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

designsoda's Profile

designsoda's Avatar Joined about 6 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by designsoda

More Discussions by designsoda

Latest Comments by designsoda

Go to: Christopher Hitchens obituaries

designsoda's Avatar Jump to comment 115 by designsoda

Leave it to The Onion to make me laugh on a day like this:

Fumbling, Inarticulate Obituary Writer Somehow Losing Debate To Christopher Hitchens,26890/

Sat, 17 Dec 2011 01:13:01 UTC | #900113

Go to: With friends like these: Atheists against the New Atheism

designsoda's Avatar Jump to comment 5 by designsoda

Comment 4 by BowDownToGizmo :

Comment 1 by Nails :

That was the year when large trade imprints in English-speaking countries began publishing forthright, unashamed attacks on the truth of religious doctrines and the moral pretensions of churches and sects

And that, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with the whole article, because there is nothing to be ashamed of when questioning religion, and doctrines are not truth.

I think he's making the point that previously it was seen as unacceptable in society to attack religion and so was done very carefully, whereas the new atheism dismisses any need to tread carefully and proceeds with the righteousness inspired by sound reasoning and evidence. He's not saying atheists should be ashamed... It's a really good article, you should try re-reading it.

Or reading it once all the way through.

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:38:54 UTC | #620647

Go to: Playing the Nazi card?

designsoda's Avatar Jump to comment 92 by designsoda

Comment 65 by Roger J. Stanyard :

If you want people here to accuse Matzke of being a liar, perhaps you should ask Richard why he isn't.

Except Richard DOES think Matzke is a liar.

As I just posted on WEIT, there are two separate questions here: (1). Did I in fact ‘play the Nazi card’? (2). Would I have been right to do so if I had? It is absolutely clear that the answer to (1) is no. In other words, Matzke is a liar. But he seems to think he can wriggle out of it by arguing that some people on this thread give a ‘yes’ answer to (2). He has inanely gone about counting ‘votes’ for (2), scoring them as though they somehow justify his lie about (1). It should be clear to anyone of the smallest intelligence that (1) and (2) are completely separate questions, that (2), though interesting in its own right, is irrelevant to the question of whether I “played the Nazi card”, and that Nick Matzke is a liar. Is it really so difficult to do the decent thing and simply apologise? Richard


Fri, 22 Apr 2011 22:46:00 UTC | #618257

Go to: Playing the Nazi card?

designsoda's Avatar Jump to comment 75 by designsoda

Comment 72 by Roger J. Stanyard :

The link doesn't work, I've not idea who Paul W is and don't understand what you have posted.

For what it is worth organisational strategy is one of my key professional skills,

B&W (the website I linked) seems to be down right now.

I was addressing your claim that Gnu Atheists didn't understand politics. I was NOT claiming you didn't understand politics or that you don't know how to organize political efforts.

Before you posted in WEIT I didn't know who you were either. And you don't know who I am either. So what? What does not knowing who Paul W. have to do with anything?

Fri, 22 Apr 2011 18:28:55 UTC | #618188

Go to: Playing the Nazi card?

designsoda's Avatar Jump to comment 63 by designsoda

Comment 56 by Roger J. Stanyard :

It does seem to me that the Gnu Atheist movement simply doesn't grasp politics;

This old and patronizing accusation again.

Maybe you should read this amazing post by Paul W.

Here's a taste:

Every time we hear strategic advice that amounts to “you catch more flies with honey” by somebody telling us what to do, who is apparently entirely ignorant of Overton window strategies, it pisses us off.

We get really, really sick of people telling us what to do without addressing our very good reasons for doing what we’re doing, and actually showing that their reasons are better than our reasons.

One thing that does frequently bring deep emotions into play is the sense that accommodationists frequently advise us what to do as though they think we’re simplistic strategically naive zealots, as opposed to thoughtful people with well-thought-out positions, good arguments, and an arguably excellent strategic rationale that is almost never even mentioned, much less properly addressed, by people who proffer an “obviously better” strategy toward apparently different goals.

Until accommodationists are willing to talk very, very seriously about Overton issues, we’re going to dismiss their strategic advice as the shallow, platitudinous crap that we think it is. As long as they act like we don’t even have a strategy, and criticize us for not going along with theirs, we’re going to be seriously annoyed when they tell us to do what they want us to do, instead of what we’re do, instead of what we’re doing.

Fri, 22 Apr 2011 17:35:16 UTC | #618164

More Comments by designsoda