gdp's Comments

Unenslaved : Blog Party II

Wed, 23 Mar 2011 01:48:08 +0000

I scoff at your word count requirement. http://near-earth.com/2011/03/20/un-americanizing...

Attempts at Rational Behavior : We have a voice in Washington

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 14:22:01 +0000

We actually asked about the Islamo-Communo-Socio-Bozo-fascist thing, and let's just say, they didn't say he *wasn't*! I am lying.

No 2 Religion - Just Say No! : It May Not Be Alright But It Is Not All Wrong

Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:28:32 +0000

I'm glad you're not dispirited. I know, of course, that in order for things not to totally fall apart, we have to keep pushing back. But as for that better world I think we all hope for, well.... -Paul Fidalgo

Attempts at Rational Behavior : Why do Christians have Thursdays on their calendars?

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:51:31 +0000

I know the answer. They're waiting for the Vogon constructor fleet to destroy the Earth to make way for a new hypserspace bypass, and they know it will happen on a Thursday.

Attempts at Rational Behavior : I give you, the Sarah Palin patriots....

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:43:36 +0000

Oh god it still hurts.

Attempts at Rational Behavior : I give you, the Sarah Palin patriots....

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:39:02 +0000

This hurts me.

Common Sense Plus : A point of view worthy of attention:

Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:34:31 +0000

Hey, thanks so much!

Attempts at Rational Behavior : Christians Are Delusional

Mon, 2 Nov 2009 02:53:48 +0000

Well, here's the thing. The video is spot on in substance. I think the delivery could use some polish -- it reminds me of some of the wingnut "here's how we know Obama is a muslim" videos. Oh, and it says "with luck," which of course, we don't believe in as a force affecting reality. Right? :)

Life Without Faith : My 2009 AAI convention speech

Sun, 1 Nov 2009 20:30:48 +0000

Well it was a hell of an important talk. You best headline in Montreal.

Attempts at Rational Behavior : A Brush With Fame

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:45:11 +0000

Oh you are so welcome. :)

Attempts at Rational Behavior : Ignoramus of the Week: FilmDoctor

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:07:12 +0000

I love this series.

Attempts at Rational Behavior : Well, the rapture IS tomorrow

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:28:09 +0000

Yes. I gon.

Common Sense Plus : Watch your heads students...

Thu, 8 Oct 2009 14:40:55 +0000

Google clearly needs to work on its atheist ad algorithm. :) By the way, Lawrence Krauss showed us at the AAI conference that it might be that something *must always* come from nothing. Crazy, right?

Atheist Revolution : Understanding Atheism and Agnosticism

Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:41:14 +0000

And that position -- maybe I do, maybe I don't -- implies that one is *holding out* on belief. Until one goes to the side of actually choosing to believe, then one hasn't actually *begun* believing, making one, for all intents and purposes, atheistic. It doesn't make them a Dawkins or Harris, but it does make them a nonbeliever until they start believing. I think, anyway.

Atheist Revolution : Understanding Atheism and Agnosticism

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:19:31 +0000

The way I've heard it best described is as such: If you are agnostic you are *functionally* an atheist, because "not being sure" means, explicitly, that as of now, you *don't* believe. So mutual exclusivity is partly right, but really, if you're an agnostic, you're also an atheist until/if you decide to start believing.

Atheist Revolution : News Corp and GE CEOs Put End to Olbermann-O\'Reilly Feud

Sat, 1 Aug 2009 15:36:52 +0000

You're right on. The problem is not too much animosity toward Fox News, it's that there's not enough from all corners of the news media. The fact that they're treated like a real news outlet is absurd and offensive, and the idea that corporate parents are the ones dictating the hosts' behavior is sick. Remember, though, Keith did say he is "party to no deal." Here's hoping.

Atheist Revolution : Opposing Anti-Atheist Bigotry While Mocking the Religious

Thu, 14 May 2009 13:37:51 +0000

Agreed. I think a good guidepost is whether we are making a better argument on a general or specific point in what we're doing through our satire, jibes, etc. I imagine that it's almost always the intention to do so. There is another question of a saturation of a particular aesthetic -- how we fill up all this cyberspace. When I said I can become "weary" of look-at-the-silly-fundie-Christian, it's in part because it's sooooo common, so easy, often poorly done, and so much pixelage is used up in it, when I'm more concerned with what we as a maligned minority do to change minds. "I get it, the Bible is contradictory -- I already AGREE with you on that. What next?" Again, I do my share, but it is on the whole far less interesting to me than more substantive cases or critiques, particularly when those Bible contradictions, for example, are used to hurt or oppress people. THEN it's release-the-hounds time. And I still don't know whether Cameron is a loon anymore. Perhaps he is another species of bird. And this is not atheists' most serious divide, I don't think. I think it's goals; ends.

Atheist Revolution : Opposing Anti-Atheist Bigotry While Mocking the Religious

Thu, 14 May 2009 03:38:40 +0000

Oh, and to be clear, I'm the Paul from the post.

Atheist Revolution : Opposing Anti-Atheist Bigotry While Mocking the Religious

Thu, 14 May 2009 02:57:01 +0000

Woo boy, I just can't win on this one. Okay, let me just be clear about one point. Vjack writes: "Personally, I see pointing out the problems associated with irrational belief to be both a right and a responsibility. When Cameron introduces gibberish into the discourse, he deserves to be called on it. Paul agrees with this but says that the line should be drawn at mockery. I'd argue that if the statements warrant mockery, they should receive it." To be clear: I am pro-mockery when it is warranted. What I was trying to parse, ever-so-carefully (and obviously unsuccessfully) is the difference between mocking a person as a whole versus a belief or tenet they espouse. I don't claim to know exactly where the magic line is between appropriate and inappropriate degrees of mockery, what precisely warrants it, etc., etc. This is still muddy. Let me try this: What I don't want is mockery for the purpose of hurting folks for no good reason. Bringing down hypocrites, liars, demagogues, etc. is important mockery work, but mockery for the sake of just feeling better about ourselves (no matter who "ourselves" is), I'm not so down with that. I am sometimes guilty of it, but it's on the whole a waste of intellectual energy. But look, I have been accused of both sides of this, being too mean and being too eager to buckle. All I want is for people to think about what they intend. Do they want to right a wrong, point out a fallacy or an injustice, or do they just want to seem cool or clever or superior? The answer is not always clear, but I think it's always a good thing to consider. Considering things, I think, is good, and is/ought to be a hallmark of we nontheists. Okay? Who's still really angry at me? I'll keep doing this forever. I am very conflict averse. :)

Atheist Revolution : The Problem with Examiner.com

Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:52:13 +0000

Just for the record, this Examiner concurs.