Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by NormanDoering


51. Why Science Can't Save the Republican Party

Comment #108881 by NormanDoering on January 7, 2008 at 7:09 pm

Of course, both parties pander -- but only one party has a candidate who will say this:

"When you give yourself to Christ, some relationships have to go. It's no longer your life; you've signed it over... When we become believers, it's as if we have signed up to be part of God's Army, to be soldiers for Christ... there is suffering in the conditioning for battle... you obey the orders."

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/01/fundamentalist-psyche.html


.

52. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108775 by NormanDoering on January 7, 2008 at 3:00 pm

Glen wrote:

I doubt that saying we're "doomed" if the US votes in a creationist is any help to the political debate.

How about pointing to Huckabees authoritarian mentality and fundamentalist psyche:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/01/fundamentalist-psyche.html


.

53. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107597 by NormanDoering on January 4, 2008 at 7:47 pm

You guys do know that Karl Rove created Mike Huckabee in a high voltage lab, don't you? If you doubt it, I have a picture that will prove it:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/11/roves-frankenstein.html

54. Can Atheists Be Parents?

Comment #107555 by NormanDoering on January 4, 2008 at 6:23 pm

DNAtheist wrote:

Actually things have changed for us. Today even Huckabee is publicly acknowledging our right to serve in politics.

Don't be fooled by Huckabee's doublespeak, take a look at who he is associating with and what he's saying to them:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/12/huckabee-and-christianists.html

55. Can Atheists Be Parents?

Comment #107444 by NormanDoering on January 4, 2008 at 2:23 pm

This is the kind of thing that happens when we let theists claim the moral high ground:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/12/claiming-moral-high-ground.html

56. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106360 by NormanDoering on January 2, 2008 at 6:12 pm

BAEOZ wrote:

Haven't you heard? Christian have been persecuted since Christ. They're being persecuted as we speak in the US by nasty atheists. They have to carry their cross. (end sarcasm.)

It used to be that persecution was feeding them to lions while they sang hymns. Now persecution is saying "happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" or calling them stupid and they don't sing about that. Obviously they'd rather be fed to lions, it gives their pathetic lives meaning.

Anyone here ever read L. Sprague de Camp's Lest Darkness Fall? The hero is catapulted into the 6th century and he gets into a religious debate:

"Well, you haven't seen anything," said the man. "{Rome} hasn't been the same since the Goths came." He lowered his voice conspiratorially: "Mark my words, it won't be like this always, either!"
"You don't like the Goths?"
"No! Not with the persecution we have to put up with!"
"Persecution?" Padway raised his eyebrows.
"Religious persecution. We won't stand for it forever."
"I thought the Goths let everybody worship as they pleased."
"That's just it! We Orthodox are forced to stand around and watch Arians and Monophysites and Nestorians and Jews going about their business unmolested, as if they owned the country. If that isn't persecution, I'd like to know what is!"
"You mean that you're persecuted because the heretics and such are not?"

"Certainly, isn't that obvious? We won't stand -- What's your religion, by the way?"

57. Moderates Storm The Religious Battlefield

Comment #106269 by NormanDoering on January 2, 2008 at 3:34 pm

Steve Zara wrote:

...but sometimes I feel the promotion of uncertainty is a healthy antidote to faith. I mean, can we really be sure of things...

More often than not, you'd have a more effective argument:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/04/dont-try-this-at-home.html

At least you might move the "Overton window."

58. Changing my Mind

Comment #106266 by NormanDoering on January 2, 2008 at 3:29 pm

sent2null wrote:

So deeply ingrained in the world of magic they are, bringing enlightenment to the rapidly increasing population of the religiously indoctrinated is not going to be easy.

I wrote about this here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/04/dont-try-this-at-home.html

Don't expect to change someone's mind with one argument. Instead, try to move the "Overton window."

I quote myself:

The Overton window is a concept in political theory that describes a "window" in the range of public reactions to ideas in public discourse, in a spectrum of all possible options on an issue. Moving that window may be all you can accomplish, getting people to include previously excluded ideas, while excluding previously acceptable ideas is a partial goal. The degrees of acceptance of ideas can be roughly laid out this way:

0 -- Unthinkable / Terrified
1 -- Radical / Uncomfortable
2 -- Acceptable / Not so bad
3 -- Sensible / Rational
4 -- Popular / Credible
5 -- Policy / Believed

If visualizing which attitudes define the range of acceptance of atheism by where they fall in the above spectrum, then atheism would probably terrorize most fundy Christians. They would thus find it "unthinkable." If you've moved them from being terrified to being merely uncomfortable with atheism you haven't done that bad.

59. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105859 by NormanDoering on January 2, 2008 at 1:42 am

sent2null wrote:

Morality has a specific definition that contains two relevant characteristics that answer your question. First, morality implies a contract of some sort between a group of more than one individual. Secondly, it applies to individuals of any species, not just humans.

That seems to define Nietzsche's mistake when he wrote about the "overman" or Superman, as wrote about here:

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/12/claiming-moral-high-ground.html

Nietzsche seems to miss the whole point of morality. The plural, "supermen," never appears in Nietzsche's writings and morality is about the group, and more, it's about society and even the whole of humanity, not the individual. It's about how we treat others, how we live together and work together, and there is no one who is not weak when alone and faced by a group. To isolate yourself the way this Superman does will just weaken you. To be a member of any group you have to play by the traditional rules of the group, at least in public.

Why wouldn't Nietzsche's Superman decide to be a murderous criminal? Just to avoid punishment? Why should I trust Nietzsche's Superman in a business deal if he sees me only as member of a herd he doesn't belong to? A moral person has to see the bigger picture and his self interest has to be enlightened by an awareness of the fact that he is part of a society that he depends on. He has to know that the trust of others has value.

60. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105857 by NormanDoering on January 2, 2008 at 1:34 am

Surely the memes are the biggest problem, not the genes.

You may not be able to change the memes without changing the genes. What if all us atheists are actually mental mutants?


http://normdoering.blogspot.com/

61. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105450 by NormanDoering on December 31, 2007 at 3:46 pm

I blogged on this essay, "Claiming the moral high ground":
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/12/claiming-moral-high-ground.html

Here's a taste:

As always there is this claim that he knows the whole symphony, or sees the bigger picture, even though this religious picture, from my viewpoint, looks smaller and blurrier and dead wrong. When he says that "...someone else knows that the piece is part of a symphony and can be even more appreciated when heard as part of the whole in which it has a crucial place," he is claiming such extra knowledge. How did he get it?

...

...what has to be questioned is the group, and it must be questioned in public by those who understand what is at stake and are solid members of the group who have earned our trust. We question morality by asking about the pragmatic results and which common human values are supported by the rules. It is on these grounds we challenge the priests who tell us gay marriage is wrong, abortion is wrong, etc..

62. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105029 by NormanDoering on December 30, 2007 at 12:01 pm

AllanW wrote:

See here for a Christian response to it.

http://www.str.org/site/News2?pa...Article& id=5236

The link doesn't work. Try again.

As for your summary:
The short of the long of it is that God would never command an evil act since it isn't in His character.

It says God would never command an evil act since it isn't in His character, but what about the things God is reported to have done? The Old Testament is full of slaughter ordered by God. Consider the example in Numbers 30 to 32, the slaughter of the Midianites. Is the Old Testament god a pagan god? And damning everyone who doesn't believe incredible and impossible stories in the New Testament doesn't seem all that moral either -- how could eternal torture ever be moral?

63. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105027 by NormanDoering on December 30, 2007 at 11:44 am

rafael184 just won my award for most pathetic excuse for a human brain:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/12/pig-fucking-ignorant-blogger.html

64. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105000 by NormanDoering on December 30, 2007 at 10:02 am

I'd like to know how Bishop Harries deals with this example of Christian morality:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/02/mailvox-sharpening-knives.html

65. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #104985 by NormanDoering on December 30, 2007 at 9:22 am

... I disagree with his views that atheists ultimately get their morals through Christian heritage.

It's a half truth.

We do get a lot of our morals through culture, if we lived in a different culture we'd inherit their morals. If I was raised as a Spartan, I'd have a Spartan morality -- ready to die in war, thinking weak children should be thrown off a cliff... If I were raised as a Roman I probably would not object to gladiatorial combat for entertainment (hell, our athletes are killing themselves with steroids and growth hormones already just to get the money rewards of entertaining us).

As society gets more atheistic I would expect society to evolve a different morality. However, take a good look at where modern Christianity is going -- George Bush, lied into war, torture, ready to punish young girls and doctors for aborting babies, refusing to allow gays to marry, etc..

We might do better without religion in the realm of morality and eithics.

66. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104711 by NormanDoering on December 29, 2007 at 7:38 am

reason-first asked:

... how they found out which "gestures and prayers" were the right ones to select and which not.

According to some exorcists, Jesus taught the disciples how to cast out demons and the disciples passed it on to the first bishops and popes. The New Testament does have Jesus casting demons into pigs and hinting at teaching such things to the disciples.

However, real demonology takes you back to Egyptian religions. They had their own form of exorcism.

Or did they make them up in the process?

Probably not consciously. Exorcism rites probably evolved over time.

What method did they apply to determine the usefulness of their "gestures and prayers"? Trial and error? Or did god tell them how to proceed?

Yes, trial and error comes into it. The person exorcised has to believe a demon has left them. That's how it got dangerous. To get someone to think a demon has left them you have to nearly torture them sometimes.

Can they get more ludicrous than this? I am afraid it is only a matter of time.
There seems to be no limit to the lunacy these people are up to.

I would hope 9/11 was the limit of religious lunacy, but we'll probably see worse.

67. The Evangelical Rebellion

Comment #103277 by NormanDoering on December 24, 2007 at 10:22 pm

mdowe wrote:

... surely the average American is not this stupid

Two words: Sherri Shepherd.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/04/sherri-shepherd-doesnt-g_n_75292.html

Another two words: John Ridley.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ridley/why-are-liberals-so-afrai_b_78182.html

68. Christmas with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #102421 by NormanDoering on December 22, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Can anyone explain why Hitchens seems to enjoy holidays in Cuba?

Well, someone has to keep up the secular end of the war on Christmas (and Kwanzaa and Hanukkah and Groundhog day). Ever since Sam Harris was discovered to have a Christmas tree with ornaments and Richard Dawkins was found singing Christmas carols there has only been Hitch to hold up our end of the war that John Gibson, the author of "The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought," invented -- errr, I mean discovered.

Bill O'Reilly of "The O'Reilly Factor" would be fighting windmills if Hitch didn't do his part:

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/12/who-exactly-is-fighting-war-against.html

69. Survey finds most Americans believe Jesus born of virgin

Comment #102342 by NormanDoering on December 22, 2007 at 12:18 pm

How else do you explain 15% virgin birth belief in atheists and agnostics?
Parthenogenesis

70. For the Love of Christ

Comment #101767 by NormanDoering on December 21, 2007 at 12:06 am

kintaro_crab predicted:

I'll make a prediction, 10 years down the line the fondling and molestation charges begin to surface.


My prediction, man slaughter or murder in eight years.

71. For the Love of Christ

Comment #101753 by NormanDoering on December 20, 2007 at 10:14 pm

He sounds like a dangerous and deadly psycho to me.

72. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #101636 by NormanDoering on December 20, 2007 at 4:19 pm

walk wrote:

I see your point, Norman.

And I see yours now. Wow! No one has ever admitted that to me: "If there is no god, I don't want to know!" On some level she might know the truth.

73. Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

Comment #101579 by NormanDoering on December 20, 2007 at 2:28 pm

al-rawandi wrote:

How about I save the research and just play the odds that one was a-religious. It only takes one, then the religion card makes a lot less sense.

What you wrote was "Nazis sent suicide subs, piloted by the a-religious" and that sounds like they all were piloted by the a-religious. So, your excuse doesn't quite work.

However, you obviously didn't mean what you seemed to mean. I suggest we both might be a little more careful about how we say things. In which case I'm not necessarily arguing with the substance of what you say -- just your style.

Now how far are you taking your argument? Do you accept that the guys who flew those airliners into the twin towers on 9/11 were religiously motivated? How about the London Subway bombings?

74. Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

Comment #101546 by NormanDoering on December 20, 2007 at 1:52 pm

I wrote: "But you still don't get it. It's not about subs or planes -- you assumed that Nazis were atheists!"

Bonzai wrote:

You are changing the argument here. First it was that Muslims perpetrate suicide bombings because of the inducement of the 72 virgins etc. Then somehow you generalize it to cover all theists. Even you can see that is illogical.

What?! I never said anything about Muslims perpetrating suicide bombings because of the inducement of the 72 virgins.

I give up. You guys are too nuts to talk to.

75. Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

Comment #101543 by NormanDoering on December 20, 2007 at 1:48 pm

A-religious means that they aren't particularly dedicated to a religion (not excluding a belief in god). A lot of people fall there, just near of agnosticism. You implied the Atheism from that statement, and started on about hitler.

And how exactly do you know what these Nazi's religious beliefs were like?

76. Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

Comment #101523 by NormanDoering on December 20, 2007 at 1:26 pm

al-rawandi wrote:

It turned out I was wrong on the 'Subs' part.

But you still don't get it. It's not about subs or planes -- you assumed that Nazis were atheists!

This is what you wrote: "Nazis sent suicide subs, piloted by the a-religious."

Why would anyone ever listen to you? Comments like "You're a liar" to kick off a sentence.

And you're lying yet again. What I actually wrote was "You're either a liar yourself or you have been lied to." First there were two possibilities -- now there is only one.

I am not repeating Christianist lies.

You assumed that Nazis were "a-religious."

I am making observations of the world I see.

No, you're repeating what you read. And you're not reading very well.

Your overly aggressive tone has probably turned more people off than my mis-identifying Planes as Submarines.

Do you have some sort of mental block? It wasn't about planes or subs -- you seemed to assume that Nazis were atheists.

You actually posted the "Hitler as an Atheist" link? Everyone knows he was not an atheist (although his hatred was racial and not religious). I never said he was an atheist. You just wish I had.

You wrote this: "Nazis sent suicide subs, piloted by the a-religious." Why would you call them a-religious? What was the point of that?

My point in all this is that people find motivation for violence in a lot of places.

That's a rather phony point -- no one is arguing against it.

77. Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

Comment #101486 by NormanDoering on December 20, 2007 at 12:32 pm

al-rawandi wrote:

If you insist on being a dick, perhaps you could bestir yourself to do some reading. I am not defending Saudi Arabia, or religion.

If you're not defending religion then why are you repeating Christianist lies and propaganda here?

In Comment #101319:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2052,-Al-Qaeda-Were-open-to-questions,CNN#101319
you wrote that the Tamil Tigers were Marxist Atheists and you said "Nazis sent suicide subs, piloted by the a-religious."

You've lost your credibility by writing those things.

What makes you think Nazi subs were piloted by the a-religious?
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/04/if-hitler-was-atheist.html

I am saying that science and education doesn't rid always rid us of religion.

No, they don't necessarily, but in Europe that's indeed what is happening. Your example of Saudi Arabia is a counter example, but there are reasons for that and the death penalty for apostasy is one of them. People are not free to talk about what science says about their religion. But how can one really study biology, evolution and astronomy and still believe in the flying horse going to Heaven story in the Koran?

America might be another counter example.

You tell me to do more reading, but I suggest it is you who might do more reading. Robert Pape has not gone without criticism:
http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000353.htm

Buried in your statements are false assumptions about Nazis and secularists being atheists. Whatever else you say, we're not open to it until you can correct your false claims or justify them. You have not done so.

78. Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

Comment #101386 by NormanDoering on December 20, 2007 at 9:40 am

al-rawandi wrote:

The people carrying out the suicide bombings are non-religious (to a greater degree than the general population of the regioin).

Say's who? Sounds like you're making up your facts again to fit your ideology and ignoring the fact you've been caught in a lie.

79. Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

Comment #101384 by NormanDoering on December 20, 2007 at 9:38 am

al-rawandi wrote:

I spent some time in the Arabian Peninsula. Believe me they live well, they are educated in western universities. Many have PhD's. Some in the sciences. And yet they are still religious.

And they have the death penalty for apostasy.

80. Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

Comment #101370 by NormanDoering on December 20, 2007 at 9:26 am

al-rawandi wrote:

Suicide bombing... Tamil Tigers. Marxist Atheists.

You're either a liar yourself or you have been lied to.

The Tamil Tigers are indeed a terrorist group, and not a religious one, and they are indeed "Marxist." However, their founder and supreme leader, Vellupillai Prabhakaran, is a Methodist Christian. Their official spokesman, ANTON Balasingham, is also Christian. Most of the top guys in the Tigers are Christian and Hindu, not atheist.

You've replaced the word "secular" with "atheist." These are not the same things. Secularism is what our founding fathers wrote into the U.S. constitution, the wall of separation of church and state. Secular is the opposite of sectarian. When the Tamil Tigers say they are secular, they don't mean they're atheists, they mean that their government shouldn't endorse one religion over another. They mean only that religion and ecclesiastical affairs should not enter into the function of the state especially into public education. Religion is your own private business, it's not the business of the state. The reason Hindus would go for that is because they know they are a minority.

81. Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

Comment #101277 by NormanDoering on December 20, 2007 at 7:08 am

Ohnhai wrote:

That's who Dinesh should debate next !
I'd like to see a debate between Hitchens and Ayman al-Zawahiri about how religion inspires moral behavior.

82. Whale 'missing link' discovered

Comment #101267 by NormanDoering on December 20, 2007 at 6:54 am

Carl Zimmer has more:
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2007/12/19/whales_from_so_humble_a_beginn.php

83. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #101234 by NormanDoering on December 20, 2007 at 6:12 am

flying goose asked:

I would however want to disapprove of indoctrination. Problem is I am not quite sure what indoctrination is. I would be interested to read your thoughts.

Indoctrination is what makes you say dumbass shit like this:
... children and their upbringing, children I think do have a natural spirituality, by which I mean they are all dancers and singers, story tellers and questioners.
What does dancing and singing and stories have to do with "non-material" entities like "spirits"?

Indoctrination is what makes you say dumbass shit like this:
My parents took me to church until I was about nine, that gave me faith.
You didn't get faith, you had faith and trust in your parents and teachers and they abused it. Now you have less faith in their abilities to interpret the world.

I think there is a danger of letting labels speak louder then humans.

I think there is also the confusion of using a religiously loaded set of labels, like "spirituality" and "faith."



Here's more about how the religious mindfuck really works:

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-religious-mindfuck-really-works.html

84. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #101075 by NormanDoering on December 19, 2007 at 7:22 pm

walk wrote:

"...You can make your own decision as to what you want to believe."

I don't think you phrased that right.

If I could really decide what I WANTED to believe I wouldn't be an atheist and Santa Claus would really exist. But no amount of wanting ever put a million dollars under my Christmas tree.

I am forced into atheism and asantaism by the fact that neither one ever does what I'm told they're supposed to do.

85. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #100858 by NormanDoering on December 19, 2007 at 1:04 pm

somersetsimon wrote:

I can't comprehend how an atheist would be committed to bringing up his children as Catholics. Can anyone explain this logic?

Yes. It's mostly due to a lack of alternatives.

The Catholics also have some good schools and giving his kids a religious education helps them understand their culture. Either they are smart enough to figure it out themselves and become atheists -- or they get taken in by religion. There is no way to save your kids by hiding them away from this Christian culture. It's better they get it early with no fight from you. Wait until they ask for your help.

86. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99030 by NormanDoering on December 15, 2007 at 9:28 am

Newton Day! Ahhh, so the war on Squidmas begins.

87. Functional Neuroimaging of Belief, Disbelief, and Uncertainty

Comment #98764 by NormanDoering on December 14, 2007 at 8:28 am

This is a smart move on Sam's part.

If he ever reads this I hope he takes it deeper. I think it's more complicated than believe or disbelieve -- I think there are different ways of believing. I don't think people believe religious statements the same way they believe scientific ones. I think that religious beliefs will show up in areas where the brain processes extreme emotions.

I wrote about it here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-religious-mindfuck-really-works.html

88. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #97192 by NormanDoering on December 11, 2007 at 5:18 pm

SomeDanGuy wondered:

...if posting and reading the constant stream of inanity and illogical 'arguments' from various religion-supporters is going to cause long-term damage to our brains.

Yes, I do think arguments at this level, if you continually read them every day or week, will cause brain rot. However, it's not the worst out there. Have you ever encountered Vox Day?

Here are some links:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/12/ugly-and-vile-spin-some-christianists.html

89. A Call For a Presidential Debate on Science and Technology

Comment #96659 by NormanDoering on December 10, 2007 at 7:59 pm

theantitheist wrote:

This would get huge ratings all over the world ...

Was that supposed to be satire? Or are you that delusional about people's interest in science?

I would watch it, I'm interested in which candidates understand science, but your average voter isn't all that interested in science. It bores them. Your average American voter doubts evolution and believes in heaven and hell.

90. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #96520 by NormanDoering on December 10, 2007 at 5:02 pm

"All we heard from the chattering class over the past few weeks was that our boycott would have the reverse effect of enticing more people to see the film," said Donohue.

Maybe it would have the reverse effect if the film company featured Donohue in future TV and print ads that challenged viewers for being bigoted and closed minded enough to listen to Donohue?

91. Holy Nonsense

Comment #95221 by NormanDoering on December 7, 2007 at 3:50 pm

Cenk Uygur, in his Huffpost blog, "Mitt Romney's Ironic Speech on Religious Tolerance," summed up the speech perfectly in one sentence: "Don't hate me for my religion, hate atheists and agnostics for theirs!"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/mitt-romneys-ironic-spee_b_75836.html

92. Mitt Romney's Faith In America address (as prepared for delivery)

Comment #95190 by NormanDoering on December 7, 2007 at 2:31 pm

al-rawandi wrote:

He will lose to Hillary in the general election.

No. He will lose to Obama.

93. Why Science Can't Save the Republican Party

Comment #94840 by NormanDoering on December 6, 2007 at 6:56 pm

drbreakfast asked:

I'm not sure whether this political tit-for-tat is constructive.

Was this admission worth it:
Yes, I was a little slow waking up to the threat of the Christian Wrong. Sorry, better late than never. Can I get absolution?

I'll give him absolution if he promises to take the science issue seriously and stop voting straight ticket Republican. Especially if it means getting someone like Huckabee. I'll forgive him for Rudy or Ron Paul or McCain. But we have to throw him out of the pro-science atheist club if he votes for Huckabee. And after Romney's speech today, probably him too.

94. Sherri Shepherd needs to go away now

Comment #94746 by NormanDoering on December 6, 2007 at 12:13 pm

liberalartist wondered:

...maybe she was homeschooled. According to Wikipedia around 2 million kids are home schooled in America, mostly for religious purposes. Scary.

That's a good question. She shouldn't have gotten out of high school with that level of knowledge.

Her own wikipage doesn't say:

Raised in a Jehovah's Witness family, Shepherd later chose to become a born-again Christian ... worked a day job as a legal secretary while doing stand-up comedy at night.

95. Bad Faith Awards: Vote for the winner now

Comment #94469 by NormanDoering on December 5, 2007 at 5:47 pm

Why isn't George Bush on the list?

96. Why Science Can't Save the Republican Party

Comment #93948 by NormanDoering on December 4, 2007 at 1:35 pm

STLstrike3 asked:

Why are the religious lauding this new procedure as any less "inhumane"?

You're asking the wrong people. Go to a Christian forum and ask them. Then come back here and report.

97. Why Science Can't Save the Republican Party

Comment #93900 by NormanDoering on December 4, 2007 at 12:29 pm

arogop wrote:

Well you definitely started engaging me in a constructive conversation. Now if we can get you to put down the insults, maybe we can accomplish something.

What insults? I inform you that you're stupid and you blame me for you being stupid? Listen, you're just going to have to learn to live with that liability. If you don't believe me then you need to have your brain tested against a chimp:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1949,Chimps-beat-humans-in-memory-test,BBC

The chimp will probably win.

As far as educating the fundies let me point out that this site is full of converted fundies.

But none of them were high ups in well paid political orgs. Money can keep one converted. Jesus pays if you're corrupt enough.

Very few people are born atheist...

We're all born atheists.

...and allowed to choose their own religion as I was.

You have a religion?

I would also like to point out that the atheist message is not getting out.

Oh, it's out there. It's just not sinking in.

Of course you will pander to the other side and I will pander to my side. Then we can fight about things that really matter like "does it taste great or is it less filling".

Yep. I sure can't join you in supporting Rudy 9/11 Giuliani's 9/11 candidacy 9/11.

But I'll give you this. Rudy probably would support embryonic stem cell research and he won't try to overturn Roe V. Wade. But I get that from almost every Democrat out there plus a rational take on the war.

Yes, I mostly vote straight ticket.

Well stop that!

And you voted for Bush twice, right?

Yes, I was a little slow waking up to the threat of the Christian Wrong.

Mark my words, you still are slow to waking up.

We all are.

One day we'll all find out to our horror that Pat Robertson is a CIA operative and they use religion for mind control.

I still believe, and as long as I do there is still hope.

That's so religious of you.

98. Why Science Can't Save the Republican Party

Comment #93846 by NormanDoering on December 4, 2007 at 10:01 am

arogop wrote:

All we need to do is to throw off the Fundys and send them back to the other side. Or better yet, educate them, so that they can join us too. If that makes me delusional, then so be it, and pass the cheese.

If you think you can throw off the Fundies or educate them while continuing to vote a straight Republican ticket, then yes, you are delusional.

They have to start losing. Am I correct to assume you vote straight ticket Republican? You sound like you do (most people vote straight tickets). As long as you do then you're helping the fundies.

Your idea about voting in the Republican primaries isn't that bad -- but what choice do you really have? Ron Paul? He's not going to make it. All the other presidential candidates are pandering to the fundies. Even John McCain, and he can't pander enough to make up for the put downs he gave them when he ran against Bush.

You're right, there are a few good Republicans out there -- Arnold Schwarzenegger and others like him. And Schwarzenegger won in a Democratic state. But I think Schwarzenegger is stupid and a part of the problem by hanging on to his Republican identification just like you. He helps put a mask on a party that has been taken over by Christianists.

What makes you guys stupid is how blind you are to how deeply the Christianists have taken over your party. The fact that you think you can throw them out now proves you're delusional. You can't.

99. Why Science Can't Save the Republican Party

Comment #93651 by NormanDoering on December 3, 2007 at 8:16 pm

You're famous now arogop:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/12/are-republicans-stupid.html

Here are the last two paragraphs:

So, there you have it: Stupid reasons that some people are still Republicans. Three mostly meaningless, ego-flattering platitudes that the Republican party pretends to stand for but doesn't. The new, Christianist Republican party is opposed to all three of those things. They want bigger, intrusive government, which is what you'll get if the individual freedom implied by Roe v. Wade is overturned. And who knows what other laws they'd like to put back on the books. They want corporate and church welfare too.

And even if they didn't want those things, in order to stand for them you have to be against someone who opposes them. So, the platitudes automatically imply that Hillary, Barack and Joe Biden are against Capitalism, free markets and individual freedom. I don't think they are. So, the platitudes are empty lies.

100. Why Science Can't Save the Republican Party

Comment #93589 by NormanDoering on December 3, 2007 at 3:01 pm

arogop wrote:

So I guess you are saying that Capitalism is stupid.

Nope. But you are saying that Democrats are anti-Capitalism.

That Libertarian beliefs are also stupid.

Yep. Big "L," extreme, Libertarian beliefs are stupid.

Thanks for your thoughtful insight. I will cherish your wisdom.

Wait and see. I have not written my response yet. You're just digging the hole for your stupidness deeper.

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