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

IndyHoosier's Profile

IndyHoosier's Avatar Joined over 6 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by IndyHoosier

More Discussions by IndyHoosier

Latest Comments by IndyHoosier

Go to: Living with a theist?

IndyHoosier's Avatar Jump to comment 47 by IndyHoosier

My wife decided to get "born again" after we had been married about 8 years. I told her at the time it would lead to the end of our relationship. We have been married for 33 years now. We don't talk about religion.

I am very unhappy with the indoctrination she gave our daughter. She is also a relidiot, and it is baffling to me, because she is smart, majors in biology, and should know better. But it (religion) is such a virus.

So we don't accommodate our beliefs, and I have no respect for hers. It is a very divisive part of our relationship. But we are both conflict avoiders, so we just don't go there.

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 02:11:46 UTC | #914125

Go to: Indiana Senate passes bill putting religion in science class

IndyHoosier's Avatar Jump to comment 43 by IndyHoosier

Comment 16 by papa lazaru :

They gonna get their ass kicked back to the dark ages.

Amazing someone so uneducated can have a say on education policies.

We cannot get kicked back to the dark ages, we are already there. We need stupid people in Indiana. If you fancy them up with educashun, they get all uppity and want things like democracy, culture, and progress. They are much easier to control when you give em Jeebus.

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:12:07 UTC | #913772

Go to: God Sent Christopher Hitchens to Hell Because He Loved Him

IndyHoosier's Avatar Jump to comment 23 by IndyHoosier

I don't have a problem with this guy saying what he thinks. When Falwell died, Hitch went on the cable shows and said exactly what he thought about that charlatan windbag. I thought that was a good thing.

Having Christians come out and espouse their feelings is beneficial. It is much better having their opinions documented and out in the open so that one can see, listen, and judge.

Sun, 18 Dec 2011 15:01:43 UTC | #900624

Go to: Why Dawkins disappoints

IndyHoosier's Avatar Jump to comment 129 by IndyHoosier

Lane has all the intellectual depth of the geniuses gathered by the church to debate how many angels would fit on the head of a pin. He is a completely ignorant man that baffles those that are even more ignorant with the use of words that are so seldom used they are not understood by his audience. His arguments leap over oceans connecting magic dots that are only apparent to the superstitious.

His brain is impervious to facts and evidence. In the debate with Hitchens he repeatedly made the claim that Hitchens had presented no arguments what so ever for the "truth of atheism", after Hitchens had just spent 15 minutes laying out the implausibility of a supernatural entity being the cause of our existence. Hitchens failure in this debate was in not taking this absurd retort on. I came away from that debate thinking that Hitchens was doing drugs, drinking, or greasing the skid to be invited (and paid) by more churches to come and debate, because his normally sharp wit was not present. He presented his stock arguments that he always pulls out well, but he absolutely did not engage Lane as I have seen him do to others. Consider the difference between his approach to Lane and his approach to George Galloway. Something was vastly different, he was way, way too deferential to Lane.

Hitchens is a very poor debater on scientific topics. It is not his field, he doesn't have the depth of understanding. His skill is in his knowledge of history, his quick wit, and his linguistic skill. But I really don't think he is a strong debater. He repeats the gist of what he has written over the last 30 years, but is not skilled at taking what is being said at the moment, analyzing it, and taking the argument down. His usual tactic is to bluster and bully (look at some of his defenses of his NeoCon agenda), but personal attacks are not skilled debating techniques. I would much prefer to listen to Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, or Richard Dawkins debate when scientific knowledge is a key part of the arguments under discussion.

Fri, 27 May 2011 04:14:49 UTC | #631405

Go to: Death of a Madman

IndyHoosier's Avatar Jump to comment 149 by IndyHoosier

Can anybody guess what Hitchen's response to Al Queda raiding George Bush's home in Dallas and summarily executing him would be?

Al Queda operatives would point to the same set of circumstances to justify their action that Hitch uses against Bin Laden, only the numbers of deaths, wounded, refugees, and economic destruction would be multiplied by a factor of no less than 200.

Hitchens would wave the American flag, start spouting his immense respect for Jefferson, and snap to attention and deference with a tear in his eye as the American government mounted full scale attacks on innocent civilians who have the misfortune of living in an area that the US government deems to be of strategic value to its interests.

He will write eloquently about the bravery of those air crews that randomly dropped bombs (although he would parrot the Pentagon's assertion that the assault is the result of precision targeting and high tech "smart" bombs) on houses, schools, hospitals, and life supporting infrastructure. The "regrettable but unavoidable loss of life" (collateral damage in Pentagon speak) is blamed on those dastardly Saudi terrorists, this being said without the slightest recognition of the irony of the fact that the people dying in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iran (if Hitch is granted his last dying wish).

This is exactly what Hitch has done in support of the war in Iraq. For someone so gifted in articulation and formulation of ideas, he is Inexplicably blinded to the grotesque immorality of the nation state who actions he glorifies while correctly pointing out the hideous an immoral actions of the likes of Bin Laden.

Of course, for those that are incapable of seeing that killing millions of unarmed and defenseless people (which the US has done in the last half century) is not justified for the simple reason that one side wears uniforms and is commissioned by a global super power with lawyers that write the legal code to justify and protect their murders from prosecution.

Sat, 07 May 2011 12:44:59 UTC | #624146

More Comments by IndyHoosier