This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Galactic Lord Xenu's Profile

Galactic Lord Xenu's Avatar Joined over 7 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by Galactic Lord Xenu

More Discussions by Galactic Lord Xenu

Latest Comments by Galactic Lord Xenu

Go to: Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Galactic Lord Xenu's Avatar Jump to comment 247 by Galactic Lord Xenu

Sure, you're joking now, ha ha, see guess, he was joking, he wasn't being serious at all! Nobody would be stupid enough to believe he was serious! Nope!

Sure, buddy.

The fact that you're telling me I'm wrong in regards to isms just means you're telling me I'm right, because the whole point was to show you that your anti-ism-ism is ridiculous and that you don't even truly believe it.

You're pretty silly.

Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:44:00 UTC | #153116

Go to: Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Galactic Lord Xenu's Avatar Jump to comment 245 by Galactic Lord Xenu

He's against Darwinism, atheism, and anything else that's an ism, because he has a simplistic mindset that doesn't understand basic literary concepts. His own dogma towards isms is ironically an "ism" unto itself.

His rant was amusing to read though--highly emotionally charged and shrill, I could almost hear him pounding on the keyboard with that meaningless dreck.

I suppose he is against "egalitarianism" in every single possible sense of the word, "humanism", and so on.

It's funny, he's borrowing Rastafarian logic here, and it's just as bad from him as it is from them.

His "anything goes! especially if it suites me!" philosophy is a bit disturbing, though.

Oh, and to the person that mentioned Linux not counting being open source--do you understand our arguments at all? Just because something is free, open source, etc, doesn't mean it's not acceptable or even not encouraged by libertarians. I think you have a very poor understanding of what we're saying, you're letting your own anger and ideology cloud your comprehension of a different idea.

Linux is something put together by people that came together voluntarily to make it. As far as I know, it's been created almost virtually with no government money; it truly is a great demonstration of humans coming together to fill a gap in the market. Even if Linux development has had government funding, it was most likely for a application needed by the government; and anyway, Linux didn't start out with any government funding and never would need any to survive.

Corporations and businesses, however, have poured money into Linux, and businesses like IBM and Novell contribute to its codebase.

Some consider Linux itself to be very CAPITALISTIC, in fact:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lora/m.lora22.html

Also, you can legally SELL Linux under its license.

Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:31:00 UTC | #153110

Go to: Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Galactic Lord Xenu's Avatar Jump to comment 241 by Galactic Lord Xenu

I guess the charge about (some) atheists having no morals is true, for without any "moral" framework (politics falls within morals, strictly speaking, as it's a *should* question; usually in reference to human rights etc). Naturally, this does not mean that government should cover every "moral issue" in the traditional way of thinking it, but the root is some sort of morality all the same because it deals with inter-human relationships.

Since you have no "ism" towards politics, I suppose you are for whatever is convenient at the time for you; truly, that is a selfish notion.

An "-ism" is merely a name for a political belief; technically, there are an infinite amount of possible "isms" and when you dig down, everyone has their own "ism"; if you have any guiding political/moral principles then you have an "ism", although possibly it is unnamed.

And the only alternative is random emotional responses to issues, and doing whatever feels convenient at the time.

OF COURSE, this is a guy claiming that an economic school was totalitarian because it was named after the country Hitler was born in, despite it being focused entirely on individual freedom and, unknown to him, its two greatest adherents were actually Jewish.

Oh, and the fact that Vienna (in Austria!) was a center for philosophy and the arts. But I guess all those Viennese philosophers and artists were just goose-stepping fascists, eh?

ACtually, I see now that you are simply for "whatever works". Is this a code for, "whatever serves me best, even at the expense at the lives or rights of others"?

Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:18:00 UTC | #153102

Go to: Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Galactic Lord Xenu's Avatar Jump to comment 3 by Galactic Lord Xenu

Oh, and to expand on my previous post:

This guy is making essentially a type of fallacy that assumes that because of what we have in the present, we couldn't have had as good or better alternatives had the past been different.

Had Christianity (and religion) never existed, we'd be lacking much of the great arts we see today, but we'd have other great works to compensate for it.

Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:37:00 UTC | #152327

Go to: Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Galactic Lord Xenu's Avatar Jump to comment 2 by Galactic Lord Xenu

More pathetic hogwash, more idiotic editorializing, etc...

Dawkins doesn't even need to defend himself on this, because he already has.

People have been influenced by religion to make great works of art. OK. That doesn't change the fact that despite the inspiration and the emotional behind those works, religion is a falsehood, a superstition.

They say Christianity is a myth--so what do they propose? Believing what they know to be a lie? Teaching other people what they think is false?

People have turned to mythology as inspiration for ages. Even during the Renaissance, when they weren't painting yet another Mary and Jesus work, they would very frequently draw on inspiration from the great Greek and Roman mythologies--Birth of Venus is a famous example off the top of my head. We still draw on the great myths for inspiration, yet none of us (well... a few still hold out for the various pantheons...) believe in the Greek and Norse gods.

And nobody is advocating one believe in Greek mythology to enjoy the art behind it. It's fun, yes, but we are not fighting against mere artistic usage of religion.

And I laugh at the idea of the Christian religion exploring complex philosophical ideas. The theology can be convoluted, yes; the religion itself, the actual beliefs, dogmas, and the ideas in the bible, pale in comparison to even a little reading of Hume, Nietzsche, Kant, etc, religious or irreligious.

Much of the great art merely reflects the periods they came from--without religion, we'd almost certainly have something else. The fact that religion was the subject matter because in ages past people were more preoccupied with it does not mean it can, or would have, been the only type of art.

I find it silly, it seems that this clown is almost advocating we keep religion and superstition around because of paintings and music, things in which ANYTHING can be its subject matter.

Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:32:00 UTC | #152326

More Comments by Galactic Lord Xenu