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

Comments by eXcommunicate

Go to: The Richard Dawkins - Thunderf00t discussion

eXcommunicate's Avatar Jump to comment 122 by eXcommunicate

The audio isn't so bad. Lighten up, people.

Sat, 09 Jan 2010 00:24:00 UTC | #430294

Go to: Richard Dawkins on Minnesota Public Radio

eXcommunicate's Avatar Jump to comment 119 by eXcommunicate

I love Richard's accent here... "peedophile" :D

Sun, 29 Mar 2009 11:20:00 UTC | #341098

Go to: Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

eXcommunicate's Avatar Jump to comment 154 by eXcommunicate

I have to agree with you. The site is starting to become tedious having to incessantly refute people so credulous and with the same woolly headed and frankly infantile non-arguments.

'Tis our lot in life. ;)

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:31:00 UTC | #220471

Go to: Award-winning comedian George Carlin dies

eXcommunicate's Avatar Jump to comment 5 by eXcommunicate

Not one mention that he was a non-believer? Typical.

You better believe if he was a "devout" Christian who prayed every day some mention would have been made of his "deep abiding faith."

Sun, 22 Jun 2008 23:33:00 UTC | #187942

Go to: Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

eXcommunicate's Avatar Jump to comment 92 by eXcommunicate

Richard Dawkins is the new Hugh Heffner. Who knew?

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:54:00 UTC | #154990

Go to: Get out of here, atheists!

eXcommunicate's Avatar Jump to comment 8 by eXcommunicate

Jeez, this lady was way out of line. To her I'd say how dare she be a Democrat with a philosophy like hers! I know some of you on this board dislike Obama, but he has never chastised atheists or demeaned the atheist point of view. You can have someone go to church for 20 years, yet still have respect for others, and then you can have a woman like this who (apparently) goes to church and has no respect for others. It takes all kinds. There are asshole theists and there are asshole atheists.

Mon, 07 Apr 2008 10:12:00 UTC | #148494

Go to: Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

eXcommunicate's Avatar Jump to comment 58 by eXcommunicate

Oh wait, Mr PhD... Atheists are in a "cult" but you aren't... k.

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 20:17:00 UTC | #137424

Go to: Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

eXcommunicate's Avatar Jump to comment 103 by eXcommunicate

You apppear to be completely clueless about the security business. It involves a lot more than just having bodyguards stand around. It depends how much money you have to spend, of course.

Unless you have the money for a rather large security apparatus, then having a few bodyguards standing around is what you have. Partly for simple deterrence and partly to blunt any close range attacks. They may be professionals, but with limited manpower will come limited security. What kind of security does Ayaan want? What is the acceptable hindrance to her work and private life? She's not gonna have Secret Service level protection with snipers on rooftops and personnel casing whole city blocks. Hugh - why don't YOU enlighten us, since I have no idea what I am talking about?

Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:23:00 UTC | #122597

Go to: Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

eXcommunicate's Avatar Jump to comment 87 by eXcommunicate

MaxD: "ain't no thing butta chicken wing"... 'sall good. I should pick my words more carefully when I am carelessly throwing my thoughts around. ;)

Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:13:00 UTC | #122406

Go to: Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

eXcommunicate's Avatar Jump to comment 85 by eXcommunicate

MaxD: My point is not that her security guys will be big dumb oafs - my point was in regards to guys here on the internet talking about how they'd take a bullet for Ayaan. Unless you are trained to see these things coming an average Joe will never have time to prove he's badass enough to take a bullet. But in regards to having bodyguards, sure, they will be able to prevent a stabbing or maybe even gunfire from close range, but my point in regards to not "knowing what hit them" would be that an incendiary device or a gentleman with a rifle at some range would make Ayaan's bodyguards superfluous, or simply add to the bodycount. If anything we know the techniques employed by Islamic fanatics range from the blunt (stabbing someone in broad daylight) to a bit more sophisticated (home made bombs, covert ops).

I have no answers - only making conversation. I did donate, btw, back when the call for aid first went out.

Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:57:00 UTC | #122399

Go to: Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

eXcommunicate's Avatar Jump to comment 72 by eXcommunicate


If a Muslim Radical wants to kill Ayaan nobody will go Rambo and take a bullet for her. She (and you), and all her bodyguards will never know what hit them. Sad fact. Walking around with 2 or 3 beefcakes in sunglasses will not protect her.

Sad fact is the price of free speech is either the freedom to shut up or the freedom to risk your life. Some of us will be killed for our speech, whether its me, Ayaan, Richard, or someone else on this board. Either we are cowed or we are defiant.

Sat, 16 Feb 2008 22:25:00 UTC | #122046

Go to: Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

eXcommunicate's Avatar Jump to comment 16 by eXcommunicate

I wouldn't for a moment say Madeline was/is stupid. For me it seems she is still on her spiritual journey and is a bit confused. Good interview with Richard though! I agree somewhat with Bunting's assertion that fundamentalism is rooted in a kind of insecurity. Fundamentalist organizations offer structure and security to vast portions of the population that feel they need it. We Atheists like to proclaim our undying individualism, but we have that "luxury" of individualism here in the fat and happy West. Many rural communities here in the U.S. heartland are rotting economically at the core. Times are extremely insecure for many many Americans. Its no accident, IMHO, that Christian fundamentalism thrives in those states in the Union that a.) the rejection of worldly authority (far away evil Washington DC), b.) have fewer social safety nets, making Churches the providers of social security instead of secular providers, and c.) are more rural/conservative in nature, and ultimately isolating. This kind of environment just breeds tribalism, out-group hate, and fundamentalism.

If Hamas or the local Church of Christ is the one providing for your family's social, emotional, and/or financial security, then who are Atheists and/or the big bad secular West? The ones that will take that security away. It's a simple, but deep psychological equation that occurs in every one of us, not just "fundamentalists". It's the root of tribalism.

So what do we do to replace that security net and loosen the grip of fundamentalism and ultimately religion altogether? All I hear from fellow Atheists is that they want to rip the blanket off people and expose them to cold hard truth and reality. No solutions at all, but to throw cold water onto a freezing man. Sure, rip that blanket of false security and false truth off of a person, but a person still needs warmth. What we need instead is a different kind of blanket, not just cold water, or else religious fundamentalism will never wane.

Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:23:00 UTC | #120660

Go to: Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

eXcommunicate's Avatar Jump to comment 26 by eXcommunicate

Hitchens' opening statement is blistering. He actually delivers it with gusto! I am impressed.

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:37:00 UTC | #118879

Go to: Blasphemy

Go to: Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

eXcommunicate's Avatar Jump to comment 34 by eXcommunicate

Wasn't Hitchy supposed to debate D'Souza again? Was that ever posted?

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 00:02:00 UTC | #116729

Go to: Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

eXcommunicate's Avatar Jump to comment 6 by eXcommunicate

The last bit at the end with the bottle of Bourbon was hilarious.

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:32:00 UTC | #116535

Go to: Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

eXcommunicate's Avatar Jump to comment 1 by eXcommunicate

I can't understand a word Christopher is saying.

EDIT: Turned my volume way up. Nice. Hitchy is so much better when he's sober.

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 11:21:00 UTC | #116504

Go to: The God Delusion: Now Available in US Paperback

eXcommunicate's Avatar Jump to comment 24 by eXcommunicate

GAH! Phatbat, I was just about to say that. ;)

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 08:44:00 UTC | #107958

Go to: It was a bad year for God.

eXcommunicate's Avatar Jump to comment 109 by eXcommunicate

What is a brainwash? One example: when I was still going through the primary school, the deputy principal would often take me from my class into his office, where he would spend hours explaining to me how bad is religion (he would make a great co-author for Mr Dawkins' next book) and how wrong I am that I still clinch to my beliefs in spate of such facts like, for example, the men (Uri Gagarin) went into the cosmos and allegedly did not see the God there, and so on. I was too young to comprehend everything he was saying to me, but one thing I know now that is was the classic example of a brainwash.

You know what AndreG? That's exactly the same thing you are doing to "christian" children today - brainwashing them. An atheist who believes as Dawkins does not condone either the brainwashing of children for communist end nor for religious ends.

As to the morals, should we have a universal moral base or should we work out the moral systems, that suit us individually? The danger of atheism, in my view, is that everyone would be entitled to their own morals. It is the same danger as if every motorist would design their own road rules, don't you think?

People already decide on their own morals, even Christians. The fact that they usually settle on ethics similar to everyone else is that we are genetically and culturally predisposed to a similar set of ethics. That's also what would happen in an atheistic world.

Tue, 08 Jan 2008 22:52:00 UTC | #104214

Go to: Blind Faiths

eXcommunicate's Avatar Jump to comment 75 by eXcommunicate

So no one has convinced me that religion is the SOLE cause. A cause, potentially, granted. An idiom for violence, yes.

No, not undefined wishy washy "religion", but specific tenets held within the Islamic faith itself are responsible. No rational person is condemning all of religion for Islam's petulant aggression - we blame Islam for it.

Mon, 07 Jan 2008 18:56:00 UTC | #103755

Go to: Blind Faiths

eXcommunicate's Avatar Jump to comment 11 by eXcommunicate

al-rawandi - Here's the problem with your list... There are many other countries and populations with everything in your list, besides religion, being on the negative end of the spectrum (hopelessness, victimization, poverty, etc.), that don't breed suicide bombers and death cult personalities.

Mon, 07 Jan 2008 10:51:00 UTC | #103503

Go to: Blind Faiths

eXcommunicate's Avatar Jump to comment 8 by eXcommunicate

Well, Western Militarism should not be discounted as a tool against Islam. Having said that it is a merely one tool in an array of tools we have at our disposal - not the primary one. But when we are egregiously attacked, the fanatics must be made aware that we are not above a shockingly overwhelming and decisive military response. I'm with Hitch in that eventually, some of the fanatics will look around at their overwhelming military defeat and wonder if Allah is really on their side. Granted, Iraq seems to muddle this issue, but the Afghanistan War in its first year was a good example of this. The problem in Afghanistan wasn't that we were too ruthless, afterall, it's that we pulled our punches and took our eyes off the prize. This is an error that grieves me to my core. Imagine the message sent around the world if the Taliban had been, for all intents and purposes, utterly obliterated in a matter of a year, and Osama bin Ladin and his top command all captured and killed. Such a shockingly swift lopsided victory would have sent the proper message, but no - we pull our punches, let bin Ladin slip away, give lip service to tyrants like Musharraf, allow the Taliban to regroup, etc., so we can go on wondrous adventure in Iraq. I'm confident George W. Bush and his advisors will go down in history as one of the least competent American administrations in modern times.

Mon, 07 Jan 2008 10:24:00 UTC | #103491

Go to: Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

eXcommunicate's Avatar Jump to comment 268 by eXcommunicate

@roach & Summer...

Not to start a circle jerk, but I'm in complete agreement. That's one of the things I say to theists when we discuss the Bible itself. If the Bible is so great and so revolutionary, then why does it advocate a morality and lifestyle that any other book from the 8th century BC could have advocated? There's nothing truly unique or special about it to warrant such reverence. For instance, its when Christians try to defend slavery vis a vis, the Bible. They recognize that slavery is wrong, but try to say the Bible is a product of its time. That's where I jump in and say, hey wait a minute, is the Bible timeless or not? Is the morality contained therein "objective morality" that should stand the test of time, or not? For some Christians this gets them thinking. No doubt they'll find some rationalization somewhere down the line, but at least there is that fleeting glimmer of doubt.

Sat, 05 Jan 2008 21:41:00 UTC | #102950

Go to: Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

eXcommunicate's Avatar Jump to comment 259 by eXcommunicate


Thank you for the insight into Judaism. Posts like yours are the reason I come back to this site every day. :)

Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:39:00 UTC | #102936

Go to: Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

eXcommunicate's Avatar Jump to comment 257 by eXcommunicate

Paine said:

Why? Is there any point in debating D'souza? He spews so much nonsense that you'd take hours to refute each point.

Besides, I think the debate with Dennett showed that he doesn't need to be demolished by his opponent, he can do it all by himself. I mean, as boring as Dennett was, Dinesh still managed to make a complete jackass of himself.

There's no point in anyone serious debating Dinesh, any unknown would be up to the job.

I don't know. Maybe its the tribal caveman in me, but I'd really like to see one of our guys unequivocally humiliate Dinesh in front of his peers, similar to what happened here with Wolpe and Harris. While in the D'Souza/Hitchens debate this past Fall one could argue Hitchens won on an intellectual level, as far as the rules of debate go it wasn't so clear. I liked the format of the Harris/Wolpe debate a lot, and think its the exact format needed to totally destroy Dinesh, even while giving him a home field advantage. I mean, really, the guy is so loud and obnoxious he will get his 15 minutes of fame no matter what we do. We might as well do our best to deflate that gigantic head of his. Maybe its just me being combative. :)

PS: It'd be great if someone could splice this video onto "the YouTubes".

Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:33:00 UTC | #102932

Go to: Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

eXcommunicate's Avatar Jump to comment 240 by eXcommunicate

I agree with Sauveterre on all three (corrected) points. I disagree with Negasta that Wolpe is a moron beyond compare. I mean, seriously? Worse than D'Souza? Naw. The man (Wolpe) is obviously intelligent and its a shame he didn't put that intellect into something more worthwhile than Judaism.

And now, having watched the entire video, I can finally agree with those that advocate the smackdown between Harris and D'Souza. I once thought Dawkins could be our man, but he seems to get flustered a bit sometimes. Harris looks to be so zen, it would take a Sasquatch walking up to shake his hand (eat his liver?) to rattle the man. ;)

PS: Sauveterre, you can edit and delete your own posts.

Sat, 05 Jan 2008 17:36:00 UTC | #102888

Go to: Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

eXcommunicate's Avatar Jump to comment 133 by eXcommunicate

"The torture of crackers..."

Sat, 05 Jan 2008 09:31:00 UTC | #102707

Go to: Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

eXcommunicate's Avatar Jump to comment 8 by eXcommunicate

Sam's facial expression @2:32 is classic.

Fri, 04 Jan 2008 12:49:00 UTC | #102339

Go to: The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

eXcommunicate's Avatar Jump to comment 117 by eXcommunicate

Shuggy - Unfortunately your design could be misconstrued to read "a theist" rather than "atheist."

Thu, 03 Jan 2008 15:31:00 UTC | #101831

Go to: Changing my Mind

eXcommunicate's Avatar Jump to comment 93 by eXcommunicate

jeepyjay - My intent with that diagram was not to construct a 100% accurate view of "belief." My point was that a 1 axis view of belief, similar to a 1 axis view of political thought, is inaccurate. A 2 axis view is less inaccurate in both instances.

Thu, 03 Jan 2008 10:00:00 UTC | #101694