101. Let us pray for the soul of Richard Dawkins

Comment #40331 by HunterZolomon on May 14, 2007 at 6:21 am

"He was outraged"
"He berated me"
"Dawkins hatred"
"Dawkins dogma"
"world-famous apologist of secularist extremism"
"faith-bashing"
"rabid attacks"
"loudest persecutor"

Nice try fundie, noone who has ever seen or heard the Professor will recognize him from your description.

102. Londonistan Calling

Comment #39104 by HunterZolomon on May 10, 2007 at 2:16 am

"Yes, yes, yes we did say that all infidels must be beheaded, and that we hate all non-muslims, and that women are inferior but we don't really mean that, honestly, cross our heart, hope to detonate in a large crowd..."

103. Hamas 'Mickey Mouse' calls for Muslim domination on kids' show

Comment #39088 by HunterZolomon on May 10, 2007 at 12:52 am

I've seen a few of these palestinian childrens shows (not this Mickey rip-off though). I recall a muppet waving an AK-47 about proclaiming that he was going to "slaughter anyone who camped in his yard". Not a very subtle metaphor eh?

104. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38184 by HunterZolomon on May 7, 2007 at 7:27 am

Seriously challenging religion at all it seems, is intolerably hateful in some peoples eyes.

Increasingly hysterical books? Which books I wonder, is she comparing them with? Don't even get me started on that remark about "boosting the pension"...

105. Iran arrests 300 'insufficiently veiled' women

Comment #35368 by HunterZolomon on April 27, 2007 at 2:30 am

Concerning the 5 birkenstocks, I've also encountered similar individuals, both male and female. In my experience every time you discuss issues like this with them, it doesn't take long before you realize that they are merely parroting the rants of pc-bullies. They simply haven't given the situation much thought at all, let alone rational thought. It seems too many people allow others to do the thinking for them, especially when some form of pressure is involved.

106. Fighting Words: A wartime lexicon

Comment #35074 by HunterZolomon on April 26, 2007 at 6:15 am

This is going to be interesting! Just ordered mine from Amazon.

I'm not too sure about Hitchens being untrustworthy as some posters here claim. Just because he has changed his mind on a political issue. So what?
Rationality does not have a political color. I am certain that rational people of a liberal inclination have far, far more in common with rational conservatives than they do with the more dogmatic left and vice versa. From what I've read and heard of Hitchens it seems to me he is quite reasonable. Provocative sure, but maybe he just refuses to let political camps dictate his sense of ethics.

107. 'The Day They Kicked God out of the Schools' & Rebuttal

Comment #34243 by HunterZolomon on April 23, 2007 at 3:49 pm

I just knew these bastards would jump at the opportunity to inject a healthy dose of God-fear into us after the Virginia Tech shootings. For now, I hope both sides of the ongoing debate will have the decency not to use incidents such as this one to promote their agendas.

108. Thanks for the Facts. Now Sell Them.

Comment #32180 by HunterZolomon on April 16, 2007 at 5:29 am

"Using a method of persuasion keyed to your audience is sensible."

Of course it is, as long as the method of persuasion doesn't harm the integrity of science. That was what I was questioning.

109. Thanks for the Facts. Now Sell Them.

Comment #32171 by HunterZolomon on April 16, 2007 at 4:15 am

ktillyer: "You don't tell a woman how the contraceptive pill works; you just say you won't get pregnant if you take it."

Why not? Suppose she wants to know? Maybe she should know, considering its about her body.

I agree with your point about this effort being a very, very long haul. But do we really need to use "other avenues of persuasion"? What exactly, do these alternative avenues consist of? Keeping people partly in the dark?

Obviously being rude and condescending will not aid the atheist cause, but when it comes to science, what roads other than honesty and truth are viable?

110. Thanks for the Facts. Now Sell Them.

Comment #32151 by HunterZolomon on April 16, 2007 at 2:12 am

I cannot imagine exactly how Nisbet and Mooney hope scientists should communicate. "Evolution for Dummies"? This article seems to imply that scientists should be cautious about directly communicating the plain and simple truth. Why? Because some people are so entrenched in their delusional beliefs about the world they will be offended by new evidence, new theories? That they (heaven forbid) might be wrong?

Also, why is it that the word "scientist" in articles like this comes across as "inhuman alien". The word "scientist" seems to imply a cold and unfeeling character, someone who is really clever, yet struggles with the understanding of basic human emotions. A scientist should not have to revert to political tactics or sensitivity training to communicate.

Truth should be enough.

111. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31299 by HunterZolomon on April 12, 2007 at 1:20 am

Evolution is "purely random"? Science doesn't explain everything?

Somehow I thought the Vatican could come up with better arguments than this.

112. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #30827 by HunterZolomon on April 10, 2007 at 2:53 am

Neo-atheists? I think the author is referring to the atheists who are out of the closet. The ones who don't keep quiet, openly challenging dogma and delusional beleifs.

Incidentally, I celebrate Easter too. Wonderful spring tradition celebrating the coming of summer, a time to spend with your loved ones. Usually including some excellent chocolate eggs.

113. U.N. Panel OKs Measure on Islam

Comment #29754 by HunterZolomon on April 4, 2007 at 2:57 pm

"to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement and religious hatred, hostility, or violence."

I was left speechless after reading that. We all know where the hatred, hostility and violence originated in the cartoon incident.

Absolutely horrible.

114. The Fifth Flea!

Comment #28372 by HunterZolomon on March 29, 2007 at 2:09 am

I really hope these fleas get published online somewhere. I'm ashamed to say that I find a perverse sense of pleasure in reading religious damage control. Especially when they're up against RD.

115. Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare!

Comment #27901 by HunterZolomon on March 27, 2007 at 7:09 am

I'm speechless. How stupid are these people? It's as if they're proud of their ignorance. I've seen the banana one before and I couldn't believe they'd sink lower.

Speaking of Banana-Ray, I'm sure you haven't missed this:
http://www.livingwaters.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=536

116. Germany Cites Koran in Rejecting Divorce

Comment #27703 by HunterZolomon on March 26, 2007 at 8:08 am

I wouldn't call it a surprising omission Nessie. It is done, more or less, as a rule of thumb. "Religion can't possibly have anything to do with it, so why bother."

117. GM mosquito 'could fight malaria'

Comment #27701 by HunterZolomon on March 26, 2007 at 7:36 am

"It's very difficult to predict what will happen when we release these things," he added.

I've heard that quote in all horror movies I've ever seen. Giant Blood-sucking Malaria Mosquitoes from Hell. They even have glowing green eyes dammit!

118. Nigeria teacher dies 'over Koran'

Comment #27699 by HunterZolomon on March 26, 2007 at 7:17 am

I agree with previous posters. Articles like this seldom come sans the apologetic note at the end. It's as if some possible truths are so offensive and unwanted that they are censored before even a discussion has taken place. People will bend over backwards to absolve religion it seems.

72 raisins? Worth it!

119. Britain Proposes Allowing Schools to Forbid Full-Face Muslim Veils

Comment #26926 by HunterZolomon on March 22, 2007 at 10:25 am

aleprechaunist

To rational persons it is indeed a straight-forward issue. No bags over head in class. But as soon as the Invisible Magic Friend has something to do with it, complications seem unavoidable...

120. Britain Proposes Allowing Schools to Forbid Full-Face Muslim Veils

Comment #26921 by HunterZolomon on March 22, 2007 at 10:04 am

"No. We should refrain from 'banning' things for such reasons... that's my point. The ability to criticise someone's belief system is an essential part of free speech.."

If that is your point, there is no disagreement at all. I merely wished to assert that it is difficult to debate the issue leaving out the religious aspects.

121. Britain Proposes Allowing Schools to Forbid Full-Face Muslim Veils

Comment #26916 by HunterZolomon on March 22, 2007 at 9:18 am

Ah, so one should refrain from criticizing the religious aspects of the niqab because misogyny isn't illegal in Britain? I'm criticizing the niqab from a secularist point of view. Religion does come into it, big time, since it is the religious proponents of Islam who argue for it. Though I concede to your point in one way, far be it from me to criticize the cross of a catholic for example, since it has zero effect on classroom performance or interaction.

122. Britain Proposes Allowing Schools to Forbid Full-Face Muslim Veils

Comment #26906 by HunterZolomon on March 22, 2007 at 8:34 am

jonecc
The right to self-declaration? In case you missed it, we are debating a garment born out of a religious conviction that females are less worth than males and should be kept quiet and veiled. As has already been argued, it also presents serious problems in a classroom environment.

I'm sorry, but comparing the niqab to a pop-culture pin makes me question your sanity.

123. Britain Proposes Allowing Schools to Forbid Full-Face Muslim Veils

Comment #26865 by HunterZolomon on March 22, 2007 at 3:26 am

DavidMcC: Well if you were specifically referring to the to the BNP, I perfectly understand. However, I interpreted your post as if you meant to say that forbidding the niqab in public schools would be stirring up trouble. If that is the case, bring it on! :) We should not be afraid to stand up for the values we believe in. Whether they invite trouble or not.
Obviously, conducting a witchhunt on certain religious expressions is, as you say, counter-productive. I feel that this particular case though, is not something trivial.

124. Britain Proposes Allowing Schools to Forbid Full-Face Muslim Veils

Comment #26858 by HunterZolomon on March 22, 2007 at 2:55 am

Just imagine having your mother, wife, girlfriend or daughter wear a full Ku Klux Klan costume at all times in public places and perhaps you begin to see the problem...

125. Britain Proposes Allowing Schools to Forbid Full-Face Muslim Veils

Comment #26851 by HunterZolomon on March 22, 2007 at 2:18 am

I don't think this is about "stirring up trouble". The line must be drawn somewhere and in regards to this case I think it is obvious why it should be forbidden. I thought of writing something along the lines of what DistrictSelectman did, but he beat me to it. The niqab prevents identification, but worst of all *communication*. Not only a symbol of religious oppression, the niqab is a filter that prevents these girls to have a normal conversation with other people.

People who preach religious tolerance in this case should have their heads checked, or maybe covered...

126. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26656 by HunterZolomon on March 21, 2007 at 2:07 am

"radical atheism"
Atheism == religion, again. Because there's a difference between moderate and radical atheists? One group believes in God even less than not at all? Or maybe the ones who voice their opinion on the subject are the "radicals" here...

"exposing lapses in logic and errors of fact, from the vantage point of a..."
Friendly Magic Invisible Friend in the Sky.

It seems bookstore shelves will be oversaturated with religious damage control books this year...

127. Lonely Atheists of the Global Village

Comment #26307 by HunterZolomon on March 18, 2007 at 3:50 pm

Another feeble attempt at damage control. The more I read (very, very long) articles like this, the more I am convinced that Dawkins, Harris and Dennett are spot on with their books.

Concerning the ridiculous claim about Harris being hugely ignorant, writing love letters to himself to satisfy his own ego. It has become predictable indeed that fundie critics resort to the sin-of-pride strategy when attacking men whose brilliance is difficult to deny.

128. Richard Dawkins and the dangerous delusion of religion

Comment #25755 by HunterZolomon on March 15, 2007 at 3:00 am

"Well, I don't agree. I'm not especially fond of communism, but at least it never dealt in slavery and always treated men and women equally."

Some more equal than others if I recall... :)
Also, that's depending on how you define slavery. I think the problems are rather different, but one no less severe than the other.

129. A 'Sad First' in the History of the Congress

Comment #25753 by HunterZolomon on March 15, 2007 at 2:48 am

Oh dear, someone has denied the Invisible Make-believe Friend. So they want members of Congress to stand up and proclaim their delusional beliefs. Why don't they, like good Christians should, officially inform mr. Stark that he will slowly roast in Hell forever for this blasphemy? Oh, I know... :)