1. Bill O'Reilly Interviews Lori Lipman Brown

Comment #95616 by PeterK on December 8, 2007 at 7:23 pm

Who is it exactly that takes offense seeing Christmas symbols being brought out into the public view, or saying "Merry Christmas" at Christmas-time? I don't know of any atheists who are.

2. Sherri Shepherd needs to go away now

Comment #94831 by PeterK on December 6, 2007 at 6:22 pm

What astounds me about Sherri is that throughout the entire segment she is totally convinced that she is correct. She completely ignores the others
gentle suggestions she is wrong, and thinks that if she keeps repeating herself in that smug self-assured style--all around her will believe she is correct.

Sadly, I have encountered far too many other people who do the same.

3. Evolution and Texas

Comment #94286 by PeterK on December 5, 2007 at 6:43 am

keep watching the film "Inherit The Wind" and wonder why on earth would anyone be a creationist.

4. Evolution and Texas

Comment #94285 by PeterK on December 5, 2007 at 6:43 am

keep watching the film "Inherit The Wind" and wonder why on earth would anyone be a creationist.

5. Evolution and Texas

Comment #94284 by PeterK on December 5, 2007 at 6:43 am

keep watching the film "Inherit The Wind" and wonder why on earth would anyone be a creationist.

6. Evolution and Texas

Comment #94283 by PeterK on December 5, 2007 at 6:42 am

I keep watching the film "Inherit The Wind" and wonder why on earth would anyone be a creationist.

7. Evolution and Texas

Comment #94280 by PeterK on December 5, 2007 at 6:40 am

I keep watching the film "Inherit The Wind" and wonder why anyone on earth would want to be like Matthew Harrison Brady.

8. Boy dies of leukemia after refusing treatment for religious reasons

Comment #92096 by PeterK on November 29, 2007 at 9:36 pm

9. Boy dies of leukemia after refusing treatment for religious reasons

Comment #92094 by PeterK on November 29, 2007 at 9:35 pm

Jehovah's Witnesses are just stupid dorkhead addle-brained nitwits. And whenever I meet one, I get right in their face tell him/her so, and everyone else on earth should do the same.

10. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89478 by PeterK on November 20, 2007 at 10:46 pm

35bluejacket--

Nonsense. I simply have an ability to identify an appeal for support that is as misdirected as anything I have ever witnessed.

If anything, I am downplaying how I feel about this--but if prompted, I will continue to embellish further.

11. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89476 by PeterK on November 20, 2007 at 10:38 pm

brian--what word/words/phrase are you struggling with?

12. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89456 by PeterK on November 20, 2007 at 8:01 pm

Sam:

Hirsi is sitting in a car right now ( ..and more than likely a BMW-type vehicle ); her headlights are shining in your eyes and hypnotising you in a trance just like Bambi's mama would be on the highway...

..now approach her vehicle reach into the the driver's window, and shut off those headlights...

..now whisper into her ear "You pay for your own bedclothes, darling--just like everyone else in this world does"

13. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89453 by PeterK on November 20, 2007 at 7:44 pm

This is bullshit.

She's a snooty moron bitch who feels she can use that silver spoon she was born with in her mouth and her high school-level of writing ability to somehow rescue her from any unmanageable situation she decides to put herself into.

Harris, get yer bloody head out of those headlights she's shinin into your pretty blues.

14. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #88127 by PeterK on November 14, 2007 at 7:39 pm

I simply ignore creationists and creationism. Best solution.

15. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #88120 by PeterK on November 14, 2007 at 6:35 pm

Summarized by Spinoza:

"...I will reiterate, theists distinguish all CREATED objects from God... No theist means, when they say "God created the Universe" that God created ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING. What they mean is, quite obviously, God created everything BUT HIMSELF."

And I reiterate, how could something that posited to be responsible for creating existence exist at all if its existence is dependent on being conscious of something? A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is actually a contradiction in terms. Before it identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which anything, anyone claims to perceive does NOT exist..what it then possesses is NOT consciousness. The infinite regress cannot regress any further--it cannot logically go beyond this point. The straw has been taken away for any man to be made and subsequently beaten. The theist must at this point assert that consciousness has primacy over existence, when logically this can only happen the other way around.

16. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87692 by PeterK on November 12, 2007 at 9:42 pm

drbreakfast sez:

If I understand PeterK's point, I agree with what he's trying to say, but I don't think it came out right. The Abrahamic religions' god (and other "personal" gods) is so unlikely, logic requires that it be affirmatively disbelieved. Theists tend to assert that their god is "outside" of time and space and incorporeal , thus being an intelligent consciousness free floating in "nothing" or perhaps "outside of nothing."


Oh please, nothing is wrong the "way it came out"
Untold millions of theists assert their God, yes much like they way you describe, and when they do, their assertion is meaningless. They are describing something which has the identical characteristics to that of non-existence.

If the term "all that exists" is included in the initial argument, that means ALL that exists. Easy to do. That includes any degree or idea of what existence is, even though you may not know what it is. You don't have to. Now say this to a theist and yes, they will more than likely make references to how tasty the taco dip is.

17. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87690 by PeterK on November 12, 2007 at 9:26 pm

A seemingly very pissed off, if not somewhat childish; all insultie and all squirmy Spinnozzie ( who has lost the argument ) because he's shouting way WAY too much sez:

IF there is a God, then IF God is conscious AND there is nothing in existence EXCEPT God, then GOD can still be CONSCIOUS OF HIMSELF (that is, intrinsically self-reflective).

Yeee-oh! Man, you don't get it do you?..He CAN'T exist under these conditions. This is the wall. It stops here. This is the end. I hate analogies but it's like a bottle can't exist if there ain't no glass anywhere. Thinking about a bottle is no help. Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend? I use this argument all the time, and all I get is the same nonsensical gymnastics on the parallel bars just like you've bin doin' Are you Italian or something? Oh ya I forgot, Spinoza is from the Netherlands.

Cheersch.

BTW when you enter, well like a dorky-worky ass--and continue on down the same muddy laneway, you are treated like a dorky-worky ass...

18. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87672 by PeterK on November 12, 2007 at 6:50 pm

Spinoza--
Who is the confused one here? If there WERE a God?..There can't BE a God--if his existence precedes all that exists, and theists do postulate God created all. I've never heard of a theist positing the idea that there was all this stuff laying around and God rearranged it into something he wanted to--no HE created existence. My argument is simply that to be conscious, there must first exist something to be conscious OF. But God cannot exist as a conscious entity, let alone be consciousof himself if there ain't nothin else around.
There is no strawman here. There is no confusion here. The beauty in the simplicicity of this argument is what seems to throw the detractors into a tither

19. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87641 by PeterK on November 12, 2007 at 4:46 pm

Well, (as I said, devil's advocate) erm, by definition, a transcendent God is still a kind of "thing", just not the kind of "thing" that needed to be created, so before Creation, a transcendent God (were one to exist) could still be conscious of itself (hence, stage an internal dialogue), and thus, there is no contradiction."

Ohh yaas there is....

God could not be conscious of himself because he couldn't exist in the first place because...

there is nothing to to conscious OF if existence has not yet been created. When I refer to 'existence'-- I include all that exists..everything..describing various degrees and levels and definitions of existence don't getcha off the hook.

..and as I predicted, you popped right out of the manhole I thought you would.

20. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87324 by PeterK on November 11, 2007 at 8:03 pm

Spinoza begins by:


"I am so tired of idiot atheists."


..and then sez:

"Please atheists, learn some philosophy, some very very basic philosophy, or shut up."

..and THEN sez:

"(I await the expected lambasting I am going to incur)."

..Now why would you expect a lambasting? You begin with an hominem, followed by a plea of us all do some philosophical book-larnin'.
Hmm perhaps you could set the appropriate example for us all to follow, the next time you come bursting in.

Now how about, just for fun, you form a rebuttal to my points described in post #15? I have not yet
heard-- not by nobody, not no how--come forth with anything that refutes this.

P.S...I think I know what you'll say first--everyone does--and I'll be ready and waiting.
Cheers

Peter

21. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87269 by PeterK on November 11, 2007 at 3:49 pm

The notion of a transcendent conciousness (ie God) that creates or brings into existence--well all that exists-- could not possibly exist, simply because to "be conscious" would require something to be conscious OF ( existence ). If there is nothing --because nothing has yet been created--there can be no consciousness anywhere, not by nobody, not no how. And this includes any Allah, Jahweh, Zeus, Jupiter.

Now would this not constitute as proof that a creator-God-thingy-dingy could not possibly exist?
What IS the problem here?

22. Georgia plans service to pray for rain

Comment #86638 by PeterK on November 9, 2007 at 7:41 pm

There must be too many homosexuals and abortionists in Georgia right now, and as a result, all Georgians are now being punished.
Look what happened to Nawlins. Shameful, I say.

23. The good that comes from belief

Comment #86635 by PeterK on November 9, 2007 at 7:34 pm

Fickin boolshieze

24. Mother dies after refusing blood

Comment #85286 by PeterK on November 5, 2007 at 12:16 pm

25. Mother dies after refusing blood

Comment #85283 by PeterK on November 5, 2007 at 12:10 pm

Anyone who subscribes to the Jehovah's Witness faith is just plain stupid. Period.

26. Believe it or not, courtesy counts

Comment #84119 by PeterK on November 1, 2007 at 7:58 am

This article should be retitled:


"Hey, At Least Be Nice To Us While Showing Us That We Are Wrong."

27. Face to faith

Comment #82893 by PeterK on October 28, 2007 at 7:06 am

Well since God has known everything for an infinite amount of time--he must be so not filled with awe and wonder, he could not possibly exist, as he would have surely been bored to death--no less than for an infinite amount of time!

Vernon has presented the most idiotically flawed argument for why one SHOULD embrace the notion of God existing than any that exist now. I'm sure there will be new ones invented, which will continue to fill me with awe and wonder. And Vernon will still be able to scare and boss the kids around at Sunday school.

28. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81549 by PeterK on October 24, 2007 at 10:38 pm

Logical thought will eventually triumph. As long as theism is defended in the manner similar to the likes of Dinesh D'Souza, theism in any form cannot and will not survive. Its demise just may take longer than we would like it to.

29. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80005 by PeterK on October 19, 2007 at 2:02 pm

"The reason Hitchen's never get s response to his silly challenge, is because Christians don't make that claim!"

A few recent presidents of the USA have:

G. Bush senior:

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

30. God's honest truth?

Comment #79771 by PeterK on October 18, 2007 at 1:36 pm

I don't like it. Rather than legislating that religious dogma not be taught to the unsuspecting pupils, why not first teach critical thinking skills so the pupils will possess the tools to evaluate religious dogma as the complete and utter bullshit it is.

31. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #79482 by PeterK on October 17, 2007 at 11:53 am

Evangelise, Evschmangelise.
The atheists are merely educating and enlightening Americans-as well as everyone else in the world--how to recognize reality as honestly and as thoroughly as possible.
There is no emotionalizing, there are no smoke and mirrors, there is no deceit, there is no offer of everlasting blah blah blah--AND as many have already stated, there is no asking for money.
Coral Ridge simply sees the increased population of those poor souls who are now armed with BS-detecting weapons, as threat to filling their coffers.
And like all similar ministries, they chillingly give the impression they don't give two hoots about the personal lives of their congregation. They just want their money.
If there was a hell to go to, they should be on the priority list of automatic attendees.

32. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78747 by PeterK on October 14, 2007 at 5:21 pm

Again some great posts, especially Jack Rawlinson's tremendous imagery!

This thing about atheist writers not knowing much about theology is a crock. Could you envision someone like our dear Archbishop actually saying in a similar review something like "Mr. Atheist writer has shown a startling high level of theocratic knowledge, and raises some very provocative questions"?
It will never happen. Ever.
I say their poo-pooing the words of Dawkins and the like is the direct result of their KNOWING that the atheist writers know perfectly well what silly beliefs being exposed for the clownful nonsense it really is. Only thing is, the atheist writers have shown what happens when one thinks through these beliefs in the the teeth of rationality.

33. Muslims tell Christians: 'Make peace with us or survival of world is at stake'

Comment #78077 by PeterK on October 11, 2007 at 6:29 pm

Now send them all a copy of the 'The God Delusion' and 'God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything'

34. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77377 by PeterK on October 9, 2007 at 6:48 am

How long will it be before an evangelist hears wind of all this and goes on about how "Now those godless atheists can't even agree on what to CALL themselves, Praise the Lord!"

Harris makes a good point. However, he probably should have presented his ideas as more of a suggestion, rather than appointing himself as one who speaks for all atheists.

35. Scandal brewing at Oral Roberts U.

Comment #76416 by PeterK on October 5, 2007 at 6:55 pm

..and I always figure one only catches about 10% of all untoward actions

36. A New Debate

Comment #75639 by PeterK on October 3, 2007 at 7:35 am

Great idea, but there sadly just aren't enough Americans who think this is an important enough issue to make this fly. And great Scott, can you imagine how the FOX news executives would react if they saw this proposal on their desk?
-------------------------------------------------
..and something from the article that just DRIVES me because I see it everywhere!

"....but an RSVP in the negative would beg the question: why on earth would a candidate turn his back on the opportunity to learn more about science?"

For God sakes man, it's "Would lead one to ask" NOT "Beg the question"!

( No further explanation needed in this forum )

I just put this in the same file of language abuse as:

"I could care less"

and

"irregardless"

37. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74722 by PeterK on September 30, 2007 at 6:03 am

"Romantics might say that Buddhism is unlike other religions, more a philosophy than a faith. But this would be untrue."

What drives me absolutely bonkers about religionites is when they feel they can define; redfine terms simply for the sake of squirming from a situation they find themselves in due to the irrational beliefs they embrace.

Other examples:

"Atheism is religion"

"Christianity isn't a religion--it's a 'relationship'"

"But that's not the God I believe in"

"faith is man's greatest gift-his greatest virtue"

~followed by~

"It takes more faith to be an atheist than a believer" ( therefore the atheist is then more virtuous )

~followed by~

"But I meant it's faith in GOD"

If there is one fundamental difference in how one presents an argument between an atheist and a theist--this is it. I have never seen a theist accuse an atheist of introducing vague terms which can be defined in any way to suit his purposes. The atheist doesn't have to.

38. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72339 by PeterK on September 20, 2007 at 7:04 pm

If I could talk with Richard Skinner face to face:

"Alright Mr. Skinner, describe to me in a detailed comprehensive manner--EXACTLY what 'God' is. Take as long as you like. And from there I will examine
what you have said and, and then assess your description how I see accordingly."

So far what is happening is that theists are re-inventing their definition of God, because these 'New Atheists' keep pulling THEIR God's pants down, and His little dinky is flapping in the breeze for all to see.

And they don't like that.

Sooo, this now blushing entity is no longer their God, and if the atheists attack him, hey they'e beating a StrawGod!

These guys have to understand at some point
that atheists are who they are because they don't
fall for this deception.

And the theists do--that's why they're theists.

39. God Talk on 'The View'

Comment #71620 by PeterK on September 19, 2007 at 11:16 am

Did anyone really expect any more intelligent discussion coming from this group?

40. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70450 by PeterK on September 15, 2007 at 2:28 pm

"....I am a well-educated, well-travelled, and well-read person.."

but I'll betcha my father could beat up your father.

41. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70179 by PeterK on September 14, 2007 at 8:54 am

Sounds like he's desperately crying out for someone from his side to intellectually take on Hitchens, Dawkins et al.

Trouble is, anyone as intelligent and knowledgeable as these men wouldn't be ON his side.

42. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70176 by PeterK on September 14, 2007 at 8:47 am

Irate Atheist--

I would say "bang on"

What I find incredible is how these defenders of faith are able to create new sides of their mouths to speak from. These attacks on the "New Atheists" are becoming odder and odder as the months go by.

oh yes, and this concluding gem :

"....an essential corrective."

Give me a flipping break

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

Comment #69593 by PeterK on September 11, 2007 at 8:04 pm

Good stuff, I admire her courage:

"A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus"

Going too far, unecessary, childish and moronic:

"Suck it, Jesus. This award is my god now."

44. The Rise of Atheist America

Comment #68948 by PeterK on September 9, 2007 at 8:17 am

I'm not really sure what the point of this article is. Obviously it is aimed at a christian audience, and in his best Chicken-Little rant, cries to them: "The sky is falling, the atheists are taking over!".
He then offers no sign of proposing any action to be undertaken to counter-act this situation which the atheists have apparently created in America. So the christians should then concede and just prepare for the inevitable? I would say it's long overdue.

45. We need a more intelligent religion debate

Comment #68483 by PeterK on September 7, 2007 at 8:55 am

Defenders of Theism Definitions:

"arrogant"
—He obviously knows more than we do and is very calmly methodically and reasonably telling us stuff we don't like—i.e. things that are clearly showing our beliefs are a crock.

"shrill"
-We don't want to listen to him anymore—i.e. he's saying way too many things that are clearly showing our beliefs are a crock.

"militant"
—He is always 'shrill', and there's nobody from our side that can even come close to defending him.

46. We need a more intelligent religion debate

Comment #68458 by PeterK on September 7, 2007 at 7:57 am

Hobson insists:

"We need a more intelligent religion debate"

..what he really hopes to see is:

"We need the atheists to admit they are wrong"


...then attempts to define the concept of 'religion' off the playing field as Hitchens, Dawkins et al perceive it to be--obviously knowing it's getting a whuppin' where it is now. He must realize this tactic will not go unnoticed, and will in fact attract even more critcism from all these horrid atheists who now are easily recognizing and rendering inescaple all the manholes the theists are attempting to pop out from when defending their position.


Try again, Theo--it's been said before.

47. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68433 by PeterK on September 7, 2007 at 7:09 am

Should we all be surprised anymore at the preposterous things someone says when defending someone else who says preposterous things who defends a faith which demands someone believe in preposterous things?

48. India to charge writer Nasreen with 'hurting Muslim feelings'

Comment #67546 by PeterK on September 3, 2007 at 7:05 pm

"Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen will face criminal charges in India after being accused of stirring up religious enmity."

as long as laws such as this still exist on this planet, mankind could never be considered 'civilized'

49. The New Atheists

Comment #67459 by PeterK on September 3, 2007 at 1:52 pm

"...while Harris is so full of his point of view that he, like Hitchens, is unable to consider faith as anything but stupid...."

What I suspect here is that like many others, Aronson is erroneously defending elements 'faith' with 'hope' and 'trust', and as a result Hitchens and Harris are throwing the baby out with the bath water. I don't recall either Hitchens or Harris referring to faith as 'stupid'--but ultimately as an deceptively evil and slothful method of cognition. One needs not be 'full of his point of view' to clearly demonstrate that this would be the case.

50. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67452 by PeterK on September 3, 2007 at 1:35 pm

"What do these atheists understand of religion?"

Maybe if you actually read one of these books by these the atheist writers that you attack, you wouldn't have to ask this question.

But my response to this question would be:

In any atheist/theist debate, have you ever ONCE seen a theist who knew more about atheism than the atheist knew about theism?