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

Comments by FreeThink25

Go to: The Joke's on Him: Bill Maher could use a lesson in civility from Michael Moore

FreeThink25's Avatar Jump to comment 8 by FreeThink25

Can a guy who called Bush the "first great leader of the 21st century" really call Maher second rate?

Thu, 16 Oct 2008 14:33:00 UTC | #251846

Go to: Bill Maher on Religion

FreeThink25's Avatar Jump to comment 9 by FreeThink25

I hope the Maher-haters noticed that he said GERM. Can we finally put to rest the notion that Bill Maher denies the Germ Theory of Disease?

I have never seen Bill so articulate and intellectually appealing. Bravo to him....

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 03:18:00 UTC | #221089

Go to: Trailer for Religulous

FreeThink25's Avatar Jump to comment 80 by FreeThink25

Penn and Teller did a "Bullshit" episode on PETA: http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/prevepisodes.do?episodeid=s2/peta

They slammed PETA pretty good.


I like that show too, but I would be careful to trust Penn and Teller too much. They lost a ton of credibility when they questioned the validity of obesity in America, in spite of the overwhelming amount of evidence.

I'm glad to see most readers don't see the need to immediately state everything they disagree with in Bill Maher. I think he may be wrong about vaccinations but I think he is absolutely right about pharmaceuticals and prescription drugs (their overuse....not their efficacy). I've read the same exact things in many places in medical literature. It's not that "fringe".

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 06:51:00 UTC | #182370

Go to: The emerging moral psychology

FreeThink25's Avatar Jump to comment 45 by FreeThink25

MPhil

Thanks! That's great information....any specific writings you would recommend by Mill, Rawls or Scanlon?

Tue, 06 May 2008 17:27:00 UTC | #167185

Go to: The emerging moral psychology

FreeThink25's Avatar Jump to comment 41 by FreeThink25

Spinoza and MPhil

You've struck upon an issue that often comes up when I talk with theists and I wanted to see if you could elucidate it for me.

I'm often told that writings on the evolutionary nature of morality are only descriptive morality and not PRESCRIPTIVE morality, which, I guess they find to be evidence that a God is necessary for moral truths to exist.

I think maybe I read in Richard Carrier's writings that the is/ought problem is solved by adding a premise? Not killing one another IS a beneficial way of having a peaceful society. If one wants to exist in a peaceful society, then one OUGHT not to kill.

I guess what I don't get is this magical element of the OUGHT problem. IS there really an ought problem? Can it not be resolved by agreeing on the goals of what "is" and what one "wants"?

Tue, 06 May 2008 10:51:00 UTC | #167049

Go to: Rep. Davis: The Worst Person in the World

FreeThink25's Avatar Jump to comment 34 by FreeThink25

This is simply fantastic. The more publicity stuff like this gets, the better it is for us.

I wish this happened more, because it forces the average christian american to re-evaluate their beliefs about atheists, and forces them to rationalize what exactly it is that they have against us. The more this happens, the less reasons they'll be able to come up with.

Let's get some more idiotic legislators pissed off!!!!

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:03:00 UTC | #149651

Go to: The Atheist Next Door

FreeThink25's Avatar Jump to comment 13 by FreeThink25

What do you place your trust in during time of need?


Translation: You mean you don't have an imaginary friend?!?

This question doesn't even make any sense. It operates under the premise that you MUST place trust in something external during a time of need, rather than just adapting/surviving/coping. A gazelle being chased by a cheetah doesn't place its trust in anything...it just runs its ass off.

Tue, 08 Apr 2008 10:55:00 UTC | #149070

Go to: Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

FreeThink25's Avatar Jump to comment 3 by FreeThink25

Ouch....my brain hurts.

This guy is a law professor??

Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:13:00 UTC | #125736

Go to: US military accused of harboring fundamentalism

FreeThink25's Avatar Jump to comment 56 by FreeThink25

It professes belief in "the eternal blessedness of the saved; and the everlasting, conscious punishment of the lost."


I find it chilling that they go to the trouble of professing belief in the everlasting punishment of the lost. Could have stopped at the saved...but no, they want to make sure we know that they want us to BURN!!!

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:47:00 UTC | #121479

Go to: Bill Maher on Larry King Live

FreeThink25's Avatar Jump to comment 92 by FreeThink25

"Simply put, theists don't deny, agnostics don't know, atheists don't believe, and apatheists don't care about the existence of gods. "


Is it just me, or is there a tendency for atheists not to know who their allies are? Does it really matter if Bill Maher thinks there is a force? I'm not really sure what the pertinency is in stating what Maher technically is.

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:23:00 UTC | #119699

Go to: Bill Maher on Larry King Live

FreeThink25's Avatar Jump to comment 85 by FreeThink25

All medical students learn about the social determinants of disease and western medicine also teaches us the concept of health is a state of â€Å"total mental, physical and social wellbeing, not merely the absence of disease” (WHO definition). That western medicine seeks to treat symptoms only is a myth.


I would disagree with this. I'm a medical student, and have not focused on any of these. Most physicians don't want to know how to treat disease by lifestyle, because again, there's no money in it. Why would a cardiologist explain to you that giving up animal-based foods can reverse your heart disease when he can put a stent in you for $20,000?

I have searched the net diligently and haven't found an instance in which Maher denies the Germ Theory. I do think his opinions on vaccinations are a little quacky, but you don't have to agree with everything he says to see that there is some truth in it. MANY prescription drugs (not antibiotics...think about the ones for which you see commercials) DO poison our bodies, which is why we need to take more than one. There is an abundance of information out there on this topic. Again, they're not largely marketed because there is less profit. This is not pseuo-science. It's good science, well supported, but unpopular in the medical industry.

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 05:49:00 UTC | #119600

Go to: Bill Maher on Larry King Live

FreeThink25's Avatar Jump to comment 18 by FreeThink25

I didn't really have antibiotics in mind. And I don't think Maher did either. Infectious diseases are not really on the radar anymore when you're talking about disease-related death. It's the chronic ones...the ones of affluence...that are the focus. It's cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes.....

If Bill Maher specifically stated that antibiotics are bullshit, then I missed that, and would disagree. My point is that there are better alternatives than prescription drugs for the biggest causes of disease that I just listed.

Steve, I'm sure you're very well-read. In fact, I didn't ever say you weren't.

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:06:00 UTC | #119362

Go to: Bill Maher on Larry King Live

FreeThink25's Avatar Jump to comment 11 by FreeThink25

but the other day I heard him talking about his conspiracy theory about prescription drugs. He seemed to think we'd all be better off without modern medicine.


Not quite the same. Modern medicine doesn't necessarily imply prescription drugs. If anyone doesn't think there's a problem with the current state of medicine, then they're not very informed. There's no money in healthy people who eat right and don't take prescription drugs. Go read The China Study by T. Colin Campbell..or anything by Dr. John McDougall. Most diseases of affluence can be turned off and reversed simply by diet and lifestyle (vegetarianism mainly). But these are cheap fixes and no one makes money off them. I think Bill Maher is right to draw attention to this. Prescription drugs reduce symptoms, but do not address causes of disease...that is his point. And when you consider the tremendous amount of money to be lost by doctors, big pharma, and the beef and poultry industries, it makes sense why people want to attack anyone who voices this theory.

And this....

He's as bat shit insane as Tom Cruise.


...is just foolish.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss his opinions on medicine until you're better read on the subject.

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:13:00 UTC | #119332

Go to: Battle of the Chambersburg billboards

FreeThink25's Avatar Jump to comment 2 by FreeThink25

He said his group is not saying the atheists are anti-American. However, they appear to be, he said. Still, he said, "this is a free country and everyone is free to believe what he or she chooses."


What a brilliantly elegant, well-constructed series of ideas....

It takes some serious mental gymnastics to connect disbelief in god with hatred of America.

This would be comical if it weren't so indicative of real opinions.

Sat, 09 Feb 2008 16:28:00 UTC | #118359

Go to: The New Atheist Movement

FreeThink25's Avatar Jump to comment 38 by FreeThink25

I love how they mention the "glaring flaws" in atheism....and then fail to mention them.

This is typical of Christian response to rational argument. An anecdote. "Well, I met a professor, and he was embarrassed, blah blah blah"

The anecdote is their only weapon. That's ALL Dinesh D'Souza seems to rely on...Ravi Zacharias...etc, etc

How pathetic to have to rely on anecdote....

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:15:00 UTC | #117121

Go to: Apologetic billboard replaces atheistic sign

FreeThink25's Avatar Jump to comment 9 by FreeThink25

What does "imagine no religion" have to do with morals?

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:56:00 UTC | #117108

Go to: Dawkins is third most prolific internet Briton

FreeThink25's Avatar Jump to comment 26 by FreeThink25

Imogen Heap IS a brilliant musician/composer....very revolutionary.
Incredible music. I remember when she lost a Grammy for Best New Artist to Carrie Underwood. I think I threw up in my mouth.

Pretty sure she was a man at one time...not that there's anything wrong with that.

Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:49:00 UTC | #112142

Go to: New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?

FreeThink25's Avatar Jump to comment 85 by FreeThink25

If we are against dogmas, are we against having opinions? Given that's what dogma means.


I was unaware that was the meaning of dogma. I thought it to be an opinion that is authoritative and not to be disputed.

Which is why the anti-dogma/rationality movement is one in the same. Rationality disputes everything, and rests on the side of the most convincing evidence. I doubt Dawkins would say that he's DOGMATIC about evolution. He would no doubt be willing to change his "opinion" on it, given a tremendous amount of evidence.

Nice job Atticus. If nothing else, you gave us something to talk about! But I think it was more...it's definitely a kinder word with which to reach theists, and a wise strategy most of us will no doubt employ.

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:27:00 UTC | #111742

Go to: New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?

FreeThink25's Avatar Jump to comment 64 by FreeThink25

I agree with Janus.

I think if you fly the "anti-dogmatist" banner too soon you get the liberal theist on your side, sticking to their belief in god but unable to really articulate why. It will not resonate with them that the foundation of their belief in god is dogmatically-derived. They'll just say "not my religion" and be on their way.

The reason attacks against religion are so thorough is that they simultaneously address the GOD issue and the DOGMA issue.

GOD + DOGMA = RELIGION

God without dogma is just a benign belief.

Dogma without god is just irrational ideology.

I think it's clear which of the two is more dangerous, but that doesn't mean we cannot attempt to deconstruct both.

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:33:00 UTC | #111622

Go to: New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?

FreeThink25's Avatar Jump to comment 1 by FreeThink25

Well.....yeah! Is someone really just realizing that this is what we've been talking about?

I've thought about that last paragraph before. I cannot think of a religion that is not based on dogma or faith. Sure, people can stretch the meaning of the word, and lump in the things like "the religion of mathematics", or the "religion of physics"...but that does not convince me that "religion" is a valid term.

Anyone else?

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 06:12:00 UTC | #111483

Go to: A Letter From Hell

FreeThink25's Avatar Jump to comment 83 by FreeThink25

I loved the end the most.

"I have stuff to do...classes, sports, partying. If you're supposed to be God, and omnipotent, and I'm just a wretched sinner, made of dust, don't you think you could handle all this mess of telling people about how you became your own son, sacrificed yourself to yourself and saved humankind?"

So funny on so many levels....God exists outside of the universe, right? But he's left to still depend on earthly elements, namely sulfur, to devise his lake of fire? God's omniscient, but he has to go look up in a book to see if you're name is there???

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:56:00 UTC | #110477

Go to: Fish out of water: Your Inner Fish

FreeThink25's Avatar Jump to comment 33 by FreeThink25

As a medical student, I confront these fascinating defects in the body everyday, and it amazes me still how many "theist" students there are. I don't understand how people who study these problems all day long can still contend that we were "designed" by a Creator. With a god, there would be no need for medicine. But alas, he's imaginary and the reverse-engineering and study of several thousand years of scientists has led us to where we are today.

It makes me laugh when people use the "doctors playing god" cliche disparagingly. Of course they're playing god....someone has to!! The real one isn't there to do it!

I've also become very interested in the history of religious opposition to advances in medicine, and the ones that are, of course, still present. It's amazing how religions are still granted a place in discussions of medical ethics. Anyone know of any work done in the overlapping fields of religion, medicine, and ethics?

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 08:54:00 UTC | #106056

Go to: Priest who committed suicide for rebirth cremated

FreeThink25's Avatar Jump to comment 41 by FreeThink25

You have to at least give him credit for truly believing in his delusion....THAT was faith. And proven to be foolish. But how many Christians display this degree of commitment? It's easy to have faith when all it requires you to do is go about your business and profess to "believe." A tithe does little to impress me. Neither does a baptism, or a meal of bread and juice, or singing with your hands up towards the ceiling.

At least this guy put it out on the line. I despise the luke-warm Christian...as did Jesus, I hear.....smart fellow.

Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:28:00 UTC | #98376

Go to: CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

FreeThink25's Avatar Jump to comment 4 by FreeThink25

Wow....I'm always impressed with how Dawkins deals with these snide questions and biased journalism.

Good to see that Skippy from "Family Ties" has found work these days....

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 08:21:00 UTC | #95483

Go to: Former Evangelical Minister Has a New Message: Jesus Hearts Darwin

FreeThink25's Avatar Jump to comment 15 by FreeThink25

Someone send this guy a copy of "Darwin's Dangerous Idea"....and let Dennett's universal acid creep through the remaining shred of his religious convictions.

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 06:30:00 UTC | #90650

Go to: Interview with Christopher Hitchens

FreeThink25's Avatar Jump to comment 9 by FreeThink25

I was actually rather impressed....this is the first time I feel like an atheist author has been interviewed rather respectably. I would agree with eXcommunicate though....the giggles were not only annoying, but they were completely void of intelligence. Rather than pose a question or rebuttal, just laugh off-handedly....it's sure to help mock Hitchens, right?

I rather wish Hitchens had asked WHY he would be keeping the book away from his sons. Afraid of letting them make up their own minds, are you??? Have you ever seen the media end an interview and not paint the author in a tone of "there's those crazy atheists for you!" I wonder how far away we are from that...

Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:21:00 UTC | #89326

Go to: Atheism's Wrong Turn

FreeThink25's Avatar Jump to comment 57 by FreeThink25

Just once I would like an author who uses the term "dogmatic doubt" to describe what they think that would be.....and once they have finished describing it, realize what a grand practice it would be. Because, of course, the very contradiction of those terms eliminates any future dogma. In fact, I may start using that one...I'm a dogmatic doubtist. My dogma is to doubt until reason and evidence convince me (a process in which dogma is conveniently absent).

I also love how they continue to point to the deism of the founding fathers, coming oh, about 75 years before a better explanation for life came along.

Deism + Darwin = atheism

Mon, 03 Dec 2007 08:47:00 UTC | #89182

Go to: Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

FreeThink25's Avatar Jump to comment 136 by FreeThink25

How dismaying to see our rational oasis reacting like this!

One thing most contentious posters keep returning to is that if you make a "PROMISE", then you should keep it. Here's the point: Why is there even a promise to begin with? I'm married, but we didn't promise each other ANYTHING. We love to be together, so we decided to partner up in life. We call ourselves partners. How arrogant to pretend we could make a promise at an early, arbitrary point in time that would govern our biological impulses for the rest of our lives!

The entire notion of a promise and an exclusivity in relationships is a memetic remnant of "religious' morals. Yes, many other mammals who raise young pair bond, but do they stand in front of a number of other mammals and "promise" not to copulate with any other mammal? So help me God?

And Richard is not suggesting that YOU have to live this way. He's not saying it is better. He's saying it should become accepted for those who do. If you choose not to, then don't do it. To each his own.....

The real battle is not in allowing people to break promises to have sex with others, but to stop building relationships on the notion that people have to make promises that they won't.

Beth, great ideas. You've been spot on all night....

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:23:00 UTC | #87854

Go to: Golden Compass author hits back

FreeThink25's Avatar Jump to comment 13 by FreeThink25

Have you seen Bill Donohue's video about TGC on the catholic league website? Check it out:


I love it! They've prepared a 22 page pamphlet to warn and educate parents on the dangers of this movie....and you can all 22 pages for the wonderful low price of $5!! Does an indulgence come with that as well???

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:09:00 UTC | #86971

Go to: The joining of church and state

FreeThink25's Avatar Jump to comment 2 by FreeThink25

Jefferson and Jesus both!

Sat, 17 Nov 2007 16:05:00 UTC | #84516