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 GodlessHeathen


101. Comic in US 'hate speech' row

Comment #44865 by GodlessHeathen on May 25, 2007 at 12:21 pm

I can't believe anyone takes issue with what he says. He states clearly that he'd just like the Islamics to get on with their own lives and stop spending so much time being deliberately offended - the UK is a plural country, right? That means even recent immigrants need to learn to get along with those who disagree with them.

If it's un-British to fail to get along in a society with a free idea market, then "bloody foreigners coming over with their un-British-ness" it is, then!


28. Comment #44823 by DNAtheist on May 25, 2007 at 10:53 am
Elliot Cohen clearly has no idea what the first amendment means, but that isn't surprising to me. Living in Berkeley taught me that the extreme left is no more repectful of freedom than the right-wing loons that I had to deal with in Alabama. Both sides think that it is okay to restrict the liberty of others in order to force them to be "good." They just disagree on the definition of "good."
Hear here!

102. Comic in US 'hate speech' row

Comment #44761 by GodlessHeathen on May 25, 2007 at 9:01 am

Pat Condell is brilliant. Utterly brilliant. His videos never fail to leave me smiling.

Ok, for the PC crowd, here's a broad lesson:

Not hate speech:
"You're full of crap and your ideas are loony!"

Hate speech:
"You and your kind need to die because you're full of crap and your ideas are loony!"

See the difference?

And one other thing for that PC crowd:
Islam isn't a race. It's a belief system. Saying "Muslims have some seriously screwed up ideas" isn't racist, it's only strongly disagreeing with someone's opinions (beliefs, see). It's no more racist that saying "Republicans have some screwed up ideas", ok?

Oi. Blinders on, hate that no matter the reason for it.


Oh, and Pat responds to this silliness himself.

103. Gay flamingos pick up chick

Comment #44750 by GodlessHeathen on May 25, 2007 at 8:51 am

While admiring our local zoo's pink flamingos, a woman read aloud to her two young children from a display placard that discussed the two males there who are pair-bonded like Carlos and Fernando. She said it was probably all the pink, which I found an amusing off-remark.

Then she sneered and complained to the air that the zoo had no right to keep dying the birds that color.

Anyhow, it's great to see nature's examples. =^.^=

104. Penn & Teller's Bullshit - Holier Than Thou With Christopher Hitchens

Comment #44735 by GodlessHeathen on May 25, 2007 at 8:34 am

An excellent episode of "Bullshit!". Depressed me no end - never mind they didn't say anything I didn't already know - as the subject always makes me wish we had real-life heroes as perfect as our imagined ones.

Also enjoyed the fact they "let slip" the video of Hitchens being more interested in his glass of whiskey and fag over answering a question. No one's perfect, hmm? =^.^=

105. Fears for Democracy in India

Comment #44722 by GodlessHeathen on May 25, 2007 at 8:18 am

Wow. I read the last two paragraphs several times - I have to say she makes the clearest example of the primary flaw perpetuating these messes worldwide.

106. A galactic fossil - Star is found to be 13.2 billion years old

Comment #43902 by GodlessHeathen on May 23, 2007 at 3:48 am

1. Comment #43884 by sane1 on May 23, 2007 at 3:26 am
What's this thing doing on our galaxy then?
Mostly converting hydrogen into helium, I would imagine. =^.^=

107. The God question

Comment #43899 by GodlessHeathen on May 23, 2007 at 3:43 am

An exceptional review. I had rather expected something else entirely.

108. Despite what the scholars say, God isn't dead yet

Comment #43893 by GodlessHeathen on May 23, 2007 at 3:37 am

*pokes god with a stick*

Looks right dead t' me! (Nietzsche dun said so.)

Kohn needs to view the show again, if all that leaped out was the one Nuremberg rally comment. Lots more to be offended over if one is a panicky little faith-head.

109. Some US Muslims say suicide attacks OK

Comment #43887 by GodlessHeathen on May 23, 2007 at 3:29 am

Personally, I find this little revelation quite atrocious. These would be the same folks who demand religious tolerance, mid, while their own intolerance...

BOOM!


...is hard to criticize while in fear of your life, I suppose.

110. The root of all evil?

Comment #43828 by GodlessHeathen on May 22, 2007 at 8:24 pm

36. Comment #43826 by Russell Blackford on May 22, 2007 at 7:54 pm
The article makes mistakes, e.g. the "Darwin's rottweiler" sobriquet was, AFAIK, intended as a kind of compliment.
Definitely complimentary - a reference to Huxley calling himself "Darwin's Bulldog" (Thomas, not John - though it is a cute irony).

Missing on a few little facts is, as you say, inevitable given the pressures journalists are under, it's crap like the following, however...:
Not just God, whom he denounces, in Old Testament guise as "the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it, petty, vindictive, unjust, unforgiving, racist, an ethnic-cleanser urging his people on to acts of genocide". But church schools, miracles, heaven and hell, too. Faith, hope, meaning: things more important, for many people, than life itself.
That's pure bias, a pandering to emotion. I find that inappropriate for journalism (except perhaps on the op/ed page).

111. Freethinking Ruins All Things

Comment #42651 by GodlessHeathen on May 18, 2007 at 10:53 pm

66. Comment #42642 by bouwe on May 18, 2007 at 9:07 pm
I just googled "define: freisinning" and got nothing. Ditto for "freisinnig". Went to Freedictionary...got nothing.

Anyone know what the hell it means?
(One should at least learn something from reading crap like this.)
It looks like a mild mis-spelling of a german word, "freisinnig", which means something like "free-sense" - so far as I can tell.

112. Manufacturing belief

Comment #42425 by GodlessHeathen on May 18, 2007 at 7:28 am

Comment #42418 by EG on May 18, 2007 at 7:16 am
thanks again for the response. we would then expect to see all red and purple flowers (closest to IR and UV)? the later pressures then (those that produced orange and yellow flowers) i'm assuming would have to have been later on.
Actually, you can easily end up with yellow and orange visible range light, depending on the molecules being used to reflect light, when better reflecting infra- and ultra- light ranges. I'm not an expert on how all that works, mind, I'm offering it as one example as was offered me to explain evolutionarily selected facets of a phenotype and by-product or emergent facets of a phenotype.

113. The Fastest-Growing Religion

Comment #42423 by GodlessHeathen on May 18, 2007 at 7:21 am

16. Comment #42387 by uzi on May 18, 2007 at 6:28 am
GodlessHeathen: if natural evolution (nature) didn't create us, then surely with a name like you have you don't believe in some supernatural miracle creation? So how did we get here if it wasn't god and it wasn't evolution?
"Creation" implies intent. There was no intent, it just worked out that way via evolution. I'm just being a pedant as usual. =^.^=

114. Manufacturing belief

Comment #42413 by GodlessHeathen on May 18, 2007 at 7:07 am

21. Comment #42395 by EG on May 18, 2007 at 6:46 am
I'm a bit curious as to what the difference is exactly. How are these distinctions made?
Without claiming that I know this distinction actually makes a difference, I only suspect so:

Flowers adapted to be attractive to insects mostly in the infra-red and ultraviolet ranges, these frequencies being something bees see in better than the visible light ranges we see in. The bright colors in the visible range we see are not what was "selected" by nature, rather a by-product of the selection. That is, to reflect more ultra-violet light, the shift also ended up reflecting more bright purples in our visible spectrum, too. This purple had nothing to do with the select-ability of the flower. They seem to have little, if any, baring on the flower's evolution (at least initially, there is no rule saying the flower's colors could not later be a component in further evolutionary pressures).

Religion may not have been "selected", rather religion is a result of "purposeful thinking" which was "selected" and religion is purposeful thinking's purple color.

115. Pedal power takes Islamic shape in Iran

Comment #42402 by GodlessHeathen on May 18, 2007 at 6:54 am

Does this mean my idea of opening a raised-pedal recumbent bike shop in Iran is ill-advised?

116. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42398 by GodlessHeathen on May 18, 2007 at 6:47 am

I sit humbled by my inability to comprehend this new model. Seems to end up with many more questions than are answered (but that's the thing with this stuff, que no?) I'm going to have to spend time soon looking into this and seeing what old models i need to consider discarded in order to more clearly see what's going on here. The whole "beginning/no beginning" question is one that fascinates me.

117. Manufacturing belief

Comment #42392 by GodlessHeathen on May 18, 2007 at 6:34 am

Wolpert seems to be suggesting that as religion polishes what scares us most into rewards and positives, it reduces one's stress and helps prevent illness that stems from stress.

This doesn't fit my personal observations very well. Teens in very religious situations - Christian situations - are very often *highly* stressed, their hormone soaked brains "sinning" like crazy with lust making them very worried for their postmortem destination, etc.

Perhaps he really only suggests that a belief in an afterlife is what improves health. Someone seeing their disease as having two possible positive outcomes - recovery or entry into Elysium - would not be terribly stressed about being in such dire straights.

Of course, if such a believer was having a very poor and hard life, he or she might opt instead to skip the getting medical attention bit to hasten their passing into paradise.

Honestly, I don't think a case can be made that religion is the result of evolutionary selection, rather more a by-product of it.

As for the memes involved - well, I think their virulent nature tells us that the only reason they've not been selected out in favor of some alternate memes is simply that they've not finished killing off their hosts yet. *shrug*

118. The Fastest-Growing Religion

Comment #42380 by GodlessHeathen on May 18, 2007 at 6:15 am

Nature didn't "create" us. Worshiping nature is on par with worshiping an imaginary being, neither cares as they simply are not capable of caring.

That's not to say that being out and enjoying nature and feeling a part of it won't generate those wonderful, warm, almost transcendent feelings so oft associated with religious fervor.

Wiccans get their religious experiences of that sort with more regularity than other religious sorts, I hear. They also don't seem to have developed the "One True Religion" meme very much (they are not a very old religion, though, despite claims otherwise. I expect their highly tolerant fluffy-bunny nature to harden given time).

(Sorry that this rather turned into a stream-of-consciousness post.)

119. Dobson, Armageddon, and Foreign Policy

Comment #42373 by GodlessHeathen on May 18, 2007 at 6:03 am

Sam Harris has offered a phrase that well describes that conversation, "genocidal stupidity".

120. Freethinking Ruins All Things

Comment #42372 by GodlessHeathen on May 18, 2007 at 5:51 am

I must admire the sometimes pretty shapes his mind makes as it wraps itself up in pretzel-like knotty shapes trying to get to his conclusions.

121. Faith-Based Fraud

Comment #42170 by GodlessHeathen on May 17, 2007 at 6:44 pm

Close yer font tag, friend Tyler. =^.^=



Aussie: I'd say distinguished titles are already possessed by the lot, PhD, Master of the Art or Science and all that. What needs be done is restoration of the kind of respect for the efforts required to earn such titles deserves. (Such respect has not vanished, so the task is accomplish-able.)

122. Ask Richard!

Comment #41734 by GodlessHeathen on May 16, 2007 at 6:30 pm

"The Selfish Gene" is the book that brought me real understanding of evolution. I don't at all mind seeing it get real attention - especially now what with "ID" trying to obfuscate the issue.
TGD is only one part of the set, a fresh look at the sciences is another part. We can't let any of it be neglected. =^.^=

123. Hitchens' flat world

Comment #41417 by GodlessHeathen on May 16, 2007 at 5:20 am

Hitchens inhabits a flat world, devoid of the spirit even broadly understood, and thinks that he can see farther, not realizing that he has razed all the interesting features of the landscape.
What the [expletive] does that mean? The only interesting features of the landscape are those which stem from our imaginations? Is this becollared writer serious, or am I feeling a tug at my leg?

124. Christopher Hitchens Explains It All for You: Move over, Sam Harris; another atheist wants the pulpit

Comment #41255 by GodlessHeathen on May 15, 2007 at 5:32 pm

And yet another article where one comes away feeling like the author was trying to settle his own fears.

125. BBC man says 'I was wrong to lose it. But these scientologists are truly scary'

Comment #40775 by GodlessHeathen on May 15, 2007 at 12:29 am

The Panorama episode is available online for a while here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/default.stm

I'm not sure how anyone could manage "fair and balanced" with a Tom Cruise clone poking at you at every turn. Paranoid and delusional is the only way I could describe that Scientology nutter.

126. Why Christopher Hitchens is not Great

Comment #40731 by GodlessHeathen on May 14, 2007 at 8:06 pm

Yet another article that reads like someone soothing his own fears.

127. Face-Off: Can You Prove God Exists?

Comment #40727 by GodlessHeathen on May 14, 2007 at 7:45 pm

The RSS kids were challenged by the WotM fundies after Nightline did a piece on the RSS's "Blasphemy Challenge". I think they did exceptionally well considering this was their first major debate, and I see no need to replace them with older, more experienced debaters (If for no other reason than these young and eager kids need to get their experience to be the next generation's experienced, skilled debaters.)

128. Let us pray for the soul of Richard Dawkins

Comment #40285 by GodlessHeathen on May 14, 2007 at 4:45 am

Accusations of "berating" and "outrage" without a single quote. I find that telling.

The whole article reads like someone soothing their own fears.

129. Does God Exist? The Nightline Face-Off

Comment #39761 by GodlessHeathen on May 11, 2007 at 9:40 pm

5. Comment #39759 by MIND_REBEL on May 11, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Brian Sapient is just too intelligent for the meme infested theist. Science will always trump religion.
I thought Kelly was the one who really blasted the "arguments" of the whackos theists.

130. Does God Exist? The Nightline Face-Off

Comment #39757 by GodlessHeathen on May 11, 2007 at 9:27 pm

I want to pull back the curtain and show that the number one reason that people don't believe in God is not a lack in evidence, but because of a theory that many scientists today believe to be a fairytale for grownups.
Where are these "many" scientists? I know of a total of four who say this, not a one of them biologists, zoologists or any other field of study that would put them in direct contact with the theory of evolution. And of the four, only 2 describe evolution in those terms, the other two express doubt only, rather than outright rejection.
Am I just out of touch?

Anyone else notice this? Or am I being sensitive?
I've already seen comments to that effect from other non-theist types who were watching. Having seen both the largely unedited version and the Nightline edit, I say the difference is just striking and sad, very much slanting the Nightline version for the whackos theists.

131. God . . . in other words

Comment #39070 by GodlessHeathen on May 9, 2007 at 11:23 pm

The gaps seem to be too small now, and god needs to shift to another dimension.

Ruth sure is trying hard to keep god alive. She failed to answer "Why then call it god?" like most moderates when they retreat too far and find the definition of "god" they just used isn't so divine.

132. Cardinal: homosexuality a form of prostitution

Comment #39037 by GodlessHeathen on May 9, 2007 at 8:06 pm

(see, for example, Spence Publishing's Homosexuality in American Public Life, edited by Christopher Wolfe)
For anyone who may not already know, Spence Publishing is a profoundly right-wing publisher. Pulling these supporting "facts" out of thin air, no doubt.

133. Better God-fearing than sneering

Comment #38721 by GodlessHeathen on May 9, 2007 at 3:24 am

Usual fare, this. I wish repetition comforted me like it seems to comfort so many theists.

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

Comment #38436 by GodlessHeathen on May 8, 2007 at 5:02 am

109. Comment #38433 by bouwe on May 8, 2007 at 4:53 am
It is of course a sub-species of creationism.
Well, to be stuffed into Pedant's Corner myself: No, ID is not a sub-species of creationism, ID is creationism dressed in a white lab coat.

And muddying the waters of the "debate" is all the creationists have. Your point is well taken: Semantics is the game they play - emotion over reason.

135. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #38421 by GodlessHeathen on May 8, 2007 at 4:03 am

51. Comment #38404 by xXxELNINJAxXx on May 8, 2007 at 2:41 am
@ sdlvx's comment:

THAT is why I'm not an Atheist.
What a silly reason to believe in a deity.

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

Comment #38418 by GodlessHeathen on May 8, 2007 at 3:52 am

101. Comment #38409 by mathews on May 8, 2007 at 3:29 am
Well I emailed her, with what I hope constitutes proof, as per her request. I wonder if she got many emails in relation to that. I would hope so.
With demonstrably false claims of benefit and un-backed assertions throughout the article, I have to say I rather doubt she's interested in seeing any proof of de-conversion. I doubt anything anyone could provide would be recognized as evidence, never mind proof.
I've sent her an e-mail inquiring as to what, exactly, would constitute proof. I do not expect reply.

137. New Noah's Ark ready to sail

Comment #35945 by GodlessHeathen on April 29, 2007 at 12:20 pm

44. Comment #35922 by AnatheistinNigeria on April 29, 2007 at 10:40 am
When I read this article, I felt ashamed to be Dutch.

I still think that these bible thumpers are still a small minority in the Netherlands
Is he really a bible-thumper? A believer, sure, but is he one of those who goes about preaching/witnessing at folks?

This looks to me like someone who did their car up like it was from Star Trek, or someone who built a full-size replica of the bridge of a Star Wars ship. Just a big, wacky fan of some fiction.

138. New Noah's Ark ready to sail

Comment #35841 by GodlessHeathen on April 29, 2007 at 3:12 am

"It's past comprehension," said Mary Louise Starosciak
You can say that again.

139. Scene Caused by Christian Group at NYC Stage Show

Comment #35831 by GodlessHeathen on April 29, 2007 at 2:58 am

that was... astonishing. I've never witnessed such a crass, disgusting, hateful, self-righteous act such as that, and I hope seeing such a thing via video is the closest I ever get.

Mr. Daisey's description of talking with the bloke who wrecked his show outline is very revealing. This "Christian" man is just a run-of-the-mill sort, not driven by a lust for power or by a need to do great things, so his sample isn't tinged - and if Daisey's observations are correct, non-Christians are... what? Non people? I've seen that kind of thing before, folks treating other folks as things, up 'till someone mentions being a Christian, then it's all fellowship and smiles.

Is religion bad? Surely that demonstrates one of the primary reasons the answer is yes.

140. A Brief History of Disbelief

Comment #35686 by GodlessHeathen on April 28, 2007 at 10:07 am

This series and "The Atheist Tapes" are true gems - lots to learn from.

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v290167nBNFCMmq

141. Two idiots get a forum

Comment #35641 by GodlessHeathen on April 28, 2007 at 4:28 am

Take it like good little apologists and suffer.

PZ has a beautiful way with words.

I'm going to watch this "debate" no matter who they may be up against. I like a good comedy.

I hope very much someone will bring a wild banana plant to show Ray Comfort how not-quite perfectly designed it is for our primate hands.

142. Evolution Booklet

Comment #35524 by GodlessHeathen on April 27, 2007 at 1:19 pm

Don't count on that, Friend Giskard. Our day teacher has been looking for an accessible overview of evolution, and this is going to be on her desk tomorrow morning. I don't foresee the religious folks' views on page 12 as being any barrier, since she thinks a lot like I do.

143. God Is in the Dendrites

Comment #35456 by GodlessHeathen on April 27, 2007 at 8:09 am

I would love to be a subject in Persinger's experiment. How nifty!

Personally I see this idea of the right hemisphere as spiritual resonator and similar don't-bug-the-theist ideas as just that, cushioned edges for the theists. Adding god is multiplying entities quite unnecessarily.

144. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #35354 by GodlessHeathen on April 27, 2007 at 1:21 am

People eventually attain good behaviour by cherry picking the texts or twisting the meaning of the more absurd teachings.
I disagree. People's behavior is far more the result of societal pressures, a moral zeitgeist if you will, taught by parents and surrounding adults by example and punishment and reward.

Religion is then made to reflect the zeitgeist - thus all the cherry picking, why modern Christians don't stone their children to death for being snots.

savroD's analogy wasn't about religion so much as it was on the problem of defending religion based on the (in my opinion incorrect) idea it has some good in it. It's a disgusting mess, just because some of the porcelain still has a shiny spot or two doesn't mean it doesn't need cleaning.

145. Study: Religion is Good for Kids

Comment #35351 by GodlessHeathen on April 27, 2007 at 12:47 am

smooth said in 72 (#35349):
Obedience == bad
Pardon my pedantry, but:

unquestioning obedience == bad

Obedience has its uses, but it is never to be given lightly, and is to be retracted on evidence of its abuse.

If there's anything the Milgram experiment demonstrates, it's that people wanting to do good while not understanding the situation are quite dangerous.

146. Study: Religion is Good for Kids

Comment #34971 by GodlessHeathen on April 25, 2007 at 7:15 pm

I work with teens who are "at risk" (a silly term as the reason they are in a treatment program is they've already run afoul of the law).

Every last parent is religious, and I don't mean ticks a religion on the submittal form.

The basic assumption of this article is that quiet obedience is "good". What an assumption! What use is an adult who never questions authority? (Oh, wait...)

147. Imagine No Religion

Comment #34802 by GodlessHeathen on April 25, 2007 at 9:41 am

Coolwainy; I do wish y'all would read about a little before posting. You're not saying anything at all new, and more to the point, not saying anything that has not already been refuted in a number of ways.

148. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #34782 by GodlessHeathen on April 25, 2007 at 8:30 am

weefree: Yes - I thought it might. Another man thought Nietzsche was spot on in his analysis of Christianity and he was prepared to take advice about using any expedient to get rid of it. First of all he went for the Jews - his name was Hitler. If you really think there is nothing wrong with Neitzsche's opinion then you have just proved my view point that fundamentalist atheism is not only intolerant but dangerous.
That leap from someone agreeing with Nietzsche on that point to a comparison with Hitler is nothing more than ad hominem. It contributes nothing to the debate, and it is the sort of thing you are in the habit of doing. This is why you get labeled a troll.

149. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #34707 by GodlessHeathen on April 25, 2007 at 1:14 am

3. Comment #34692 by robives on April 25, 2007 at 12:01 am
avatarIn the newspaper hard copy the list of authors at the end of the article is a box out. Linda MacDonald is the byline for the box.
Thank you, Robives!

150. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #34688 by GodlessHeathen on April 24, 2007 at 11:29 pm

"Tiresome guff", indeed. I'm not convinced that a sharp prod now and again isn't going to have a positive effect in the long run. Offended on hearing it, later contemplating it and seeing the point just from the emotional memory.

Is it just me, or does the article seem cut off? The name "Linda MacDonald" seems to sit there looking to be attached to a paragraph as the names above. Could this be "Linda MacDonald Glenn", just cut off?

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 | Next