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

Comments by Joadist

Go to: Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Joadist's Avatar Jump to comment 99 by Joadist

Why Athiests are more intelligent than Theists:

Atheists are the result of untold thousands of years of evolution in which each new generation was an improvement on the previous one.

Theists, by their own admission, are the defective product of poor design which has remained unchanged in the less than 6000 years since their creation.

Tue, 10 Apr 2007 02:37:00 UTC | #28419

Go to: U.S. 'Satisfied' With Religion's Public Role, But More Want Less

Joadist's Avatar Jump to comment 8 by Joadist

We have to remember that this poll uses the word 'religion' to refer specifically to 'Christianity'.

I doubt it reflects a desire to have Scientology or Satanism be a greater influence.

Sun, 04 Feb 2007 02:37:00 UTC | #18478

Go to: Massachusetts Atheists?

Joadist's Avatar Jump to comment 6 by Joadist

Liveliest Crib,

My understanding is the Clarence Thomas takes issue with the 14th amendment.

I believe I have seen arguments that while the Federal Government may not establish a religion, any state may do so. South Carolina considered such legistslation if memory serves.

Fri, 02 Feb 2007 00:55:00 UTC | #18296

Go to: James Randi on Larry King Live

Joadist's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by Joadist

A trickster exposing a trickster!

What next?

Will Depak Chopra expose Benny Hinn?

Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:10:00 UTC | #17921

Go to: Are politics in your DNA?

Joadist's Avatar Jump to comment 28 by Joadist

The height of the basketball player is not what gives some people an advantage. It is the rule which sets the height of the basket which makes the determination.
Change the rule and you change the advantage.
There is no genetic predisposition to arbitrary rules.

Sun, 28 Jan 2007 01:09:00 UTC | #17508

Go to: The Bright Revolution

Joadist's Avatar Jump to comment 38 by Joadist

I prefer the term Atheist because it describes what I am. I am a-thiest -- without God.
I am atheist -- against theistic religion.

I am not a scientist, or a genius, or a brilliant thinker.

I did not arrive at my atheism by a cold, calculated intellectual exercise.

If Atheism is just a club for the intellectual elite, then I'll find something else that is a bit more moral.

Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:22:00 UTC | #17061

Go to: Do You Believe in Magic?

Joadist's Avatar Jump to comment 20 by Joadist

Lord Asriel,

Thanks for the laugh :)

Magical thinking is an irrational view of reality.

Religious thinking is an irrational view of the imaginary.

Since the imaginary can be 'imagined' in any form, it takes a lot of effort to make it irrational.

Imagining a God is easy. Imagining him irrationally is quite an accomplishment.

Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:14:00 UTC | #17059

Go to: Do You Believe in Magic?

Joadist's Avatar Jump to comment 16 by Joadist

Lord Asriel,

The underlying principle is only the same in the broadest possible interpretation.

Magical thinking isn't as much irrational as it is just 'bad science'. It is a blind guess as to whether a certain action can produce a certain result.

Our magical thinking ancestors tried to make fire by doing all manner of strange things to wood.

Our religious thinking ancestors tried to make fire without having any wood at all.

Ignorance and irrationality are not the same.

Wed, 24 Jan 2007 04:12:00 UTC | #16959

Go to: Do You Believe in Magic?

Joadist's Avatar Jump to comment 10 by Joadist

There is a very important distinction between magical thinking and religion.

1: I do not change my socks because I believe that "MY" actions can alter the outcome of the game.

2: I do not change my socks because I believe that my actions can influence God to alter the outcome of the game.


Magic is based on the belief that we have power over the events in our lives. Religion is based on the belief that we have no power over the events in our lives.

Magical thinking is the opposite of religious thinking. Magical thinking is 'cause and effect'. Religious thinking is an appeal to divine intervention.

Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:23:00 UTC | #16911

Go to: Neither intellect nor faith will save humanity

Joadist's Avatar Jump to comment 34 by Joadist

Duff,

I am a Redneck. I have more manners and social graces than you have shown.

Only the uneducated would insult the people who put food on his table.

The redness of my neck comes from doing an honest day's work. It also provided me with funding for an excellent education as well as the opportunity to spend my leisure time in some of the world's finest museums.

Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:42:00 UTC | #16594

Go to: Neither intellect nor faith will save humanity

Joadist's Avatar Jump to comment 16 by Joadist

I'm a Redneck and I'm OK. Nothing makes god look less significant than watching crops grow.

"America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between." Oscar Wilde

Sun, 21 Jan 2007 00:36:00 UTC | #16451

Go to: Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

Joadist's Avatar Jump to comment 11 by Joadist

Anyone remember the one about "Lightbulbs eat Darkness"?

Wed, 17 Jan 2007 22:10:00 UTC | #16015

Go to: 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Joadist's Avatar Jump to comment 6 by Joadist

Anyone who thinks 9/11 was religious is too stupid to spell O-I-L.

Unless one considers that the World TRADE Center is the Vatican of Mammon.

Wed, 17 Jan 2007 22:07:00 UTC | #16013

Go to: A deadly certitude

Joadist's Avatar Jump to comment 1 by Joadist

The St Anselm proof is false on its face.

Can you conceive of something of which nothing greater can be conceived?

It is sophistry. It cannot define 'greater'.

Is the greatest Apple Pie greater than the greatest DVD player?

The Greatest God is not greater than the Greatest Human. It is a common fallacy to assume that because two things are different, one can be superior.

Is God greater at dying than we are?

Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:50:00 UTC | #15945

Go to: Homophobia, not injustice, is what really fires the faiths

Joadist's Avatar Jump to comment 37 by Joadist

I began by asking for a 'legal' definition of homosexuality.

Consider the phrase "Gay Marriage".

If we ban Gay Marriage, then Gay Joe cannot marry Gay Bill. But would we allow Gay Joe to marry Gay Mary?

What about Hetrosexual Bob who wants to marry Hetrosexual Jim? Could Hetrosexual Bob marry Gay Mary?

The fact is that marriage laws do not discriminate against gays. They discriminate based on gender. The Marriage license application doesn't even ask about sexual orientation. It asks about gender. It forbids same-gender marriage to both homosexuals and hetrosexuals. It allows different gender marriage equally to both.

Perhaps you have noticed that the Religious Right has abandoned the 'Gay Marriage' phrase. The are using "One Man, One Woman". They have analyzed the problem in depth. The last thing they want is to have homosexuality legally defined.

I never understood why same-sex couples who wanted to get married would ever allow homsexuality to be mentioned in their court cases.
It is legally irrelevant.

Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:26:00 UTC | #15240

Go to: Homophobia, not injustice, is what really fires the faiths

Joadist's Avatar Jump to comment 10 by Joadist

JohnC,

Well, that certainly clarifies the issue.

It is a thought crime.

Whether or not a person is a homosexual is not determined by their sexual behavior, but rather by how someone else guesses they have sex.

If I accuse someone of discriminating against me because of my age, gender, or race, then I produce a legal document, such as a Birth Certificate.

How does a homosexual prove his status to a court?

I cannot simply assert my age, race, or gender and expect a court to accept it.

Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:45:00 UTC | #15132

Go to: Homophobia, not injustice, is what really fires the faiths

Joadist's Avatar Jump to comment 3 by Joadist

I'm not familiar with British law.

Would someone kindly provide me with a reference to the law which gives a legal definition of homosexuality.

How does this law determine if a same-sex couple are homosexual or hetrosexual?

Is there an AIDS tests that determines homosexuality?

I fail to see how they can legislate that which has no legal definition.

Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:19:00 UTC | #15115

Go to: Intelligent design is a science, not a faith

Joadist's Avatar Jump to comment 31 by Joadist

Al A,

You are correct. Just tone down the parody. Within a few years you will be their foremost expert.

Then declare it a hoax. Meanwhile, you will get $millions in funding from the Religious Right.

Wed, 10 Jan 2007 00:16:00 UTC | #15026

Go to: Intelligent design is a science, not a faith

Joadist's Avatar Jump to comment 19 by Joadist

Design requires intent.
What is the intent of an Intelligent Designer?

Whatever it is, it IS NOT our intent.

It can hardly be considered intelligent to design something that does not conform to the intent of the Designer.

Why would we design a car that went where it wanted to go?

If ID was proven absolutely true, then I would be compelled to destroy all evidence of it.

It would be far better that we have a false sense of being alive than to submit to the absolute nihilism of being a manufactured object.

If ID is true, we have no reason to exist.

Tue, 09 Jan 2007 17:45:00 UTC | #14992

Go to: Open Letter to Rev. John Auer

Joadist's Avatar Jump to comment 13 by Joadist

How soon we forget.

A little more than a century ago, the Catholic Church was still castrating young boys for their choirs.

Tue, 09 Jan 2007 02:39:00 UTC | #14874

Go to: Sam Harris's Faith in Eastern Spirituality and Muslim Torture

Joadist's Avatar Jump to comment 11 by Joadist

This is simply a problem of being in the media spotlight.

If you want to find out if a new John Travolta or Tom Cruise is worth watching, you have to read a movie critic's opinion of Scientology.

Torture and ESP are not religious issues. Our sensationalist media doesn't allow us access to the podium unless we agree to allow all the random potshots.

Sat, 06 Jan 2007 15:20:00 UTC | #14491

Go to: God-less

Joadist's Avatar Jump to comment 13 by Joadist

gimlibengloin,

You are making the typucal theist mistake of confusing morality with obedience.

An absolute morality would be AMORAL.

The simple fact is that if there is a God, there is no morality.

Ever play "Simon Says"?

Sat, 06 Jan 2007 15:07:00 UTC | #14488

Go to: Secular fundamentalists are the new totalitarians

Joadist's Avatar Jump to comment 9 by Joadist

"you're supposed to believe in nothing"

Religion allows the belief in Jehovah, Allah, and even Satan.

The only thing religon considers a belief in nothing is any belief in man.

We are permitted belief in anything, as long as it isn't a belief in ourselves.

Sat, 06 Jan 2007 03:22:00 UTC | #14370

Go to: Without God, Gall Is Permitted

Joadist's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by Joadist

It is the depth of meaning in atheism that allows it to reject the shallowness of religion.

To quote an old song "Is that all there is?"

The best of all arguments against God is that he is insufficient.

Fri, 05 Jan 2007 16:19:00 UTC | #14286

Go to: Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Joadist's Avatar Jump to comment 487 by Joadist

David,

God is a spirit. Great!

Now I know what God is. Unfortunately, I no longer know what a spirit is.

Would you please define spirit for me?

Fri, 05 Jan 2007 13:27:00 UTC | #14263

Go to: Executing Saddam Hussein was an Act of Vandalism

Joadist's Avatar Jump to comment 86 by Joadist

Ian Armer,

Great Point!

Did Abraham Lincoln think he was evil when he caused the deaths of 500,000 Americans?

Did Andrew Jackson think he was evil when he order the elimination of Native Americans?

Did Saddam think he was evil when he built schools and hospitals?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Evil doesn't exist. It might like to exist, but stupidity doesn't leave it any room.

Fri, 05 Jan 2007 09:27:00 UTC | #14242

Go to: Executing Saddam Hussein was an Act of Vandalism

Joadist's Avatar Jump to comment 76 by Joadist

The US executes murderers because they broke the law. They took a life in violation of the law.

Saddam was executed for the opposite reason. He killed people in compliance with the law.

I might change my opinion on Capital Punishment if Capital Punishment was used to show that Capital Punishment is wrong.

We could have Capital Punishment, but only for people who use Capital Punishment.

Hitler used Capital Punishment to kill 6 million. Stalin used it to kill millions more. Saddam certainly took full advantage of it.

Does anyone seriously argue that the need to execute the occassional serial killer justifies the executions of 10's of millions?

Saddam has been executed. Capital Punishment is now a fact of life (or death) in the new Iraqi government. Now it is just a matter of counting the number of deaths that will follow.

Thu, 04 Jan 2007 15:51:00 UTC | #14168

Go to: Executing Saddam Hussein was an Act of Vandalism

Joadist's Avatar Jump to comment 48 by Joadist

Fanusi Khiyal,

And after the new Shia Government has killed hundreds of thousands, will their replacements cheer their execution also?

Thu, 04 Jan 2007 00:13:00 UTC | #14005

Go to: Executing Saddam Hussein was an Act of Vandalism

Joadist's Avatar Jump to comment 46 by Joadist

Why did Hitler, Stalin, Saddam,,,etc Kill so many people?

I know! I know!

They lived in nations that had Capital Punishment.

When the next leader of Iraq decides to begin mass murdering his people, his legal justification will already be in place.

There has never been a mass murdering leader in a nation without a death penalty.

Wed, 03 Jan 2007 22:22:00 UTC | #13999

Go to: Beliefwatch: Blasphemy (Challenge)

Joadist's Avatar Jump to comment 13 by Joadist

I do not like God. I do not want to be anywhere near him. I demand to go to Hell in order to avoid God.

However, if God sends me to Hell, he would be rewarding me for blasphemy.

I fear I am condemned to Heaven. But to look on the bright side, I will have all eternity to torment God.

Mon, 01 Jan 2007 15:56:00 UTC | #13709