51. D'Souza - Nothing to Refute Here

Comment #86704 by Summer Seale on November 10, 2007 at 2:24 am

Flagellant,

I completely disagree. I mean, you go right ahead, but I think it's a waste of time. Why play their philosophical con game? I refuse to believe in something which they say exists and which they refuse to reveal to me in full. Why beat around the bush? If somebody is going to sell me a car, I will look under the hood. They refuse to even show me the whole car, let alone what is under the hood. Sorry, I'm not buying. Anyone who buys into that argument, anyone who says to at least listen to the salesman, is a total frigging idiot. He's lying. He's lying to you, lying to me, lying to the world. Either that, or he's a total dupe who has been conned by another liar. Either way, he's full of it. You know it. I know it. Debunking it with philosophical araguments on their level is just validating their stupid little game.

God people: Put up, or shut up already.

That's my "philosophical argument" for them to deal with. There may be nothing new about arguments in atheism, but then again there isn't anything new about proving something in court or a lab or just daily life either. It is either real or it isn't. They want me to believe? Fine. Prove it to me. Get God's ass on the stand and let's see what he has to say for himself.

I don't deal with second-rate spokesmen.

52. D'Souza - Nothing to Refute Here

Comment #86695 by Summer Seale on November 10, 2007 at 1:48 am

I have absolutely no problem believing in a God.

If Dinesh wants me to believe in a God, he can ask his God to introduce himself to me. I'll be happy to meet him and chat anytime. Until then, I don't believe he exists, and there is no BS convoluted mental masturbation which will convince me that I am wrong. I don't expect Dinesh to think that Zeus exists without my proving it to him, so why should he expect any different from me? The fact that he does makes him a real idiot in my book. Dinesh, why don't you believe in my fucking teapot as well? You bloody heretic. May you burn in hell forever for not believing in it.

I get upset at people wasting time and words trying to convince others that God exists, for hours, days, years, centuries...wasting valuable time which would be better spent doing something far better for everyone involved. It bores me. They bore me. If they want us to believe, then pull him out of the fucking hat already.

53. Same Flea, Different Name?

Comment #86173 by Summer Seale on November 8, 2007 at 2:05 pm

Why does anyone actually have to go out of their way to write a book trying to prove to everyone else that God exists?

Can't...God do it? The bible is a few thousand years old. I'd like an updated copy, please. Is it that hard for Mr. Omnipotent to get re-published?

Seriously. Anyone who doesn't understand how this question just kills religion and God is a complete and total idiot and a waste of space.

54. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82098 by Summer Seale on October 25, 2007 at 5:03 pm

Actually, I think Harris is right.

We should perhaps re-term ourselves as "Skeptics".

This is why: I have noticed in each and every debate, the first thing that the other side is try to tag us with all sorts of labels to prove that we're "just as bad" (or just like them, only they don't realize they're trying to drag us down). Basically, they attribute that God is a fact, and that denying God is a burden placed upon us.

If we rename ourselves "Skeptics", then the word automatically launches a new meaning for us in each and every debate. Suddenly, we're not saying "God doesn't exist and we know he doesn't". Instead, we are suddenly saying "Okay, prove to me that such a ridiculous thing exists."

Suddenly, they are the ones faced with proving their case.

At least, that's my take on it. I have nothing against the word "Atheist", but perhaps Sam is right. And, coming from the right (at times), I do see the value in good re-branding of an idea. It can work. Let's use it for Atheism and science and put *them* on the defensive for once? =)

Summies.

P.S. Nobody remarked on my other amazingly brilliant and fab idea the other week. Our side is *always* asked "What are you going to replace religion with?"

They ask everyone this question. We sorta don't have a simple answer for it either. Hitchens talks about philosophy and art, poetry, music....etc...etc.... so does Dawkins. And I agree. But it's not catchy.

Next time they ask you that, answer with *my* new catchy phrase.

Q: "What are you going to replace religion with?"

A: "The Truth!"

Hope you like it. =) I do. Maybe cuz I'm blonde, but I think we can still popularize a few concepts and make them more catchy.

55. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #82079 by Summer Seale on October 25, 2007 at 4:42 pm

#124 IndyHoosier

"I don't understand the viewpoint of those that consider Hitchens to be a good or accomplished debater. He is a terrible debater. Absolutely abysmal.

I refer you to his debate with George Galloway. Or his lecture at the recent AAI 07 conference.

In the former, the "debate" devolved into a full fledged cat fight. There was no discussion of ideas, only a tiresome series of personal attacks.

In the latter, Hitchens is asked a question about his support for the Iraq war, and he immediately attacks the person as someone who does not know what he is talking about. Hitchens is very ill tempered and cannot handle a challenge to his perceived superiority. It makes him a very poor debater."

Something tells me that you don't like Hitchens because of his support of the Iraq war either. Something also tells me that you think Galloway made a good case in defense of himself?

Just asking... =)

I think Hitchens is a wonderful debater. I think he was just not his usual self that night with D'Souza.

56. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81684 by Summer Seale on October 25, 2007 at 3:13 am

I think Dr. Dawkins is right.

After all, what the heck did D'Souza actually....accomplish? Say that Atheists are "just as wrong" as religionists? That's about it, really. He showed that atheists have faults too. Great. What a huge success. Atheists are human.

He never even tried to prove that God exists, or that religion can actually know his/her/whatever's mind if it does exist.

Shouldn't that have been the point of the debate?

It was kind of like watching two lawyers in court determining the fate of somebody's future, and one of the lawyers is just jeering and jumping around and instead of arguing his case, says something along the lines to the other lawyer "ha ha, you're fatter than I am. Your case is stupid. How can such a fat person take himself seriously?"

That's basically what D'Souza "accomplished" in that debate.

And then the family members behind D'Souza shouting "yeah! He's really ugly too!"

That's about the gist of it. Wasn't much of a debate, if you ask me. Then again, it never is. Nobody that Dr. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris or any other debates actually *defends* religion as it stands on the books and in the churches etc.... and why is that? Because they know it's bunk. D'Souza is the only one that I came across in those debates who actually almost goes out of his way to start defending "miracles". But I bet you that if you challenged him on hellfire and if he thinks that Anne Frank is burning in hell for not being a Christian before she was murdered..his answer would be no. Either that, or he's more insane than his other co-religionists.

No, I think Hitch may just have been tired, or is burning out, or just didn't happen to feel the vibe with that audience that day. Whatever it was, though, it wasn't a debate. D'Souza proved nothing. What Hitchens did prove, however, is how incredibly stupid and offensive the very tenets of religion truly are. That, he did prove without any seeming rebuttal from D'Souza.

So I wouldn't say Hitch lost. I'd just say that he made his case and only got some hot air and stupid cliches in return from idiots who had all the air of never having heard those "arguments" before.

[

57. Eddie Tabash at AAI 07

Comment #80960 by Summer Seale on October 23, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Wow....

As somebody who watched Eddie Tabash a few times, and as somebody who is clearly on the right on some issues, and the left on others, and who agrees with Eddie's assessment of what we have to lose, I just have this to say:

ChrisMcL, you're an asshole.

58. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80912 by Summer Seale on October 23, 2007 at 1:24 pm

I gotta say,

Shermer was just... flattened by D'Souza. Not because D'Souza had anything logical to say, but because Shermer wouldn't shut him up.

In all honesty, D'Souza made a few good points which his side has to make. But after they have been made, I don't want to hear them made again, and again, and again. It is incredibly annoying.

I do agree that Western Civ is something to be defended - I'm with Hitch on that. I'm not saying it's perfect, or that we were the first at everything, or anything like that. But I do appreciate the point that D'Souza is trying to make about it currently being something we really want to uphold as a general goal.

As to his mixing Christianity in there as a point of defense, I understand it but he's wrong. I don't mean he's historically wrong all the time - sometimes he is right. Christianity did actually do *some* good *sometimes*. But he's wrong about that meaning that this is *real*. After all, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy also do some good. They're still not real, and only an idiot would argue that the money and presents and good feeling they give, and the ordered way which their myths give to little children and their view of the universe, means that they are a real thing. Also, I may tend to agree with Hitch that sometimes it isn't that Christianity did something good, but people did something good despite Christianity (what Dawkins would say as well, I think).

That's the problem. I think Shermer is too polite to disentangle the bullshit from the stuff he may very well be sympathetic towards. That is why I am very anxiously waiting for that damn video to get up online with Hitch vs. D'Souza, because I know that Hitch isn't "too polite" to disentangle those statements and rip them to pieces.

Also, the AEI isn't all bad. Sorry. Just because somebody believes Bush may be right on the foreign policy front, just because somebody may be a Christian or Jew or Hindu, just because somebody thinks that America is worth fighting for in a general all around context, or they happen to be a Neocon, does not make all of their policies incorrect or stupid. That is a very dogmatic position to take. =)

59. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79306 by Summer Seale on October 16, 2007 at 8:39 pm

Again, same apologies for religion by the same "debaters" who go up against our side.

I'd like to meet a single one who actually believes in the stuff that Hitchens, Dawkins, et al are refuting. They always go on about how it's a personal god for them etc.... They never actually address the issue. Ever. It's @#$ing moronic of them. If they don't believe the bible, then they should say so.

An issue that keeps being brought up is "What are you suggesting we replace religion with?" And much as our side does answer it, they never boil it down to one answer everyone can remember and understand.

Here's my hopefully memorable contribution to future debates for Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris et al:

"What are you suggesting we replace religion with?"

"The Truth."

Let them choke on it.

60. The Price of Freedom

Comment #77550 by Summer Seale on October 9, 2007 at 4:14 pm

Keith, Fanusi,

I'm also one of the "lone dissenter" atheists out there, I guess. =) I get pissy on this topic. I'm with Hitch all the way. Time for people at this site to understand that some of us atheists understand the threat and want to fight back. I'm not gonna get into whether or not Saddam was involved in such and such. I know all the arguments and I don't frankly care. The only thing that mattered to me then is that he was the enemy and, honestly, I can't think of a better thing to do with the enemy. The only thing which matters to me right now is that we're fighting Jihadis and, honestly, I can't think of a better thing to do than to put a bullet in them.

I'm with Hitch: it is good to hate your enemies. Loving them is irresponsible at this point. That's cold, it's cruel, it's the world and the universe we live in. Leftists can be just as dogmatic as the crazy right-wing. I'd support more leftist things if they were fighting on my side however. =)

There. I've said it again: I'm an atheist and an Iraq war supporter. I hope that for some of you...it sticks in your craw. For others, I hope it makes you speak up as well. Atheism doesn't mean necessarily following every single leftist dogmatic view of the world out there. I support a lot of what is said on this site, but I do not agree at all with the general population of atheists on this subject.

61. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #73622 by Summer Seale on September 25, 2007 at 2:56 pm

Oh and I love Rowan Atkinson. He totally rocks. <3

62. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #73621 by Summer Seale on September 25, 2007 at 2:55 pm

You sayin' I'm hostile?

You lookin' at me? Huh? =)

I decided a while back that I am going to try not to fight people on this site who don't support the war. But I'm a reactionary. When I see comments slamming Hitchens and others for their support of it, I react. If I didn't see those comments, I wouldn't react. But every time Hitchens is brought up speaking about his book and the good Atheist fight, that's the first thing people generally comment about - the war. And that gets me all riled up and musses up my hair and nails and then I get pissy. =)

But normally, I'm a very cuddly and sweet girl. <3

63. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #73604 by Summer Seale on September 25, 2007 at 12:49 pm

"Gosh, you must be absolutely BRILLIANT!"

Can't help it if I am. =)

"(And so HUMBLE!)"

Sorry, not part of the flock.

"You seem to know exactly how much your targets have or have not studied"

I can tell exactly how deep their study is on a subject when they sound like idiots while they are talking about it.

"and even though they're TV personalities trying to put out as much content as possible in a very short time frame"

That isn't my fault. Why don't they start changing the format by organizing and saying something along the lines of "we don't feel like being idiots anymore" as a sort of a challenge to the current broadcasting model?

"you also know the precise level of their intellects."

I'm just incredible that way. =)

"It must be awful"

You have no idea.

"for someone as superior as you obviously are"

My thanks. =)

"to have to put up with such complete idiots."

Tell me about it. =)

64. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #73486 by Summer Seale on September 25, 2007 at 4:52 am

I know I'm going to be the odd one out again, but I hate populism, and I hate Bill Maher's style. =)

The fact is, he's just as ignorant on issues as Bill Blathermouth O'Reilly, and his general audience clapping his every word are just as stupid and uneducated as Bill'O's audience too. I can't stand it. I hate idiots hooting and jeering because they think something cool was said, without even knowing what the hell it's all about. It totally gets me upset. =P In fact, it's cringe-worthy to watch and embarrassing.

I have views which are well thought out and educated. I'll say something in the reverse which people normally say: Bill'O agrees with *me* over the war, but doesn't know why - he's just an idiot. And Bill Maher agrees with *me* about the stupidity of all things mystical and religious, but he doesn't know why - he's also just an idiot. I don't like them trying to do my views any favors. I feel the exact same way about Stewart's show as well. I think he's a funny guy and all, but he's also an ignorant ass. He knows a few things and thinks he knows everything. That isn't the case. He knows nothing.

They're just populist demagogues, and I really can't stand that.

It's like when people start arguing over what Islam really is or means, and then I ask them straight out: have you read the Koran and the Hadiths? If their answer is no, I tell them to shut the #@$# up and go back to school. It offends me to no end that people have such staunch views on religion and other big matters when they know absolutely nothing about it. If somebody was arguing with me over any other point, anyone here would expect them to have studied the subject in depth. But I guess people can form opinions about a whole range of political or religious things and get away without studying anything at all.

Seriously, they totally offend me with their stupid remarks and their stupid audiences. That's why I hate Fox news, CNN, Bill Maher, The Daily Show, and all the other populist crap out there. It is stupid, beneath even my contempt on a regular basis, and really embarrassing when they actually agree with my point of view. I do listen to NPR a lot, even tho I disagree with many of their points of view, because they don't cater to jeering and hooting idiots with one line sound clips. Same goes for the BBC in my book - I hate their stance (and if I was a party, I'd throw a drink in the BBC's face), but I really enjoy their format more than any other TV news.

That said, sometimes Maher is funny. But not when he's taking on serious issues.

65. In Depth: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #71361 by Summer Seale on September 18, 2007 at 2:17 pm

This is the same one that was posted like 2 weeks ago, right? I watched the whole thing and he was great. =)

66. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #70778 by Summer Seale on September 16, 2007 at 10:10 pm

Thanks to you too, millefolia.

Meanwhile, in Auschwitz and Kigali, your incredibly understanding lack of action really comforts the dead there as well.

Yes, we must all endeavor to do absolutely nothing. We must accept that peace is a means to an end because fighting can be so messy and unpleasant for everyone. Please pass the crumpets and don't mind the slaves being whipped in the fields. If they truly want freedom, I'm certain they'll just stand up and get it on their own. Nobody is advocating a war to end slavery, surely. To suggest that would lack such nuanced understanding of our economic and societal structure. They couldn't, wouldn't, ever be that insane. Would they?

67. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #70730 by Summer Seale on September 16, 2007 at 7:12 pm

"The fate of Iraq is in the hands of Iraqi's and we should have left them to determine it on their own."


Let's replace one word:

"The fate of Germany is in the hands of Germans and we should have left them to determine it on their own."

Or another:

"The fate of Serbia is in the hands of Serbians and we should have left them to determine it on their own."

Or, yet another:

"The fate of the South is in the hands of Southerners and we should have left them to determine it on their own."

Another:

"The fate of Sudan is in the hands of Sudanese and we should have left them to determine it on their own."

Or again:

"The fate of Rwanda is in the hands of Rwandans and we should have left them to determine it on their own."


I rest my case alongside the graves of hundreds of millions who waited for those words to change, and for somebody to do *something* about it.

68. Richard Dawkins and the New Age fakers

Comment #63391 by Summer Seale on August 14, 2007 at 4:22 am

Sorry,

I still don't buy it.

You, and I assume pretty much everyone else here, is going to be appalled. That's fine. I knew you would be. But, and I hate to say this again and again, you're living in a dream world.

You won't get religious fundamentalism ripped out of the soul of humanity without a bloody fight. If you don't accept that, you don't accept human nature or history itself. Wish for peace all you like, promote it, ram it down people's throats with fine essays and negotiations on paper. But the only thing which has ever really enforced peace is the barrel of a gun. It takes a military to win something this big.

I have scorn and loathing for the Catholic church but, again, they're not trying to kill me for wearing the wrong kind of clothing. So, given that people are out there who are trying to kill me, why shouldn't I want them to get a bullet in the head in return?

Islamists are the Nazis of today - literally. They hate Jews, Christians, Hindus, Atheists, Buddhists, and anyone else not like them. They not only say it, but they decapitate anyone who fits that non-Islamic mold. Not only that, they decapitate people who are Muslims, but only slightly less so than them. These are people you want to negotiate with?

You remember Daniel Pearl? A nice liberal, leftist, Jewish reporter who went not to even question them...but simply to try to understand them, and got that treatment which tens of thousands of people since have received. These are the people you don't want to see shot dead? These people who caper around and chant "Allahu Akbar" while they slowly saw some poor hapless captive's head off on camera to show the world how great their god is? These are the people you think I should be "non-violent" towards? Show understanding and mercy?

I won't have it. I'll have them dead, do you hear? These muderers, these bastards who throw acid in the faces of women for not wearing the veil, I will see dead. I am not talking about the vast majority of the Muslim population, but I am talking about the Islamists out there who will do all these things for their god. And I will see them and their filthy ideology buried.

So what's so terrible about that? You want them to live? You want them to keep doing these things? How exactly do you propose to stop them?

Whether or not it was a "good idea" to go to war in Iraq is irrelevant at this point and I couldn't give a damn less about that old argument. The fact is that we are there now, and we're fighting these guys - regardless of whether we created them or not. Yes, we unleashed it, but only because it was lying dormant at the time. It was always there, and it will always be there, until we get rid of it. It didn't just spontaneously create itself out of a vacuum. We did unleash this evil, but we would have had to deal with it sooner or later at some point down the road.

So, I'm vicious? I'm vicious for wanting these bastards dead? Then exactly what is your solution? Aside from killing these oversized penises with koranic visions of virgins in paradise, what exactly do you propose to do about it? Nothing? You are perfectly content to sit back and let people suffer at the hands of these primitive freaks because...why exactly? Because you believe in peace? Which peace is that? The peace you find at home, or the peace of the graves of thousands of people who are trying to fight for a secular society where they don't have to get their heads cut off simply because they missed prayer at seven in the morning?

Then how are your statements going to help anything? I support the guys who are killing these medieval madmen. I send things to make their lives better and make it known that I appreciate every bullet they fire in defense of a more secular country where terror isn't a way of life and a single book written by a madman who married and raped thirteen year old virgins is not the law of the land. I'd say that's a hell of a lot more productive than simply writing treatises about how we should do absolutely nothing and how the U.S. was wrong and then offer *nothing* whatsoever as a solution to the problem.

You're an Atheist? You think religion is the root of all evil perhaps? Well, not all I think, but a damned good majority of it. So then, what are you going to do about it? You're gonna fight or not? Are you going to provide to those who do? Are you going to praise them for defending your secular way of life, or are you going to sit back and let them fall and wait for the bastards to walk all over you while beating you down with their stupid book?

You don't have to win me over to Atheism - I've been an Atheist for years. I just happen to want to fight for it. And for that, in this "peaceful" environment, with wishful thinking and moon-eyed optimism, I'm hated for it. Because I'm true to my values.

"What makes a terrorist?" Sorry, that line is complete and utter B.S. to me. What a disgusting double standard. When the abortion clinics were bombed in the 1990's, and when Tim McVeigh blew up his truck bomb, did you all sit around and contemplate "What makes a terrorist?" or did you simply rail against Christian fundamentalists? Be honest here. Don't frigging lie. You never would ask that about Christian terrorists because you have a completely different standard for them. At least be bloody honest for once. You're excusing murder when you ask this question. Nobody here, I'll warrant, asked it when those clinics were bombed and when those brave abortion doctors were shot. Did you go around asking what on earth you had done wrong, what policies you had enforced, which led to such actions? Or did you already know that those terrorists were wrong, you were right, and secular society had to prevail?

If you didn't ask that, then you're using a double standard. And that is hypocrisy. At least I'm honest about everything I believe in. There is no difference between killing for the bible and killing for the koran - except the koran requires it far more than the bible ever has. Whatever the case, it's wrong and I won't stand for it.

And neither should you.

69. Richard Dawkins and the New Age fakers

Comment #63165 by Summer Seale on August 13, 2007 at 10:38 am

Well,

I'm a polemicist. =)

I know that was scary, and I'm just trying to make a point. It's not a point about how crazy I can be either.

The point is that people don't think Atheists have the guts to be real and true to morals and beliefs. You've heard it a ton of times, and you dismiss it each time. But people still won't believe you. And why is that?

Atheism isn't a dogma. "All War Is Bad" is a dogma. And, really, I don't like dogma. I think there's a hell of a lot of kneejerk leftism in the Atheism movement - some of which I agree with. But please, people...some of us are Atheists and believe its worth fighting for. =)

That's the point I'm trying to make.

Do you think it's worth fighting for?

I know it was a scary outburst, but hey it's a scary world. =) If you're not ready to defend this movement against the entire worst bunch of religious fanatics the world has to face, then seriously....what *do* you expect others to think?

Please, think about it. This is, after all, why I joined the Republican party.

I used to be a Bill Clinton supporting Democrat before that. =)


BTW, I wasn't advocating genocide. You'll note that I want to kill the Mullahs who enslave people. I *don't* want to kill the people who are enslaved. But there are a lot of Mullahs out there, and there are a lot of people who back them up. I never said, nor did I ever mean to imply, that we should kill everyone there. I'm completely against that line of thought and I think it is disgusting. I was talking about Jihadis. Not everyone there is a Jihadi, remember. =)

70. Richard Dawkins and the New Age fakers

Comment #63077 by Summer Seale on August 13, 2007 at 4:30 am

Souvlaki,

I'm sorry, I don't agree. If you know anything about the internal politics in the party, there is much disagreement right now about the religious fundamentalists keeping power in the party, and a lot of people are fighting it tooth and nail.

Again, don't make this political. The Democrats pander to the religious as well, and to people who think that America should lose certain wars in which it is currently engaged in. I don't, however, think that Clinton or Obama are traitors to the cause. And, in case you hadn't noticed, some Republican appointed judges have made some very notable anti-religious rulings lately, including the ruling against creationism being taught in school in Pennsylvania.

I never said that the party wasn't inundated with religious nuts. I am merely pointing out that there is far more to the Republican party, as well as the Democratic party, than the religious slurs which are thrown around about its core voters. They are a small core, and they are not the majority. Believe me, I am completely against the religious fundamentalists in the party, as I am against the religious fundamentalists in the Democratic party (again: Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc....demagogues in the exact same vein as that bastard Falwell). It does not mean that the entire party thinks this way, or even that is is the official platform.

Take Giuliani, for instance. The core may not like him, but he still polls ahead by a wide margin in general Republican polls. I wouldn't call him a religious fundamentalist, would you? In fact, the only people that the religious guys are resonating with are the core voters of those single issues within the party itself. Do you think they speak for the entire party? If you do, then you are gravely mistaken.

People here should understand that part of their fight should be to reclaim the Republican party from the religious fundamentalists, or you will run the danger of getting what you fear the most: a religious nutter in the White House who *will* change the laws of the land. Giuliani won't do that. And just as important to me is reclaiming the Democratic party from the hardcore left.

I'm pretty much a single issue voter myself, however. Nothing is more important to me than this war. The Administration, in my view, isn't being hardass enough. Sorry, and I've said this before, but the only good fundamentalist terrorist is a dead one. I make no apologies about it. If I could, I'd go myself and shoot a few in the face for kicks. I hate them. I hate people who apologize for them. I hate people who stick up for their culture and just want to "get along" with these madmen, slavers, and bastards. And anyone who is going to kick their ass and make them regret it for the next two hundred years is probably going to have my frigging vote. If there's one thing I can say that I really cannot forgive Bush for, it's lying about the meaning of Islam and pretending it is a religion of peace. It isn't, I don't want to pretend it is, and I really don't see a reason why I shouldn't help people to shoot up the whole damned region to get rid of the filthy stuff.

These assholes betray the enlightenment even more than the Christian fundamentalists of this country, because they kill people every day in the street to make their point that medieval thinking is better than scientific and rational thought. I support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think we should bomb the hell out of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran as well, and I couldn't care less about hurt feelings, breach of international law, the fucking UN, appeasing anyone at all, or what Atheists say in general about the Bush administration or Republicans at large.

You want to fight religion? Fine. Take a gun and shoot a damned Islamic Jihadi in the face for trying to enforce his will by brute force. That's fighting back against the current and most important religious threat of our time. That, or supporting the guys who do it. Anything else is just talk and hot air, wishful thinking, and a childish and dogmatic thinking about how we really are going to change the world with happy songs about cultural understanding.

By all means, wear an Atheist T-Shirt, but what have you REALLY done for the cause lately? I send care packages to guys who *kill* people you *should* despise. What do you guys *REALLY* do apart from argue with other people who will actually *never* kill you?

If you were in the military, then that's great and I applaud it. But that doesn't change my mind about what has to be done.

I'm in this for the long and dirty haul. Want to know what gets me off? I'll tell you: thinking about bludgeoning a few mullahs to death with a baseball bat and freeing their enslaved 13 year old wives from the veil. That's what gets me off. So, until the Democrats show me that they're that frigging outraged at the Islamic fundamentalist threat out there, and that they are going to be that frigging crazy about it that Patton himself descends from high above and blesses them with raving lunacy on the battlefield to make the enemy piss in their pants at the oncoming revenge, then the Republicans have my vote.

You want to win me over as an Atheist to your party? Want to win me back to the left? Start supporting the war like nothing else. Start making the Democrats smile every time we cap a bad guy over there and show it on TV.

Almost nothing on this forum has ever convinced me that this time is coming soon.

Yeah, I'm a bitch.

71. Richard Dawkins and the New Age fakers

Comment #63024 by Summer Seale on August 13, 2007 at 12:23 am

And, unless I'm very mistaken, Hillary claims to be "religious", good old Bill used to "pray" at baptist revivals all the time, and Sharpton and Jesse Jackson all claim the status of "reverend" and have run for President under the Democratic Party banner, and also debate against Hitchens on the existence of "God".

So please don't make this political because you'll lose.

72. Richard Dawkins and the New Age fakers

Comment #63022 by Summer Seale on August 13, 2007 at 12:15 am

cry4turtles,

Some of us Atheists (feminists, and even anti-theists) are GOP members. And we don't appreciate people associating our party with religious fanatical idiots - from within or without. It's hard enough to fight the creeping ideology as it is, thanks. Please don't make it harder.

Would you like it if I associated Democrats with Stalinists?

73. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #62660 by Summer Seale on August 10, 2007 at 4:44 pm

Veronique,

I totally apologize because I misread you at first. When you said "paper", I thought you were referring to the article and not the actual web site as a whole. =) Yes, the web site is a Republican web site. In fact, it and NRO are the two periodicals which can be said to be driving Republican policies most of the time and are read by the top brass at the White House etc...

I thought you were referring however to the article itself which I wanted to refute because I don't think that it is necessarily a "Republican" view. It's a stupid view. But then again, every party is full of idiots anyway. =)

And I have to disagree on the general stance of the left/atheists against the war because, well....if they were out on the forefront shooting those assholes in the face to make the world a safer place for atheists, then we wouldn't have to rely on Christian fundamentalists to do the job for us, would we? =)

That is seriously my major beef with most of this movement right now. I don't believe in "live and let live" when it happens to be threatening my life. If I were to walk around the Muslim world, or hell even in a Muslim quarter in Europe, dressed the way I dress in public most of the time....I'd be killed. I don't want that, and I am not going to apologize for beating that ideology into the dust with a pair of brass knuckles and a few kicks to their filthy mouths with a sharp stiletto heel.

Believe me, I have *serious* problems with Christian Fundamentalists as well (obviously....), but at least none of them have yet tried to cut off my head. This is not a "Christian Nation", though some try to pretend it is. And we don't have a culture glorifying the murder of women simply because they don't wear bags over their heads - even amongst fundies here. I take death threats seriously, and so should everyone here. Just "letting them do their thing" is a completely immoral stance in my view, and I won't stand for it. I'm going to be just as "fundamentalist" about science and rational thought as they are about mythological bullshit. And when you get right down to it...I prefer to win.

Nobody ever wins a fight by sitting out of it. I learned that on the street. =)

74. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #62645 by Summer Seale on August 10, 2007 at 2:38 pm

Veronique,

"I read the Mansfield article and understand thoroughly, why you were pissed off. That paper is so obviously Republican and no, I have never seen it before. But then I am in Oz."

It is not "obviously Republican" because I happen to be a Republican on some issues as well. I'm a supporter of the "War on Terrorism" (though I hate that term...stupid isn't it?). I'm also for gay marriage, pro-choice, and many other liberal issues. I'm still a Republican right now because I'm of the Chris Hitchens camp (though he doesn't subscribe to any party - I do because I like to be polemic to the point where I'll do something to spite the other side...sorry...and they say that Chris is bad. heh) who believes that fighting against Islamism is a good idea, even if it pisses off more Muslims who will want to fight us.

Then again, I never heard that this argument was used when we were bombing the shit out of Germany to try to stop the spread of fascism, though the evidence clearly shows that the Germans did sign up a hell of a lot more troops and became far more dedicated to their cause due to our bombs raining down on them day and night.

And as for that paper, yes it pisses me off. As I said, I happen to be part of the Republican party, but that doesn't mean I like the fundamentalists. I'm an Atheist and I clearly disagree with it in every way. I think that the latest "Atheist craze" is a damned good thing. We need it very much, as does the rest of the world. Only the rest of the world isn't going to take that without a gun to their heads. Sorry to disappoint you there, but that's just the way the world works. It's ugly and brutish, but that's life and death for you.

Oh and I'm not just an ignorant American who has never travelled outside of this country either. I've lived in the UK, France, Belgium, and other places, and I have travelled to the Middle East. I also speak French fluently. And why am I telling you all this? Because I find that so many assumptions are made about Republicans, even when they clearly are extremely liberal on some issues. I simply want to clarify my position on why I think this paper is stupid, why I am a Republican, and what it has to do with Atheism in my view. =)

75. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #62612 by Summer Seale on August 10, 2007 at 10:53 am

Off Topic:

I didn't check the board here yet, and maybe I should have, but here's yet another "attack" on us Atheists:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/954gkvmp.asp

I'm posting the link because for some reason, I highly doubt that most people here read The Weekly Standard. =) I do, and sometimes I agree with their articles, but I couldn't be more pissed off at this one. =)

76. Come Out!

Comment #59560 by Summer Seale on July 29, 2007 at 3:57 pm

Rieux, thank you for the links. BTW, I love the Free Inquiry Podcast. I listen to it all the time. =)

And I totally believe you and the stories, I just have never, ever, experienced it myself. Maybe I'm lucky, or they rather get my phone number than my church address, or maybe I don't meet too many dorks who happen to be religious. I dunno. =)

Seriously, if people are being discriminated against, harassed, abused, hurt...simply because they don't believe in "god", then ya let's fight back. Hell I fight back all the time anyway when I argue with people. =)

But I'm just saying that I personally have never had a problem. I've had *curious* people, but never who did me or wanted me any harm. And I've talked to lots of evangelicals too.

I do believe people tho, I'm just wondering if there isn't just a bit of persecution mentality behind some perceptions is all. But I would never say that people are making this up. And like Hitchens says, I also don't believe a lot of the polls about how many Americans are in church every sunday or believe in creationism etc....I believe a good chunk *do*, but not as many as others make it out to be.

Then again, maybe it is a case of 1980 when Carter lost the election and somebody who was perplexed said "How could Reagan have won? I don't know *anyone* who voted for Reagan!" (keep in mind, I have some conservative views too =) )

But like I said, I like the shirt idea and I think it's fab and people should wear it if they want, or like it, or feel the need...whatever. It's a T-Shirt people! It's not like you're joining the Krishnas by wearing it!!! Sheesh people gotta stop arguing about this.

77. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59559 by Summer Seale on July 29, 2007 at 3:47 pm

Wow so many comments for a simple T-Shirt...! =)

You guys gotta get out more.

Seriously tho...I think it's a good idea, and I think the font and color looks fab, but if you're really coming "out", then why not just put "ATHEIST" in big red letters? =)

I love the design tho, it's really nice. It's a good style choice. So hats off to the guy who did it. =)

Again: I've never, ever, ever felt like I should hide my atheism, everyone I know...knows I'm an atheist, knows my views...and I've lived in Virginia and AZ and lots of other "Red States" and just...nobody has ever bothered me about it. Maybe it's me. =)

But for those who feel the need, I say go for it! =) I don' t see what the huge fight is all about. People who don't like it or don't see the need, okies...fine....why ruin everyone else's fun? It's not like they're *converting* you guys to wear it. Duh. =)

How about somebody sets up a contest for further versions of designs? Might be cool ya?

78. Come Out!

Comment #59397 by Summer Seale on July 28, 2007 at 11:35 pm

I do all the time...nobody has threatened me ever - in the south, the midwest, and the southwest. It's just...never happened. Maybe they just don't wanna hit a woman? =)

Really tho I've never, ever, had a problem. I do believe the people who say they have but I've never seen it and I'm *really* outspoken about my ideas. I'm a loudmouth who won't shut up on any topic I like to discuss. =)

79. Come Out!

Comment #59385 by Summer Seale on July 28, 2007 at 10:45 pm

I just posted in the previous discussion, but I'll post here again: I'm not against the campaign. I just never have felt unwelcome because I am an atheist.

Seriously has like...anyone else?

Everyone, even evangelicals, know my views and talk to me often about it, but they never, ever, have been angry with me at all, or called me names or threatened me in any way, or even mentioned "hellfire" and all that crap. None of them. And I go to a lot of "Red States". So is it just me...? I've never been religious, and even religious people seem to just respect my views - debate me sure but never in a bad way.

All these stories about atheists feeling unsafe...maybe part of that is in your minds? I don't know. Maybe it's just as bad as that but it doesn't sound like any part of America that I know of or have ever experienced...

80. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59381 by Summer Seale on July 28, 2007 at 10:23 pm

I actually really like the idea, and I would love to see somebody copy it and distribute them in SL... Perhaps I can help with that? I know a lot of fashion designers in SL and I know they would do really well.

I have to say tho....I'm a little perplexed about this whole "atheist in the closet" thing. I go to a lot of "red states", and am very open about my anti-theism, even with evangelicals I know, and I have never, ever, been made to feel ostracized by it. Perhaps because I also have some conservative views etc...but nobody has ever hated me for it at all. On the contrary, I am often engaged in talking about it in a friendly way. Even Evangelicals treat me nicely and want to hear more about my views.

Do people really feel "unsafe" and "ostracized" by being atheists in America? Because I really don't see that at all.

I'm still for the campaign tho...but I don't really feel the need to be even more blatant than I am about it. Everyone totally knows what I think and I'm simply not afraid to say it.

81. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #58585 by Summer Seale on July 25, 2007 at 9:10 am

BicycleRepairMan,

I know that story! When I was really young, I was all into the stories of Hans Christian Anderson, and my parents showed me the movie with Danny Kaye. Anyway, they also played me a recording of Danny Kaye doing a whole lot of folk tales and stories from around the world. The name he used was "Nail Broth" instead of "Nail Soup" but it's the same thing. He did the voices of both the wanderer and the old stingy lady, and it's one of my favorites *ever*! =) What a wonderful story!

82. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #58477 by Summer Seale on July 25, 2007 at 2:14 am

This appears to be the tactic of every single debater that Hitchens has encountered so far: nobody goes and actually defends the religions he is talking about, or religion in general. They all seem to want to redefine his attack on some sort of nebulous "spirituality".

Nobody is actually out there defending what he is attacking, which makes me wonder why they even disagree with him and want to debate him at all.

83. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #56866 by Summer Seale on July 17, 2007 at 3:11 pm

I love Ayaan <3

And I agree: Some people here are missing the point.

Atheists who don't like what she just said, by and large I believe, are having a visceral leftist reaction which kicks back at anything that says "Islam is bad". They *have* to point and say "but...but...we're so much worse".

Try saying it: Islam is bad. Try saying it with *no* "buts", or explanations, or revelations of context or culture or the size of a person's nose in relation to their eyes. Just for once, say it and stop there, think about it, and then figure out what you would do to change it.

Or is that too "simplistic" for some people here?

I find some of these convoluted excuses to be dogmatic to the core.

BTW, I know I flame leftism a lot on these boards but I seriously have a problem with it right now. I'll be up front about it. However, like any good Atheist, if somebody can show me the movement is coming to its senses and rejects any support of Islamicists in any way whatsoever, then I will reconsider my position. =P

84. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56455 by Summer Seale on July 15, 2007 at 9:09 pm

I don't know what everyone is going on about....

I don't find Hitchens too flowery, nor do I find Dawkins too dry....

I really don't see how people can think that they are....

I actually really enjoy "convoluted" statements. No book is ever too long for me, nor ever too complex. Maybe I am unique...? =)

85. Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World

Comment #56309 by Summer Seale on July 14, 2007 at 9:58 pm

Before anyone thinks I'm chickening out of replying to any replies, I'm gonna make some dinner and get off of here. =) Sorry I have to flame and run but.... =)

86. Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World

Comment #56308 by Summer Seale on July 14, 2007 at 9:51 pm

Rtambree,

Good points, but I disagree. =)

First of all, bodycounts don't mean a damned thing in war about who is right or wrong. Again, that is leftist dogmatic thinking. The Allies killed far more Germans than the Germans killed Allies in WWII. I hope you don't think that simply because of this "argument" that the Allies were wrong in fighting off the fascists? Does that invalidate their victory? No. Argue the firebombing of Dresden all you like, but it is arguable *because* there *is* a moral argument to be made in its favor.

Second of all, more Palestinians kill Palestinians by far than Israelis kill Palestinians. The same goes for Iraqi on Iraqi violence. So if you go purely on numbers, then you have a bigger moral mess to sort out than if you go by rational and logical reasoning about what the cause is that you are fighting for.

I am not excusing Israeli settlers, by the way. Many of them *are* nuts. And many of them are violent. But they are a degree less violent than their counterparts on the other side, for the most part. Still, I don't like it either, and I vehemently don't agree with any of it. Except, I do agree with one aspect: the principle.

Why is it that every place that Arabs claim in Palestine has to be, literaelly, Judenrein? Why is that? Is that okay anywhere else? You think it would be okay if Native Americans legislated the death penalty for any "White American" who lives in a reservation with them? What about it? Is that alright? Lest anyone forget, Jews had lived in the "West Bank" before all this mess. They were brutally murdered and kicked out in the 1920's by Islamic mobs demanding Jewish blood - before there ever was an Israeli state. Brutally murdered and thrown out, raped, savaged, and abused.

So why is it alright for the descendants of Palestinians to try to reclaim "their" land and not for the descendants of those Jews? If you're going to justify Palestinian terrorism to reclaim land "stolen" by Jews, then why not allow Jews the same right to violence? And I should also mention the 600,000 or 700,000 Jews kicked out of Arab lands in 1948? How about them? Should they be "understood" if they decide suddenly to blow people up in cafes? Are you going to attribute that to religion or politics?

Point taken on the election in Germany. But...you think that political opponents in Palestine are not abused as well? Try being a human secularist in Palestine and making that your election platform. Let's see how long you last alive. On that note, did you not hear about the crowds of Palestinians who fled to Israel, of all places, the day after Hamas took over? It's a brutal, savage, society and it has everything to do with religion. Why? Because they are a Taliban-Jr. Organization and it's time people just face up to the fact: they are evil. Their religion makes them so.

As to negotiation: not everything can be negotiated. Chamberlain tried that as well, remember? And how well did negotiation work in Rwanda? Sometimes, justice has to come out of the barrel of a gun. That's just life. It's time that rational human secularists and atheists, as a whole, face up to that fact. It is unpleasant and it is cold, but that's just life. You won't get anywhere in this fight against religion if you just try to simply reason your way through it. That is my biggest disagreement with much of the movement today. I wish it were otherwise, but I'm smart enough to know that it isn't this way at all.

87. Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World

Comment #56292 by Summer Seale on July 14, 2007 at 7:30 pm

ungodlystheist,

You do indeed appear to be an apologist somewhat of the Muslim world. =)

I'm sorry, but I am not. I don't like any religion, but I can safely say that I hate Islam. And I hate it for many reasons. One reason that Harris gives is one which I will cite here: it is the most violent of the "big three". Bin Laden is not quoting the Koran out of context at all. He is absolutely correct when he justifies his attacks by quoting verses in the Koran. I agree with him: Islam is a violent religion. I don't agree, however, that this is a good thing, or that it is "divinely inspired".

The difference between the Abu Ghraib scenes and the scene in Gaza was that the Hamas supporters, as they were recording this, were chanting "Allahu Akbar". The soldiers at Abu Ghraib, as far as I know, were not. They also did not do to the prisoners anything near what the Hamas did to their prisoners. Not that I mind, however - any Fatah terrorist being mutilated will get scant sympathy from me. I simply don't care. Dead is dead, and be it from an Israeli missile attack or a Hamas mob, I couldn't care less.

But there are differences between the West and the Muslim world today, and people on the left don't appear to notice them. Strange, I think, from a group of people who pride themselves on noticing the nuances in things. I chalk it up to self-hatred and apathy about our own society and history. That's fine, but it's a good way of going about losing a war which the other side knows it is fighting.

As to Baruch Golstein's grave: do you know how few people show up to it each year? About 50 or 100 idiots. That's a miniscule sum of people. Apologists like yourself go on about it as if it's an entirely huge movement in Israel, but it isn't. Their numbers are so few that cameras don't even bother showing up anymore because it is a farce. Compare that to the millions of people in Palestine who revere suicide bombers, post their pictures up as heroes in the streets, and even trade baseball cards with their friends glorifying each one. Can you find that in Israeli society? Even Israeli religious society which is much smaller than the secular society at large?

You can't. So you go on about military strikes as if it is mob rule. Naturally, it isn't and there is a difference. That you can't see it is telling. A mob dragging up a prisoner without a trial to the 9th story of a building a throwing him off simply because he is Abu Mazen's cook is mob rule. An Israeli air strike trying to target a single individual in a car to prevent more suicide bombings is not mob rule. It's a version of justice and pinpoint strikes. It's not perfect, but it is calculated, reasoned, and planned. You may not like the method, but it is a far cry different from what goes on under Palestinian "justice".

As to Hamas being democratically elected, I couldn't care less. Hitler was as well. Hamas publicly states that their aim is to kill all the Jews and subjugate those they can't. This is the exact same aim that Nazis had. You can look it up. They don't hide that fact. For you to defend it as some sort of legitimate democratic entity is disgusting to me. Why don't you defend Nazis then? Why not? After all, they were democratically elected, their party platform was to kill all the Jews and subjugate a few others as slave labor, for the goal of national aspirations.

What's the difference? I don't see it. It's the same goal.

Can you say the goal of Israel is to kill all the Arabs and subjugate the others? Where would you come off realistically claiming this? This is ridiculous.

I am no apologist for the religious movement in Israel, but they are nowhere near steeped in society there as the Islamists are in Palestine, or in Iraq or anywhere else in the Arab world. Israel outlawed the Kahane movement because it had the same kind of goals as Hamas did - only limiting itself to Israel, not the whole world. If the Kahane group was outlawed in Israel, I don't see any reason why Hamas should be considered a "talking partner" either.

As to your reasons for the 1983 bombing in Lebanon, that wasn't 20 years after the occupation of Lebanon at all. It was 2 years into the war, and it was against peacekeepers. The Marines were not there to fight anyone. They were there to keep a peace accord and try to get the fighting cooled down. There is zero excuse for it. The Marines weren't even allowed to load bullets into their guns while they were there. The command "lock and load" was disallowed at that time in that theater of operations. You seem to want to justify any act of suicide bombing against the West or, at the very least, equate it with our own actions. There is no equivalence here. None. You're justifying cold blooded murder of people who have absolutely nothing to do with the fighting, all under the guise of your dogmatic leftist line of thinking.

I'll cite one last point about the difference about the West and the Muslim world today. Look at Hirsi Ayaan Ali, or Salman Rushdie. Both under guard, both at risk for their lives, for the rest of their lives. Why? Because they criticized Islam and are apostates.

And for criticizing Christianity so openly and prominently, how many bodyguards does Richard Dawkins have? Chris Hitchens? Sam Harris?

There's your answer right there. So don't justify it. Fight it. You're not really interested in taking down the worst of religion, you're just interested in showing how bad we are. Nobody ever said we're perfect, but I'd rather live in this society than that one. That's a good start. How about you get off of your high horse and start looking at where the real religious hatred is coming from - with guns and bullets, and knives for your neck, while they chant "Allahu Akbar" like they did with Daniel Pearl - simply because he was a Jew.

Show me the Israelis who did that.

It's about the religion.

88. Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World

Comment #56281 by Summer Seale on July 14, 2007 at 6:10 pm

Ace Rimmer,

I think Hitchen's point about (paraphrasing here) "not until gentle Jesus, meek and mild, do we get the concept of a Hell" makes that point very well. =)

89. Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World

Comment #56269 by Summer Seale on July 14, 2007 at 5:06 pm

ungodlystheist,

I'm sorry, but you seem to be of the Western school of thought which also appears to think that Islam had an amazing golden age in which everyone was treated as equals, birds lived in bejeweled trees, and people walked around in Cordoba as they rubbed their own personal Djinni lamps.

Just because Muslim suicide bombers didn't become "popular" until 1993, does not mean it was not a very useful tactic rooted in the Middle East previous to that time.

Do you remember 1983 in Lebanon? The Marine barracks were bombed with a suicide bomber truck. That was not the first time either.

Go look up the Hashashin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashashin and you might be a little more informed about the uses of suicide missions in the Muslim World pre-1993, thank you.

Also, I will defend Harris on this point: It is about technology. Previous to globalization reaching into the Muslim/Arab World (yes, yes, I know there are Christian Arabs and most Muslims are not Arab, and Iranians aren't Arab etc..etc..etc...please spare me the lectures on distinctions), the Arab world in particular was extremely isolated within its own culture. Because of technology, this has changed. Look at the effect of Al Jazeera and Satellite TV within the Arab world.

But let's not stop there. You remember a month ago? Hamas took over the Gaza Strip. Something that almost nobody saw in the west, except for a few bloggers, however, was a scene which best described everything which Harris is talking about - and I have seen nobody yet refer to this moment in history. And before I tell you about it, spare me the platitudes about an oppressed people throwing off the yoke of the oppressor...couldn't care less.

There was a Fatah higher up who was caught by a mob and smashed to pieces well past his expiration. It isn't what they did to him which amazed me, however, but the footage and pictures of the event. Because, during this footage of insane brutality - and I understand this was still a really bad guy who deserved it anyway - there was a mob around him. Young, wearing Western style jeans and T-Shirts, with rage and glee in their eyes. And those who were not smashing in that guy's face with their heels were grinning and laughing as they pointed their cell phone cameras into that bloody mess, taking pictures with 21st century technology (invented in Israel, no less), while acting out the gesticulations of a 7th century Arabian mob.

And if that didn't take your breath away about the contamination of religion upon an entire society, I don't know what ever will.

90. Look Forward to Anger

Comment #52564 by Summer Seale on June 27, 2007 at 9:40 am

Okies,

Read the long post but I'm still waking up and having my coffee. I just woke up and wow somebody replied to my post in a big way! For that, I <3 you. =)

I'll try to get to it today but, if not, I'll have to reply to it tonight or something cuz today is filling up fast with stuffs i have to do offline. =)

Summys <3

P.S. w00t

91. Look Forward to Anger

Comment #52371 by Summer Seale on June 26, 2007 at 10:06 pm

Oh and one more thing: if you think you are ever safe in the world, you are sadly mistaken. You know it and I know it. You're never "safe". I'm not only an Atheist and a pro-war person, I also happen to think that firearms in my hands are a good idea. I accept the reality of the world, and I am (again) not tied to any utopian dogmatic leftist theory about what the world should ideally be like. =)

92. Look Forward to Anger

Comment #52370 by Summer Seale on June 26, 2007 at 10:04 pm

BT Murtagh,

I'd reply to your post, but I actually wrote a huge post just above yours which I would kindly like somebody to comment on point by point. My point stands because my entire constructed argument stands on many points - not just on one which you think you have logically refuted. And anytime I bring up this set of arguments, nobody on the left has the guts to reply in full. =)

Either you agree we're at war, and wish to act, or you don't. Is there anyone you would currently go to war with to fight jihadis? Or...should we just unleash the terrible powers of the police force upon them and arrest them all with plastic ties? =)

Summys <3

93. Look Forward to Anger

Comment #52363 by Summer Seale on June 26, 2007 at 9:09 pm

Ranjani,

I don't actually propose bombing everyone...no. =)

But, you see, coming from the left *and* the right....and being an Atheist, I do see the serious flaws in both sides. First of all, the enemy knows we won't go bombing everyone. They will, and they're counting on our moral superiority *not* to do it. And because they know it, they're going to win. You're not talking about a moral debate here, you're talking about a *war*. That's where the left fails, and it fails *badly*. They don't recognize that it is a *war*. And if they do, they do not recognize what *war* means. They discount everything we do in self-defense, or hell I'll admit it, an offensive strike, as a blow against human rights.

Well, I'm sorry, war is the ultimate blow against human rights. Face it, there *is* no "humane war". That's a load of crap. Admit it, and move on. War is the ugliest of things, but it is sometimes a necessary thing. If you can't accept that, then you can't accept the way the world is - logical conclusions about religion notwithstanding. If you can't accept that, you're being dogmatic to a utopian viewpoint. That's my real prob with the left today.

Imagine Saddam had been a dictator, the way he was, in "The Christian World" - see how offensive that term is? It used to be the term we used for the West, but we fixed that little problem with a *lot* of bloodshed because, quite frankly, we thought it was worth it. But just imagine it. You think, for one minute, that any of you, seeing a dictator claiming to be the *direct* descendant of Jesus, claiming the annihilation of an entire people to "liberate" a city for a holy book, claiming the right to fund suicide bombers of abortion clinics, and claiming the right to sew "God Is Great" on our flag....do you *think* for one minute that people here would not want to see him removed post-haste?

Be real. Be *honest* with your viewpoints. You know, and I know, that almost *everyone* here sees Christianity differently than they see the "Muslim World". It's racist. It's sad because it is so obvious. I know, as we all know, that if you had seated Saddam in the West, everyone here would be enraged to the point of calling directly for his ouster. Period. End of discussion.

And then look at the reaction of the left to the war in general. I don't mean just in Iraq but to the entire situation. It is disingenuous to the core. There is a reason why the armed forces don't *trust* the left. Let's take a look, shall we?

Iraq: Oh, "secular" dictator! We shouldn't have attacked. He wasn't the enemy.

Afghanistan: Oh, we're screwing up so badly. Let's just pull out and stop supporting a "puppet" democracy which can't actually control anything out of Kabul.

Iran: Well, yes, they're religious fanatics at the top but we believe in the people. They'll slowly change the regime (how long do you want us to wait?) and we should stay out of it and talk to the bad guys in power.

Syria: Well, we should just butt out of their business and get to the negotiating table. Then they'll just listen to us as equals. Let's not attack them for supporting terrorism.

Saudi Arabia: Oh well, they're extremists and most of their countrymen hate our guts, and they incite violence all over the world, but can you *imagine* the effect of attacking Saudi Arabia? How that would *inflame* the Muslim World? (Again with that term and "respect"....when did Atheists suddenly care about inflaming the "Christian World"? Or does the "Muslim World" get a free pass? Is that how it works?)

Pakistan: Well, he's a dictator, we shouldn't be doing business with him (but it's okay to talk to Syria, Iran, etc..). We don't know what to do about Pakistan, but we wish we could do something. What can we do? No idea. Leftists haven't given us any practical solutions on the matter yet.

So...exactly *when* is it okay to fight back, and against whom? Is there *anyone* out there that people on this board think we should be at war with? We have Jihadis blowing themselves up all over the world in the name of their pathetic god, and everyone here, who *should* be outraged to frigging hell...is excusing it as some sort of cultural quirk.

So, aside from attacking the bad guys, then what *is* your solution? I haven't heard a *single* practical one from the left yet. All I hear is what we shouldn't do, and whom we *shouldn't* fight. That's not a solution. It's a war. Bombs killing people means *war*. WHAT is your solution for victory, please?

Hurry, lots of people are dying and the clock is ticking, thank you. =)

Summys <3

94. Look Forward to Anger

Comment #52356 by Summer Seale on June 26, 2007 at 8:48 pm

Again,

Everyone knows we supported Saddam. This is news? Ok, let me pretend I'm simply *amazed* at this revelation and go:

OMGAWD No WAY!!! We DID??? OMG!!!

Okay, now that's out of the way. So...the fact that we supported Saddam in the past means...we had absolutely zero duty to "rectify" our earlier misdeeds and remove him? Is that your logical response to a serious screwup?

Pardon me, it isn't mine. I was taught, when I was very young, to fix my very bad mistakes. Supporting Saddam was a very bad mistake. Even the left agrees that it was a bad mistake. But what doesn't follow in that argument is the conclusion that, since we supported Saddam in the past, we should do nothing about it in the present.

I thought us Atheists based our thoughts on logical reasoning? Yes? =)

Summys <3

95. Look Forward to Anger

Comment #52337 by Summer Seale on June 26, 2007 at 7:19 pm

Again,

I just want to come out and join in the atheists for all out war - even in Iraq - corner. =)

Sorry, I really think you anti-war atheists have it all wrong. Atheists should be the first ones to support not only the current war in Iraq, but potential war in other parts of the "Muslim World" as well.

Please, be honest: if the "Muslim World" was the "Christian World", we'd be all over for breaking it apart with military force to defend ourselves against fundamentalist whackjobs. I really think part of the problem of Atheism is that it stems from a very, very, leftist culture which by and large I agree with, but also has terrible faults as well. And people like Chris Hitchens have pointed it out, and so few on this side are willing to accept the truth of the way the world happens to be.

Atheism is not dogmatic. Leftism is dogmatic - as is any "party" or "philosophy" which one can adhere to. Saddam Hussein was not "secular" in terms of Western standards. He was "secular" in terms of his neighborhood's standards. But you know, and I know, that his was a religiously inspired nutjob dictatorship - claiming the direct inheritance of Mohammed, claiming the messianic vision of "liberating" Jerusalem for Islam, claiming the right to fund suicide bombers of a disgusting religious ilk, and putting "Allahu Ackbar" on the flag of the country.

How many here think that putting "In God We Trust" on the flag of the United States is a "secular" move? Even when done for political purposes? Are you going to tell me that this is a "secular" thing to do?

Then stop using different standards for the "Muslim World". There should be no "Muslim World". The world is a dirty and brutal place, wishing well gets you nowhere, and you have to fight to change it.

Sorreee...this Atheist isn't buying the "all for peaceful marches" line at all. =)

96. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #51584 by Summer Seale on June 23, 2007 at 2:13 pm

Sorry, I didn't see you actually refute anything I said, point by point. =)

I know only 20% of the Muslim world is Arab, but that doesn't change the fact that Islam is the very definition of the Arab culture. Do you *really* think that people in Indonesia dressed the way they do now *before* Islam took over? Islam is the definition of Arab culture. Even Christian Arabs say "In'shallah" - a *Muslim* saying, mind you. Think they were saying that before Islam took over? Even Yemenite, Egyptian, and Moroccan Jews say it. Think *they* were saying it before Islam took over? Islam is the Arab way of life, even if you're a Christian. The entire culture is steeped in religion.

And you're perfectly willing and content to let it keep being steeped in it, even though you say that the same thing is terrible in our Western world. Why is it terrible for us and not for them? Are you willing to fight and die to spread secular humanism around the globe? That's what it'll take. You're living in a fantasy world if you don't think that it will take years of warfare to reform other parts of the globe, *just* as it took years of warfare to reform the West. But you don't see that, because you are a cultural racist - perfectly willing to accept that other people can be as stupid as they like simply because "we know better than they do". I don't accept that. It's a disgusting line of thought. It's a way of thinking that I am perfectly comfortable fighting against.

In short, it appears to me that you think there is *nothing* worth fighting for. Even to try to secularize an entire part of the world out of the dark ages. So what would you have us do? Leave Iraq and let the parties of God fight it out? Is that what your moral compass says? I'm a Moral Atheist. I don't believe in letting insane theocatic muderers kill other people for their god. I take it, however, that you have absolutely no problems with letting that happen, as long as you are left undisturbed. How selfish of you. Are you going to abandon all the secularists who risk life and limb in Iraq because you don't actually believe that their fight is your fight? What *do* you believe in, then? Should we leave? Tens of thousands of people will die, and the secularists *will* lose. You think secularism is this cheap that we should just walk away from it?

Sorry, again I'm not buying it. Try putting some flowers in the gun barrels of the parties of God in Iraq and see where that gets you. I dare you to try. =)

97. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #51542 by Summer Seale on June 23, 2007 at 10:41 am

"...Secular Saddam fought a war with religious extremists in Iran for 8 years with the help of the US. (I love that picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with him on a funding trip to Iraq.)"

I love the dogmatic nature of the left. =) If you believe that Saddam was "secular", then you have a lot to learn about the Middle East. Islam is Arabism, pure and simple. Hence, this "secular" dictator had no qualms about funding the religious death machine of suicide bombers in Israel. This "secular" dictator had no qualms about adding "Allahu Akbar" to the Iraqi flag (when it wasn't there before). This "secular" dictator had no problems calling himself the new Saladin who would "liberate" Jerusalem for Islam. This "secular" dictator also had absolutely no reservations about claiming to be the direct descendant of Mohammed, and underwent an insane religious ceremony to cement this new title to himself.

I'm willing to bet that you also are one of these people who refer to Fatah as a "secular" organization. An organization with, may I remind you, a squad of suicide bombers claiming religious paradise every time they self-detonate. An organization whose very *name* comes from a heading in the Koran. To call any of these organizations "secular" flies in the face of reality. They are not secular. Some are less "religious" than others, but they all live in a deeply ignorant and religious culture which has no place in the modern and scientific world.

Likely you'll come up with the argument that he did all of this for political gain. So what? Most religious leaders do things for political gain. Or does your dogmatic theory about "secular" dictators differentiate those who use religious idiocy for political gain and those who actually believe in it? It's all the same to me: Evil is evil; bad people are bad people.

As to the argument about Rumsfeld - I agree. We helped Saddam. Does that not, then, make it incumbent upon us to rectify that situation and take him out? That to me is an argument to fix the messes we make, and not to shirk our responsibility at large.

And again, I think the left is living in the past. The question *now* whether or not it was wrong to go into Iraq in the first place, but what are you going to do about the religious insanity *now*? Walk away? This should be our greatest fight, as atheists. But all I find are platitudes about how there are "shades of grey" all around us, and how we have to be "sensitive" and accept the differences of other "cultures". That doesn't wash with me. That is excusing murder and theocratic terrorism. It only proves to non-atheists that atheists have no guts to do the right thing. It makes us weak and "proves" to others that we have no convictions and no moral compass. It is sheer nonsense and it makes me very upset to have to explain this to another atheist over and over again.

"Bush admits to getting his Iraq marching orders from his "higher father".(And he didn't mean Bush I on MaryJane.) He has also funded faith based schools and vetoed 2 stemcell bills because he IS a religious extremist."

I know Bush is a religious fanatic. In this respect, he's wrong. But then, you would also have to discount Churchill's war against Nazi Germany because he was doing it to defend St. George and a whole lot of other religious nonsense which he clearly believed or, at the very least, found inspiration in to continue the fight against the enemy.

Did that make him wrong? Does it make it wrong for a person to do the right thing for religious reasons? As Hitchens points out quite clearly, the Marines could all be certified snake handlers and, yet, they are fighting a war for secular democracy. Do I like that George Bush is a religious fundamentalist? No. But is he an ally in this current war? Absolutely.

"When is Bush going to catch Bin Laden? Or does he "think fighting religious extremists is a bad idea?""

You know full well that Bin Laden is extremely difficult to catch - on the border with Pakistan. We currently have to rely on the Pakistani government to do this and, it is quite clear, that the tribes in Waziristan won't have any of it. But then are you saying that we should bomb Pakistan to get Bin Laden? I agree. Let's do it. That's where he is, so let's go for it. Or does that somehow fly in the face of your leftist dogma as well? =)

Sorry, not buying any of it. Try again. =)

98. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #51426 by Summer Seale on June 22, 2007 at 10:45 pm

Sorry, I disagree. =)

So you think that fighting religious extremists is a bad idea?

And you're an atheist, right?

And you're perfectly content to spread the enlightened view of atheism in the Middle East...how? By giving them books which most of them cannot read, and will burn just because they think you're a godless infidel? =)

That's the problem I have with leftist atheists: too multicultural. Too bent on attacking Christianity (which is fine with me), but excusing such things as "The Muslim World" (isn't that a bogus term for an atheist to use?).

If these were Christian terrorists blowing up people, I have no doubt that many of you would be taking an entirely different approach to the problem. And, I might add, I would be taking the same one that I am taking now.

99. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #51417 by Summer Seale on June 22, 2007 at 6:16 pm

I've only posted so far on the Second Life threads because I play there (as Summer Seale - come say hi if you want =) I've met a few of you already).

But I have to come out in support of Hitchens.

I was thinking of writing a long opinion on the matter, because I do support the war in Iraq. I'm a complete atheist and, as CH likes to term himself, I'm an anti-theist.

I also happen to be one of the leaders of the Republican Party in SL which may be a game to a lot of you, but it is fast becoming a very big cultural environment online. I'm extremely liberal in some of my views, and I'm probably the worst nightmare for an Atheist to have on their side because of it.

I'll make it clear: Atheism is identified solely as a leftist "ideology" (I know it isn't really an ideology, merely the rejection of stupid ones), but I think that is incredibly stupid and boorish. And I also think that some Atheists who perpetrate this sort of thinking really do our side no favors indeed.

CH thinks that the war in Iraq is simply an extension against the general war on religion, and I agree. And I think that he makes enemies on both sides of the aisle (liberal and conservative) because he opposes the stupidities in both camps and ideologies. And part of the reason that he is so loathed by so many on the left is because he is, as such, an apostate on their way of thinking about conflict resolution. What he did, by supporting the war and still supporting it today, flew in the face of such a dogmatic tenet of the left that many of you probably feel incredibly betrayed. Part of the reason why the right doesn't go around castigating him in the same way is that he never claimed to be part of them. But believe me, on his views about religion, they don't find that he is a friend either.

Perhaps you should all think about that for a moment. Here is a guy who, unlike Dawkins and Harris (and others - and btw, I do still love Dawkins and Harris and would love to meet them), is an actual soldier for the cause. He proves the point that there are atheists in foxholes. He's willing to fight, grapple, and die to take the human species out of the dark ages. And with many of the atheist comments I see about what to actually *do* about religious extremism in the world prove to me (and *many* others) that few other atheists think that way.

I think that leftist thinking about how everything can be negotiated and debated flies in the face of reality, and is just as dogmatic a belief against this reality of human nature as religious people are dogmatic about their own principles as to what constitutes "the right book" and "the wrong one".

And Hitchens came right out and said it, poking many of you in the eye with it.

It's time some of you came out and started thinking about that and examine your own non-religious ideologies in the same way that you examine the religious ideologies of others.

I still won't post here as much, but I just had to jump in and defend Chris Hitchens because his position on Iraq, as well as many of his other positions, are entirely defendable.

100. Richard Dawkins on his online alterego

Comment #50713 by Summer Seale on June 19, 2007 at 3:10 pm

hihi =)

i play SL all the time. my name there is Summer Seale (same on this forum) and i would *love* to meet Dr. Dawkins! =) i'm a big fan and i've helped a lot of newbies at the movie to show them how to see his movie. =) please Dr. Dawkins, IM me in SL? i would love to hear from you and talk. =)

Summer