19 comments posted · 1 followers · following 1

473 weeks ago @ Atheist Revolution - Getting Death Threats · 1 reply · +5 points

You really should report him to the authorities. This needs to stop now before he actaully follows through on his threats. He has threatened me before too.

476 weeks ago @ Secular News Daily - Young kids can't help ... · 0 replies · +2 points

With only 3 years of experience in life with most of the time having adults teach and tell you things that are true, of course children are inclined to trust them over and over again despite sometimes being lied to. They thing the adult must have made a mistake, or don't understand what went wrong, but they have no experience or reason to disbelieve adults that they have come to trust in their mere few years of experience in life. A pattern hasn't been identified yet, it takes more time to identify this pattern. That is, over time we are repeatedly lied to or misguided, and after enough time we start to see the pattern and signs of deceit, at this time we start to grow some healthly skepticism.

478 weeks ago @ Secular News Daily - Montana woman attacks ... · 0 replies · +12 points

She should have offered to buy it first. Than she can burn it, hit it with a crow bar, rip it up, what ever she wants. But to destroy anothers property, anothers artistic interpretation, is very um, un-jesus-like. Is this what Jesus would do? Her savior wasn't as tough as nails when the crowbar came smashing down. She just desecrated her lord with her actions. The religious are such hypocrites.

478 weeks ago @ Secular News Daily - Does Religious Experie... · 0 replies · +2 points

Even if the skeptic points out that these so call personal divine experiences could easily be interpreted as nothing more than natural awe-inspiring events rather than “divine,” the theist will take advantage or the subjectiveness of personals experiences and will simply say that skeptics are “denying” god or denying the so-called divinity of the experience. To the skeptic, this will just be more evidence that theists are falling victim to confirmation bias and applying the unnecessary value of divinity on any significant meaningful awe-inspiring event. So this appeal to personal experiences does not trump skeptical arguments, it ironically appeals to subjectivity on something they want you to believe is so objectively solid.

480 weeks ago @ Atheist Revolution - On Offending Others · 0 replies · +3 points

This has been something I have recognized for some time. If somebody is offended by something it is because of their own dispositions. They are the ones that *allow* their feelings to get hurt. If we went around all day being so careful not to offend anyone, we wouldn't be able to say or do anything at all, because anyone can take offense to anything if they allow themselves to be moved.
My recent post One potential

489 weeks ago @ Atheist Revolution - What is God? · 0 replies · +7 points

If extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, then how is it that a single word which represents such an extraordinary claim has the ability to survive for such a long time without extraordinary evidence to support it’s implications? Simple, never clearly define the word to begin with, and allow it’s hosts to adapt it’s definition to the environment. Allow it’s authors to change the definition and characteristics of the word at their will. Allow it to be redefined over and over again so that it can conveniently attempt to avoid old and new contradicting evidence. Permit people to redefine it at any time to meet their own personal needs. I present to you, the independently experienced personal “god.”

It’s evasiveness is legendary, it’s definition is elusive, it’s meaning is adaptable, it is intangible to all except to the one who provokes the thought. It is the impalpable, definition shifting, meme replicating, evasive “god” expression.
My recent post One Nation Underdog

505 weeks ago @ Atheist Revolution - Wasting Your Time · 0 replies · -1 points

This comment just wasted my time as well so now we are even. But since are actions and very being is determined by the stipulations of our environment, I cannot justify blaming you. The true culprit is causality. We are victims of circumstance, moved and ultimately determined by the conditions of our environment.

505 weeks ago @ Atheist Revolution - Wasting Your Time · 0 replies · -1 points

Ha! As though you have an obligation to readers to always write about atheism. It's your blog so you can write about whatever you want. Readers aren't being forced to read the topics that don't interest them. What an unappreciative ignorant thing of him to say. Even if one were to consider it as time wasted, you aren't the one wasting his time, HE is wasting his time. I never cease to be amazed. My amazement is of course my own fault for holding expectations.

507 weeks ago @ Atheist Revolution - Atheist Activists: Sta... · 1 reply · +1 points

Those that insist we be more passive and rather we just stfu are mistaken when the propose that this method would be more "persuasive." If we were to do that, our voice would not be heard at all and the religious right would continue to go unchallenged as they have in the past. The people that propose we silence ourselves are still under the impression that religion, belief, and the concept of a god, should be free from criticism unlike all other things we remain critical of in our lives. They mistake our critiques for intolerance, when our critiques are really nothing more than constructive criticism with an aim towards progress and "keeping it real." Not to mention they hold a double standard when they do not object to the religious rights outspokenness. On a side note, Unlike the gays through the 50's-70's, at least we have the most valuable medium of the internet at our disposal to communicate and share information.

508 weeks ago @ Atheist Revolution - Why is There Something... · 0 replies · 0 points

"Why is there something rather than nothing?" is just a poor and unproductive way to ask "where did every-thing come from?" The problem with the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is that it is presented in a way as though "nothing" is another something that could "be," which is not what "nothing" defines.

Only "something" can "be." There cannot "be" nothing, because "nothing" doesn't exist, it isn't something, and therefore there is't anything to nothing to "be."

We can't say "well, there is both something and nothing" because nothing "isn't" There isn't an "is" to nothing. There can only be an "is" to "something."

But that question asks for an "is" to nothing - "Why 'is' there something rather than nothing?"

They might as well ask "why are circles round but squares aren't?" It is just as silly.