Comments by Don_Quix

Comment #229585 by Don_Quix on August 13, 2008 at 7:55 pm

I agree with 99% of this article, but it really annoys me that "climate change" seems almost always (or at least very frequently) to be tangentially or casually thrown into every single science-related article in the mainstream english-speaking press, regardless of the subject of the article. It's almost like it's a dogmatic buzzword requirement (especially in the mainstream American press).

I'm not trying to state an opinion here one way or the other in regards to climate change, but it just seems to come up at least a couple of times almost every day in the normal daily news I read, even when it has no business being there...and I find it irritating.

I think the casual overuse of the word "climate change", as if were a 100% empirically-proven and undebatable common fact, like the fact that the world is round or the air contains oxygen, in many ways takes away from the issue itself. In many cases it reinforces the stereotypical gut responses that otherwise rational people would have to it, and thus (perhaps unintentionally, but I doubt it) restricts rational debate and discussion in regard to it.

52. The Afterlife for Scientologists

Comment #229582 by Don_Quix on August 13, 2008 at 7:31 pm

Let's see:

Christianity: We believe a man was born to a virgin, and after doing a lot of amazing things (including telling others they could do anything if they just do what he tells them), was crucified and brought back physically from the dead and rose to heaven in order to forgive all humans of their original sin. We have the way to remove your original sin. The way to eternal life is to believe this bullshit, oh, and by the way, GIVE US MONEY.

Scientology: We believe all humans are inhabited by many other human ghosts known as "Thetans", and that most of the pain and frustration in human life is caused by the trauma inflicted on these ghosts by an evil alien overlord named Xenu. We have the way to remove your trauma. The way to eternal life is to believe this bullshit, oh, and by the way, GIVE US MONEY.

Seems like a legitimate religion to me.

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

Comment #228653 by Don_Quix on August 12, 2008 at 10:42 am

Nightwatchman's post reads a lot like http://timecube.com

54. Bill Maher hates your (fill in the blank) religion

Comment #226922 by Don_Quix on August 8, 2008 at 10:57 pm

Mainly, the subjects of the Borat interviews were upset because (some of them claim) they didn't initially realize they were part of a satirical comedy film, and they were upset/offended because they were being made fun of (after the fact). Some of them also claim they wouldn't have participated if they had known otherwise. Coincidentally all this only started happening after Borat made a huge amount of money at the box office. :o Go figure.

But, the movie wouldn't have been as funny (or even possible) if they had known what was happening. All of them signed legitimate release forms. Therefore if they had a legitimate claim then they could have legitimately sued and won...and they didn't (have a claim or win). So fuck them.

See the link for details (scroll down to the "Controversies" part - I can never get links to work right here):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borat:_Cultural_Learnings_of_America_for_Make_Benefit_Glorious_Nation_of_Kazakhstan#Controversies

55. Bill Maher hates your (fill in the blank) religion

Comment #226910 by Don_Quix on August 8, 2008 at 9:53 pm

I've never seen Borat... Sometimes I feel like I live in a cave. I've heard if him (that is the guys name isn't it, or is it the name of the film?)

Actually you are right on both counts. Borat is the name of the character, and Borat is the name of the movie. Although the full name of the movie is Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.

The character of Borat was created and is portrayed by a pretty well-known English comedian/actor named Sacha Baron Cohen.

Religulous is being made by the director of Borat (Larry Charles).

I suspect that the same (or similar) methods were used in Religulous that were used in Borat in order to obtain interviews and to enhance the comedic value of the movie. This is because they are trying to make an entertaining and successful SATIRICAL COMEDY film (with perhaps some social value...as most good satires have), and not a factual documentary.

I believe Borat did very well critically and at the box office. I suggest you rent it :)

56. Bill Maher hates your (fill in the blank) religion

Comment #226900 by Don_Quix on August 8, 2008 at 9:29 pm

Its a bait and switch. Just because the customer can know about the switch before paying the money does not mean the sellers technique is less fraudulent. Just because the interviewees learn that it is a comedy before they have to say anything on camera does not make the lure less fraudulent.

By this logic, Borat, and any number of other social satires that set people up under (initially) false pretenses in order to make fun of them, are also fraudulent. This includes many (if not most) "reality" TV shows. You may have a point here.

Does that make it immoral? Probably not. It seems to have become a social norm in most western cultures.

Does that make it any less funny? No.

57. Bill Maher hates your (fill in the blank) religion

Comment #226894 by Don_Quix on August 8, 2008 at 8:59 pm

Again, all I can say is:

Religulous: Comedic social satire that is marketing itself as such.

There is nothing you can do in such a movie that is "immoral" (well...as long as it is legal). It is a comedy. One of the ways you make comedy is by putting people in awkward or unexpected situations, and then observing their reactions.

If you think it's funny, laugh. If you don't, don't go see it.

I think many of the moral comparisons going on in this thread between this movie, and the "other" movie, are themselves "religulous" ;)

58. Bill Maher hates your (fill in the blank) religion

Comment #226880 by Don_Quix on August 8, 2008 at 8:19 pm

J Mac:

Religulous is a comedic social satire that is marketing itself as such. It's not trying to market itself as a fact-based documentary like certain other recent movies that I will not give the dignity of naming. Also, the producers of Religulous (as others have already mentioned) do not appear to have lied to their interviewees about what was going on once the interview began. The interviewees in Religulous could easily have left as soon as they found out what was going on (once Bill Maher showed up), but most of them chose not to do so.

The producers of that *other* movie never told its interviewees about what was happening before, during, or after their interview. In fact, the producers outright lied the whole time and told them exactly the opposite of what they intended to do, under the guise that they were participating in a factual scientific documentary. They then edited the interviews to make the subjects of those interviews appear to be saying things they actually did not say or mean.

Comedic Social Satire != Factual Documentary. They can't be held to the same standard of integrity for obvious reasons.

That's the distinction I see here.

59. Bill Maher hates your (fill in the blank) religion

Comment #226873 by Don_Quix on August 8, 2008 at 7:40 pm

Bonzai:

So, is "Borat" ethical?

Damnit! Beaten :)

I was about to say shouldn't we heap scorn on Borat for not being forthright with the subjects of their interviews as to what actually was going on? Of course not. This, like Borat, is social satire...it's comedy. Since it is comedy, it would be impossible (or nearly impossible) for it to work if the subjects of the interviews knew what was really going on. It is not trying to sell or market itself as an impartial documentary that is ostensibly explaining facts.

My only hope is that there is some kind of naked wrestling scene with Bill Maher and a rabbi. Oh wait...no I really don't hope that.

60. Father, son and holy toast

Comment #226868 by Don_Quix on August 8, 2008 at 7:24 pm

You better hope Bill Donahue doesn't hear about his.

61. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #226843 by Don_Quix on August 8, 2008 at 6:52 pm

I found the first episode of The Genius of Charles Darwin to be very entertaining and informative. Never once did Richard Dawkins come even close to "preaching", "ranting", or doing anything remotely like what he is so often accused of doing by theists. To me it came across that he was simply trying to educate the children in the show in a very calm and reasonable manner, and to make it interesting for them. It was a pleasure to watch, and I look forward to seeing the rest of it.

As for this Libby Purves person, I have no idea who she is, and I'm pretty sure I don't care.

EDIT: Also, anyone who accuses Richard Dawkins of the things that Libby Purves accuses him of has obviously never been to a Southern Baptist or Pentecostal church service. You'll definitely hear some REPENT OR BURN there...and they mean it...literally.

62. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #225758 by Don_Quix on August 7, 2008 at 10:58 am

But most believers are not creationists.

I don't know about the UK, but in the US most "believers" in Christianity certainly *are* literal creationists. You can't believe in literal creationism and still accept the fact of evolution, unless of course you've spent some time in the Ministry of Love.

63. Do they really think the earth is flat?

Comment #224387 by Don_Quix on August 4, 2008 at 8:18 pm

Wouldn't it be fairly easy to prove the flat-earthers wrong simply by loading them all on a boat and sending them on an all-expenses-paid cruise around the world? Maybe that's where they should have their next national or international meeting?

I suspect that even after they were done with their cruise, they would claim that the cruise line/government/CIA/MI6/Illuminati/Aliens just made it *seem* like they went around a globe by sailing in circles.

Some people need to be ridiculed to death when they aren't being ignored.

64. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #223489 by Don_Quix on August 2, 2008 at 2:36 pm

I'd rather be a secularist bigot than a superstitious idiot.

65. 'Major discovery' from MIT primed to unleash solar revolution

Comment #223230 by Don_Quix on August 1, 2008 at 8:52 pm

I live in Arizona. Most of the state, especially the southwestern portion between Phoenix and California, is essentially barren, uninhabited, undeveloped desert that gets about 300 or more days a year of constant sunshine. I really don't understand why at least a portion of this incredibly vast area is not filled with solar farms. A good portion of the electricity needs of the southwest US could probably be met using current technology if only a couple of hundred square miles of this state (out of approximately 113,000 square miles) was devoted to harvesting solar energy.

I guess it all comes down to economics. The ability to efficiently store the electricity produced during the day has always been the main obstacle in the past.

I hope this article turns out to be true.

66. 'Major discovery' from MIT primed to unleash solar revolution

Comment #223128 by Don_Quix on August 1, 2008 at 2:19 pm

I wonder if this could easily be scaled up to industrial-sized applications such as solar or wind power plants, in addition to smaller "off-the-grid" self-powered home applications. If it could, it seems like it would be the perfect solution to most everyday energy needs. When you aren't drawing much power, your home could use its internal system, but when you need more power (such as when the air conditioner comes on), it could supplement the off-the-grid system with electricity from a larger facility using this same technology.

67. Workers' Religious Freedom vs. Patients' Rights

Comment #222493 by Don_Quix on July 31, 2008 at 1:20 pm

I am related to a pharmacist, and her opinion on this is that any pharmacist who refuses to dispense a legally-prescribed medication for any other reason than a genuine health risk to the patient should be fired and/or lose their license. Not because of their beliefs, but because they aren't doing the job they were trained and hired to do.

68. Daniel Dennett: Autobiography (Part 1)

Comment #222172 by Don_Quix on July 30, 2008 at 8:35 pm

All that really needs to be said is:

Daniel C. Dennett III is the grandfather everyone wishes they had.

69. Sydney brothels say Pope's visit will give business a leg-up

Comment #218709 by Don_Quix on July 25, 2008 at 3:59 pm

I honestly didn't know there were brothels in Sydney. Yet another reason to visit Australia!

70. Surgeon General Nominee Dismisses Homosexuality Paper

Comment #215318 by Don_Quix on July 21, 2008 at 4:11 pm

Is this the paper Holsinger wrote?

Also, UK Wildcats rule! (University of Kentucky, not United Kingdom)

71. The Boundaries of Belief

Comment #204976 by Don_Quix on July 6, 2008 at 10:45 am

I "believe" that the graphs showing atheists and Christians as polar opposites are the ones that Sam and the other researchers were probably most interested in. It's probably a lot easier to see what's really going on in the brain when the people being scanned have the same level of certainty about their beliefs, but those beliefs are diametrically opposed.

72. New Zealand man sells his soul to 'Hell'

Comment #203749 by Don_Quix on July 3, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Hmmm. Since the Mormons can get away with posthumously baptizing people, I wonder if I could get away with selling deeds to other peoples' souls.

73. Obama Wants to Expand Role of Religious Groups

Comment #203069 by Don_Quix on July 2, 2008 at 10:53 am

Pandering in a political campaign? I am outraged!

74. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #203065 by Don_Quix on July 2, 2008 at 10:48 am

Muslims? Outraged??? Say it ain't so!

75. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202413 by Don_Quix on July 1, 2008 at 1:07 pm

I think the only true equality we will ever have is that we're all equally SCREWED.

76. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #202408 by Don_Quix on July 1, 2008 at 1:02 pm

I'm still waiting for the discovery of the crouton.

77. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202403 by Don_Quix on July 1, 2008 at 12:42 pm

So let me see if I understand:

God (presumably the Christian one) created the Universe, but does not meddle in the affairs of the Universe. However, the Universe needs God's constant attention on a moment-to-moment basis in order for it to continue to exist.

What?

It seems like he's describing some strange hybrid form of deism that allows the deluded to continue to believe that their God is not totally irrelevant.

78. Jesus and Mo on Militant Atheists

Comment #202113 by Don_Quix on June 30, 2008 at 10:08 pm

Vinelectric:

Take a cartoon in one hand and a bazooka in the other then declare: If you can't "read this" then "eat this", paedo-fuckers...!

That sounds like a relatively recent episode of South Park :D

79. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #202111 by Don_Quix on June 30, 2008 at 9:54 pm

I thought Australia was enlightened! I want to travel there someday soon, so don't spoil my dreams with your yobbo talk ;)

80. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #202086 by Don_Quix on June 30, 2008 at 8:48 pm

interested observer:

I've had a look at a lot of religious blogs and forums and I truly don't remember seeing that sort of language written there (although I wouldn't doubt they exist ). Bile, yes. Lousy arguments, absolutely. But no bad language yet.

Clearly, you have not read any of irate_atheists's posts yet ;)

They will take whatever ammunition they can get in this fight and use it to show how good they are and how bad we are. A good start for them is a foul mouthed activist sounding atheist who loves to argue. Poorly, but with great colour.

Fundamentalist Christians, especially those who frequent fundamentalist Christian forums, already do this. They even do it when no one is using foul language. All atheists are demon-spawn to most of them, it makes no difference how "polite" one is in one's postings. Most of them genuinely believe all of us (atheists) are going to their (fundamentalists) Hell, and they think if they aren't diametrically opposed to us, they will too.

Oh yes, my deepest apologies for using the word redneck incorrectly.

Redneck has a special meaning in the United States. It usually refers to people from the southern part of the country (usually south-east or south-central), who are missing a good number of teeth, or have a few extra rows of them. For reference, see the more action-packed parts of the 1972 movie, Deliverance. Then again, many of my relatives fit this description *cry*

Anyway, again, welcome to the forums here :) Just don't be surprised if you see more people using colorful language. It's hard not to vent sometimes, and many times it's appropriate considering the infuriating frustration many regular posters experience here.

81. Jesus and Mo on Militant Atheists

Comment #202081 by Don_Quix on June 30, 2008 at 8:23 pm

Styrer:

Unfortunately that would require that the ones being targeted could read.

82. Who Was More Important: Lincoln or Darwin?

Comment #202078 by Don_Quix on June 30, 2008 at 8:15 pm

Sorry, W.C. Fields wasn't born until 1880 .

Yeah, but Darwin didn't die until 1882. I know, it's a stretch, but still ;)

83. Who Was More Important: Lincoln or Darwin?

Comment #202074 by Don_Quix on June 30, 2008 at 7:58 pm

mordacious1:

If they want to compare americans, who were contemporaries with Darwin, who contributed to western culture and civiliztion, then I would nominate Dr. W.C. Minor, long before considering Lincoln.

Or better yet, W.C. Fields!

84. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #202059 by Don_Quix on June 30, 2008 at 6:43 pm

I'm sure Styrer believes his down to earth, redneck, foul mouthed approach is the way to go but I don't believe that's the case. Someone earlier used the word 'polarise' and that's exactly what that sort of over the top language will do.

I'm not sure where you live, but in most of the southern United States we would be much better off with a bunch of down to earth, redneck, foul mouthed atheists than we would be with the current crop of down to earth, redneck, foul mouthed fundamentalist Christians.

It will polarise those people who already think we are some kinds of demon possessed abominations.

But...we are!

*Holds black mass and sprinkles Anton LaVey's ashes around*

Also, welcome to rd.net :D

85. Who Was More Important: Lincoln or Darwin?

Comment #202054 by Don_Quix on June 30, 2008 at 6:09 pm

That is far and away the creepiest avatar I've seen on these forums.

I aim to please.

86. Who Was More Important: Lincoln or Darwin?

Comment #202050 by Don_Quix on June 30, 2008 at 5:55 pm

Darwin vs. Doctor Who seems like a much more appropriate match up.

87. Aliens need Christ's redemption, too

Comment #201455 by Don_Quix on June 29, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Given that it is extremely likely that any intelligent alien civilizations the human race encounters will be tremendously more technologically advanced than we are, I doubt any humans will be doing any converting. If anything, the aliens will be converting the poor backwards humans to their religion, and vaporizing those who resist.

88. The $10,000-a-Month Psychic

Comment #200879 by Don_Quix on June 28, 2008 at 11:32 am

If you've ever read Newsweek in the past, this sort of poor journalism will come as no surprise to you. Newsweek is a notch above The National Enquirer, peddling itself as a "serious" news magazine.

89. Stop distorting young minds!

Comment #200083 by Don_Quix on June 26, 2008 at 7:46 pm

Comment #200073 by TeraBrat

If a school district feels strongly about teaching creationism and the parents agree, they can have a separate class that teaches it.

Comment #200081 by Scot Rafkin

Unless it's illegal. Like teaching creationism as science.

I am actually in favor of teaching creationism in US public schools...in mandatory comparative religion classes, that is.

I think if US schoolchildren were required to compare and contrast the creation myths of the thousands of current and historical religions throughout their scholastic careers, we would have a LOT more atheists :)

90. Creationist critics get their comeuppance

Comment #200071 by Don_Quix on June 26, 2008 at 7:04 pm

Is it just me or is Michael Behe the biggest Dick ever!! What quazi-college gave him a degree in biochemistry.

As much of a fool as Behe is, I find the people who claim to have a degree in "Theobiology" more ridiculous. WTF is that supposed to be?

91. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #200051 by Don_Quix on June 26, 2008 at 5:26 pm

How dare you close-minded atheists demand evidence for something before you accept it as fact! For shame!

92. The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete

Comment #199819 by Don_Quix on June 26, 2008 at 11:37 am

Wired has been going continuously downhill for a decade. I pretty much only read it for the gadgets and ads anymore.

93. Spanish parliament to extend rights to apes

Comment #199817 by Don_Quix on June 26, 2008 at 11:35 am

A moderately-sized asteroid would clean things up in a jiffy too.

94. Award-winning comedian George Carlin dies

Comment #198147 by Don_Quix on June 23, 2008 at 9:28 am

It's difficult to express the sense of loss I feel at this development. I feel like a member of my family has died...or at least a beloved pet or something. heheh. Although I imagine George would have something witty and sarcastic to say about a bunch of people he never knew being upset about his death.

Nevertheless, I'm gonna miss him :~)

Remembering him by watching and listening to him and appreciating his contribution to culture and to comedy is probably the best eulogy we can give him.

*goes off to watch all of the Carlin videos available on Youtube*

George Carlin On Death:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PiZSFIVFiU

George Carlin On Language:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h67k9eEw9AY

George Carlin On Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=george carlin&search=Search

95. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197920 by Don_Quix on June 22, 2008 at 10:46 pm

:~D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

Sorry, I'll stop posting about George Carlin in this thread now :)

96. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197914 by Don_Quix on June 22, 2008 at 10:24 pm

Sound like it's true. :(

More Carlin-death-related stuff :(

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2339172520080623

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080623/ts_nm/carlin_dc

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/arts/24carlin.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

I'm going to go ahead and skip through the whole denial and anger part of grief and go straight to depression :(

97. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197910 by Don_Quix on June 22, 2008 at 10:02 pm

BREAKING NEWS:

I hate to interrupt this thread with potentially bad news, but it sounds like George Carlin may have just died :(

http://www.etonline.com/news/2008/06/62841/index.html

It's also a current breaking news headline on foxnews.com as of 10pm MST (not necessarily to be believed).

I hope this is not true :(

98. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197899 by Don_Quix on June 22, 2008 at 9:20 pm

I think that's the trouble. I haven't had a beer in a few weeks, and my brain seems to be functioning a little better. Maybe a beer would stop that nasty effect. :D

Clearly, God is a Russian, because vodka > *

99. On this Day: Galileo Sentenced for Believing Sun Is Center of Universe

Comment #197897 by Don_Quix on June 22, 2008 at 9:18 pm

And by the way, as a matter of fact ,I DO OWN THE ROAD.........

A number of drivers on the Loop 101 in Phoenix, Arizona would beg to differ.

100. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197879 by Don_Quix on June 22, 2008 at 8:09 pm

Terabrat:

2. They will survive. Cockroaches are amongst the most adaptive insects and they will adapt.
They will be the last to survive after a nuclear war too.

Not to jump in the middle of a very interesting discussion and be pedantic, but I'm fairly certain that the "cockroaches will be the only creatures that survive a nuclear war" thing has been disproven. I recall reading that cockroaches have no particularly special ability to resist radiation, and that they would die just as readily as most other complex life forms in the event of a full-scale nuclear war. There was even a Mythbusters episode that dealt with this particular myth. Looks like flour beetles win :D

Then again, I'm going off memory here, and my memory is notoriously bad ;)

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next