.

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god.

Contrast this with the Inquisition. The atrocities perpetrated were because of a doctrine held by the church, and the thoughts/actions of those deemed to be heretical. Christianity can be blamed in this instance, while in the examples above atheism cannot.

2. Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored

Comment #69697 by moai on September 12, 2007 at 8:53 am

I am sure reading it isn't as funny as would be hearing her say it. I think that most of her stuff is hilarious.

As far as this making atheists look bad, or not being constructive to the debate or whatever--who cares? It was a joke. The Catholic League should lighten up (but they won't) and everyone else should, too.

I don't think that Kathy Griffin is part of the militant atheist movment, she is certainly not an "atheist spokesperson" as Hicthens, Harris, or Dr. Dawkins are. She made a joke that expresses her point of view. So what?

I think it is cowardly of E! or whomever to censor her, but it is their broadcast and they can show whatever they want. Editing her speech does not infringe upon her First Amendment rights whatsoever.

In censoring her, they are giving these ideas a wider audience, which is always good. If not for that, I nevefr would have read her statement, as I don't care about award shows at all.

Oh--and it gives the Catholic League a chance to show what douchebags they are.

ALl good things.

3. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67000 by moai on September 1, 2007 at 9:35 am

I'm amazed that this is considered a review of "Darwin's Angel". I didn't read anything about that book except the first sentence or so. So tragically stupid.

Do these people really think that their "arguments" mean anything? I would actually respect them more if they just shut their eyes and screamed, "Is not is not is not is not" at the top of their lungs. At least that would be honest.

The article is an excellent example of the disease that is the "moderate believer".

4. Scarlet Letter Campaign Update: A Victory

Comment #62341 by moai on August 9, 2007 at 10:35 am

It's too easy to satirize sites like those, as the real ones aren't much different.

Still slays me, though.

It's nice to know that the OUT Campaign is becoming known outsie of our little sphere.

5. CNN Debate on Koran in Toilet

Comment #60593 by moai on August 2, 2007 at 11:12 am

I also find the concept of a hate crime to be terrifying, as well as nonsensical. If someone kills someone else, they are no less dead based on the reasons. It seems that we have "hate crimes" because we haven't (yet) found a way to legislate thought-crimes.

All the kid did was put a book in the toilet. He stole the book, so he did, in fact, commit a crime. But that's it.

It's too bad that the kid didn't go buy a copy and then put it in the toilet. Then there wouldn't be anything to talk about.

Is nobody else alarmed that this Hooper guy and his ilk want to set up a Caliphate in the US? They are no better than Dominionists, and should be called out on it.

These people hide behind their "freedom of religion" to advance their political agenda, and that sickens me. They should be taxed (all churches should be taxed) and held accountable for what they say at the pulpit.

If I join the "Out" campaign, does that make me tax-exempt? If some born-again knuckelhead tells me I am going to hell, is that a hate-crime?

I hope that this event at least makes more people realize what a hate-filled book the Koran is and that its followers are to be feared, and will probably have to be destroyed.

6. Richard Dawkins interview with Paula Zahn

Comment #22088 by moai on February 12, 2007 at 10:25 pm

I thought that Richard Dawkins was great, and obviously heavily edited but represented the atheist position very well. The "debate" afterward was ok and some good points were made, but the end where the Rev wigged out and became accusatory wasn't handled too well. He did do a good job of showing the pathetic nature of his thinking, however.

I would love to find a website that supports his position on this and has comments. Sadly, all the Xian sites are still quoting the Bible to "prove" god exists--as if what the Bible says matters.