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

Comments by ICONIC FREEDOM

Go to: The 10:23 Event

ICONIC FREEDOM's Avatar Jump to comment 6 by ICONIC FREEDOM

Interesting.

If someone who is a homeopath wants to work with someone who wants the homeopathic remedies, what business is it of anyone's?

Demonstrations and protests are a foundation of freedom of speech, no doubt. I would be the last person to silence speech of ANY kind.

I do find it interesting that someone who makes a choice whereas the choice has no affect on you, is the target of such ire.

I didn't realize that the ire toward religion, homeopathy and the like wasn't about freedom of all such things from government where pluralistic tax dollars are being utilized, but instead, about trying to control someone else's behavior, thinking, and choices.

Isn't that the same approach religious people attempt quite often? Self-righteousness, whereas because something is right for you it must be right for all, as such, all must subjugate to it?

Isn't that what islam does? convert, subjugate or die.

Live your life at no cost to others without their consent. If a person makes a choice in life that does not infringe on your free choices, why do you care?

I shifted to a place of not caring about religion or religious "beliefs" of another human being, only in that he does not try and use government to favor such or endorse such.

You can set yourself up for looking stupid in the future if science discovers that homeopathy was approached in error and actually was a valid form of treatment.

And in the end, why do you care?

As long as homeopathy isn't being covered by socialistic government run health care (so my tax dollars aren't funding ANY person's health care) what care do I have that another human being wants to make a free choice for what works for him.

If a man thinks that jelly beans will cure his illness, let him enjoy it as long as I don't have to pay for it and his choice does not infringe on any free choices of others.

I have no need to control others. If you do, you might ask yourself why.

Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:23:00 UTC | #432623

Go to: A Fault Is Not a Sin

ICONIC FREEDOM's Avatar Jump to comment 29 by ICONIC FREEDOM

Observation, a scientific foundation, tells us that although this nutter, Robertson, is spewing his hatred, many in the religious community have been all over television denouncing his statements.

While I agree that people can take their beliefs too far, it gives no credential to ignore that a great many people, who are religious, have taken responsibility by standing up and denouncing Robertson's stupidology.

If you only look one way down a street, you only see things one way.

Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:53:00 UTC | #432613

Go to: Houston elects openly gay mayor

ICONIC FREEDOM's Avatar Jump to comment 61 by ICONIC FREEDOM

Sounds like Dave Wilson has some homosexual tendencies brewing in him, perhaps if he owned those feelings, worked through 'em he might be happier.

No solid, secure man gives a rat's ass what the sexuality is of another man, unless he's got sumpin' goin on inside of him.

Memo to Dave Wilson: you'll enjoy life better when you stop attempting to own righteousness - just because something is "right" for you doesn't mean it's right for the rest of the world.

Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:34:00 UTC | #424361

Go to: The Atheist bus campaign has kicked off in NZ

ICONIC FREEDOM's Avatar Jump to comment 17 by ICONIC FREEDOM

I'm agnostic, thank god.

Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:29:00 UTC | #424357

Go to: Christians outraged by poster showing Mary and Joseph after sex

ICONIC FREEDOM's Avatar Jump to comment 71 by ICONIC FREEDOM

This poster is very funny!

Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:27:00 UTC | #424356

Go to: Intelligence Squared Debate: Is Atheism the New Fundamentalism?

ICONIC FREEDOM's Avatar Jump to comment 304 by ICONIC FREEDOM

Calling atheism a religion is like saying that abstinence is a form of sex.

Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:24:00 UTC | #424355

Go to: Jerry on 'Why Evolution is True' at the University of Wisconsin-Parkside

ICONIC FREEDOM's Avatar Jump to comment 11 by ICONIC FREEDOM

12. Comment #310310 by ICONIC FREEDOM on January 1, 2009 at 8:15 am

Science is setting itself up to be discredited.

The growing skepticism about gorebal warming is founded in the very same scientific method that the non-religious utilize as one form of argument with the religious nut cases when proving the non-existence of a god: objective data.

Having overreached on gorebal warming and creating hysteria, science will lose the credential to argue religion’s idiotic claims.

The religious will be pointing to the falsehood and hysteria created about gorebal warming, thus give rise to those critics of science when arguing the non-existence of a god by any scientific method – the very objective method needed to support the falsehood of religion.

In vain, science will speak and say, “No, no, no, we have gorebal warming wrong, but we’re not wrong about there being no god”, to which the religious will see science as the “boy who cried wolf”.

Science and politics don't mix and too many have mixed them for personal gain.

Hitchens once said, "Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus"

gorebal warming has been crediting itself with consensus since the beginning.

Something to think about.



I guess no one wanted to think about it.

Limited government; personal responsibility; safety of the nation.

Government has no interest in social issues; free market innovation will create solutions to such.

Thinking that government belongs involved, means you're looking for government to favor, promote and fund your personal agenda.

The science community has done itself much damage with this gorebal warming fraud. Instead of adhering to legitimate scientific method, some let profit, power and personal agenda drive their motivations.

This is disgraceful.

Science is the one true, beautiful discipline which seeks to falsify itself - to find its own error in order to self-correct after self-evaluation. It's the one discipline that has helped advance individual freedom more than any other.

It's not to say that ALL science is now discredited, obviously not. It is to say that those utilizing science as a weapon to the religious have just made their job tougher.

Seek individual freedom, irrespective of beliefs, in as much as such beliefs are not funded by government, and neither are any other "belief systems".

Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:26:00 UTC | #419184

Go to: Michelle Malkin: Atheists Should Be Treated Like ''Trolls''

ICONIC FREEDOM's Avatar Jump to comment 194 by ICONIC FREEDOM

Uh, Malkin, it seems that Conservatives, not Republicans, have "self-identified" their politics with religion.

1) Christmas can be celebrated outside the ideas of jesus

2) Conservatives aren't getting it about what individual freedom vs. mob mentality

3) Objective Freedom or Subjective Ideology, which side are they on?

4) If religion is the basis of their civility & charity, it doesn't speak well about the nature of who they are - they would otherwise not be charitable or civil?

5) I can read & sings songs about Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer and not believe that reindeer fly

Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:24:00 UTC | #418892

Go to: Animals can tell right from wrong

ICONIC FREEDOM's Avatar Jump to comment 59 by ICONIC FREEDOM

the evolutionary development is in the awareness of self-interest of the individual, toward that end, choices made which either satisfy that which is sought, or creates anxiety(an energy from within, not defined as such, experienced) where dissatisfaction is experienced

all of which are only words used to describe observation, not projection of emotion

the life of a human moves toward or away from something; so, too, does the animal - well, & just about everything else too, but we won't pursue that

Thu, 28 May 2009 20:43:00 UTC | #365652

Go to: Animals can tell right from wrong

ICONIC FREEDOM's Avatar Jump to comment 58 by ICONIC FREEDOM

"but in a group it is the relative Right or Wrong that matters"

people dislike the idea of there not being a "right" or "wrong" because they're afraid of where they fall in the game

again, the OBSERVATION is all that can create hypothesis to data to conclusion

the "projection" of the human emotion onto someone or something is subjective

it is the very process by which religion is based: personal experience

Thu, 28 May 2009 20:38:00 UTC | #365651

Go to: Animals can tell right from wrong

ICONIC FREEDOM's Avatar Jump to comment 55 by ICONIC FREEDOM

BTW - how do I know it's tosh - because there is no RIGHT or WRONG, there is only choice and the value placed upon that choice by the individual who makes it

thus, those that think someone is "wrong" is because they don't agree with their "choice"

so what!

agreement doesn't mean anything except that two or more agree

what happened to science evolving - oy!

Thu, 28 May 2009 17:41:00 UTC | #365602

Go to: Animals can tell right from wrong

ICONIC FREEDOM's Avatar Jump to comment 54 by ICONIC FREEDOM

What a bunch of tosh!

All this projection of emotion onto someone/something.

Does this author think that animals know that he's a human? that he speaks a "language"?

of course not - so too, they don't have "emotions"

the best that can be OBSERVERED is their choices in behavior; the energy that drives those choices of behavior; the outcomes of those choices

gimme a break!

it's starting to sound like religion

Thu, 28 May 2009 17:39:00 UTC | #365601

Go to: Open-mindedness

ICONIC FREEDOM's Avatar Jump to comment 50 by ICONIC FREEDOM

Open-mindedness from the religious is like saying Liberals are liberal - when they are anything but liberal, much like conservatives looking so much like liberals.

Both parties think they "know something" about how others should live their lives, the quality of that life, then seek to control, manipulate and regulate in order to force their personal subjective view - through legislation, law, vote and the courts.

Only the individual knows how his or her life should be lived and must care for self at no cost to others without consent.

Not giving people choice, is simply controlling.

Thu, 02 Apr 2009 21:20:00 UTC | #343204

Go to: Open-mindedness

ICONIC FREEDOM's Avatar Jump to comment 49 by ICONIC FREEDOM

I no longer argue about the existence of a god to the religious, simply put:

Do I know what the "first cause" was?

No, I do not and neither do you.

You have hope, desire, conjecture, projection, subjective ideas - but you don't know and neither do I, so what?

What I DO KNOW is what FREEDOM is for every human being to decide the direction of his or her life; being accountable (ownership of choice) being response-able (able to respond to the choice) and making each choice at no cost to another person without consent.

THAT I know.

Thu, 02 Apr 2009 21:13:00 UTC | #343202

Go to: Jerry A. Coyne - Why Evolution Is True

ICONIC FREEDOM's Avatar Jump to comment 5 by ICONIC FREEDOM

EvidenceOnly - I am a fan of Ken Miller's, as well. I saw him last year at a talk in NY at the Natural History Museum - he articulates evolution in a way that the non-scientist can assimilate.

This is a great video if you haven't already seen it.

Ken Miller Talkin Evolution

Thu, 02 Apr 2009 21:03:00 UTC | #343198

Go to: Censorship is Wrong

ICONIC FREEDOM's Avatar Jump to comment 82 by ICONIC FREEDOM

The University chose accurately to dis-invite Stein because his views are categorically monotheistic, mired in religion. As such, pluralistic tax dollars from its nation cannot endorse such actions of discriminating all other religious viewpoints and non-religious viewpoints that would not have been represented by Stein. Clearly, Stein would have only represented his monotheistic viewpoint.

Dawkins, who represents the scientific community and the scientific method which endorses no religion and no political framework (inherently it cannot due to the obvious objective nature of it) clearly represents ALL AMERICANS and pluralistic tax payers, as he speaks about how science dispels mythology.

Dawkins discussion is scientific, not religious and not political endorsement. If his talk veers off into politics of endorsement and/or attempting to uphold one religion over another, then the legislators, as guardians for the people, would have warrant and license to shut it down.

The problem in 2007 at the CFI Conference I attended, was that the "congregants" would not hold accountable the Democrat Party for their indulging in religion, ideology and stupidology during the election; they were in contradiction of their movement if they are discriminately upholding one over the other.

The point of dispelling religious mythology, is so that all human beings can live in freedom, not just the Democrats or whatever affiliation you espouse.

I know many on this site are liberal in their ideology - this ideology is inherently just as bad as the ideology of religion as it disenfranchises all those who don't hold your particular viewpoint.

That's fine, no doubt anyone would infringe on your freedom to do so.

However, you are not upholding and endorsing freedom when your viewpoint does not uphold and endorse freedom for ALL AMERICANS and ALL HUMAN BEINGS.

Pat yourself on the back all you want, but it's no different than the religious who do the same when they are espousing their myopic opinions.

When a "no-party system" emerges and we just vote for the candidate who upholds freedom and free choice for all, that's the candidate who will represent ALL. That can only be done through objective understanding and minimal government.

Mon, 09 Mar 2009 07:13:00 UTC | #334279

Go to: Oklahoma legislator proposes resolution to condemn Richard Dawkins

ICONIC FREEDOM's Avatar Jump to comment 255 by ICONIC FREEDOM

I sent this letter to all the email addresses you listed. Thanks sbooder for the info.


An American legislative, presumed to be in possession of and assimilating the Constitution, knowing that it upholds free speech, wants to condemn someone's free speech?

You don't have a "right" to NOT be offended.

You don't have a "right" to silence free speech.

You don’t have a “right” to comfort.

If you want alternative views taught in science class, then bring in scientific evidence that has been vetted through the same process as Evolution has been vetted.

If you want to utilize pluralistic tax dollars to fund science classes with alternate views in publicly funded schools, then all churches who receive tax credits must open their doors and give equal time during their Sunday services to alternative views.

If pluralistic tax dollars are going to FORCE others to listen to non-science, then taking advantage of the American people through a tax credit (not paying a tax on income through donations) compels the same in return.

Open your church doors and let's see how it goes.

Private schools can teach whatever they wish and decide their standards of curriculum. No doubt we agree.

Tax payer funded schools must uphold the freedoms of ALL AMERICANS, not just those with special interests.

Get government out of education and all this goes away.


Every time you take away choice and freedom, you are inherently manipulating and controlling others.

Greg W.
Scottsdale, AZ

Sat, 07 Mar 2009 10:22:00 UTC | #333842

Go to: Darwin backer's talk draws foes

ICONIC FREEDOM's Avatar Jump to comment 9 by ICONIC FREEDOM

So, an American legislator, who it is presumed knows the Constitution upholds free speech, wants to condemn someone's free speech?

You don't have a "right" to NOT be offended, congressman.

You don't have a "right" to silence free speech.

Your comfort is not a "right" to be upheld.

If you want alternative views taught in science class, then bring in scientific evidence that has been vetted through the same process as Evolution.

If you want to utilize pluralistic tax dollars to fund science classes with alternate views, then all churches who receive tax credits must open their doors and give equal time during their Sunday services to alternative views.

If pluralistic tax dollars are going to FORCE others to listen to non-science, then your taking advantage of the American people through a tax credit (not paying a tax on income) compels the same in return.

Open your church doors and let's see how it goes.

Sat, 07 Mar 2009 10:07:00 UTC | #333839

Go to: Vatican official calls atheist theories 'absurd'

ICONIC FREEDOM's Avatar Jump to comment 317 by ICONIC FREEDOM

This quote is so telling:

""We think that it's not a scientific prospective, nor a theological or philosophical one..."

Religion and god are mere philosophical and theological - couldn't agree more.

As such, it is flung into the dung heap of stupidology for empirical seeking individuals

Thu, 05 Mar 2009 16:04:00 UTC | #333345

Go to: Vatican official calls atheist theories 'absurd'

ICONIC FREEDOM's Avatar Jump to comment 315 by ICONIC FREEDOM

CREATIONIST NOT INVITED

christ, this story makes me happy! : )

Thu, 05 Mar 2009 16:00:00 UTC | #333343

Go to: Freedom Under Fire: U.N. Anti-Blasphemy Resolution

ICONIC FREEDOM's Avatar Jump to comment 312 by ICONIC FREEDOM

Okay, kids, I gotta go watch 24 - it's a 2-hour episode!

Have a good night!

Cheers

Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:53:00 UTC | #332251

Go to: Freedom Under Fire: U.N. Anti-Blasphemy Resolution

ICONIC FREEDOM's Avatar Jump to comment 311 by ICONIC FREEDOM

I used to love the kool-aid frozen pops my mom would make during the summer, though! :)

Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:51:00 UTC | #332250

Go to: Freedom Under Fire: U.N. Anti-Blasphemy Resolution

ICONIC FREEDOM's Avatar Jump to comment 310 by ICONIC FREEDOM

Eshto, so you engage in the same stereo-typing that most liberals are always screaming about other people doing


nice

LOL!

that's my point, you act like them; it's why you hate them so much

look to the idea of free choice and if someone is acting in ANY way that doesn't allow you free choice - that's a person trying to control and manipulate you

I don't give a F*CK what *good intention* they think they have, if there's no choice then it's bullshit and ought not be indulged

let each care for self and all will be cared for

all "good intentions" are subjective and personal; no one should be forcing their ideology onto us

liberals spending tax money because it's for the "greater good" is no different that conservatives spending tax money because it's for the "greater good"

I don't need, nor do you, ANYONE deciding what is for the greater good

we only need legislators creating laws which advance freedom and free choice of EVERY HUMAN BEING to live this life and make free choice toward personal pursuit of happiness

Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:51:00 UTC | #332249

Go to: Freedom Under Fire: U.N. Anti-Blasphemy Resolution

ICONIC FREEDOM's Avatar Jump to comment 305 by ICONIC FREEDOM

I think you guys' minds have walked off the map; are you so emotional in your response and incapable of thinking that you cannot see my point regarding BOTH PARTIES

further, you are blind to your own ill health which cannot look at your own party of support to see where they are acting in ways that infringe on your freedoms

again, you get on this site and deplore the right for their infringements, which I agree with, but are blind and kool-aid drinking when it comes to looking critically at your own party


why do you think you hate the opposition so much?

it's because you act just like them

Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:41:00 UTC | #332243

Go to: Freedom Under Fire: U.N. Anti-Blasphemy Resolution

ICONIC FREEDOM's Avatar Jump to comment 304 by ICONIC FREEDOM

again, hayesky, you don't read my posts because I do not endorse EITHER party infringing

you only want to indict the conservatives, which only reveals your polarization and ill health that you are incapable of assimilating freedom and then recognizing those who are behaving in ways to abscond with such freedoms

Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:38:00 UTC | #332242

Go to: Freedom Under Fire: U.N. Anti-Blasphemy Resolution

ICONIC FREEDOM's Avatar Jump to comment 302 by ICONIC FREEDOM

hayesky, if you are positing that I disagree with Hitchens about the U.N., I do not.

if you are attempting to indict conservatives as a means to you having an "upper" hand, then you didn't read the post thoroughly because I indict them myself on those issues which they in complicit fashion do the same thing the dems do

if you don't think that your human right toward life, liberty and the pursuit of your own happiness is not streaming through what I stated, then again, you clearly don't assimilate what freedom truly is in your life

the government ought to NEVER be involved in social or economic governance

again, I will state as I did before, laws that prevent me from infringing on your free choices to live your life without interference are laws that uphold our Declaration and Constitution

if you think that the government should be "nannying" people then you once again don't get it - I just made the point that "nanny" states are those who THINK THEY KNOW HOW OTHERS SHOULD LIVE and want to impose it

isn't that the very thing that this site deplores about the religious of our world? Indeed, it is.

Let each care for self, all will be cared for

own your choices; be response-able to the choice or don't make it; make your choices at no cost to others without their consent

stealing tax money from people you never have to look in the eye and say, "I'm okay taking your hard earned dollars because I'm non-productive and lazy; I don't want to work for what I get, I want someone to save me" is cowardice

Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:37:00 UTC | #332240

Go to: Freedom Under Fire: U.N. Anti-Blasphemy Resolution

ICONIC FREEDOM's Avatar Jump to comment 299 by ICONIC FREEDOM

calm down? what's that all about! LOL!

Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:22:00 UTC | #332236

Go to: Freedom Under Fire: U.N. Anti-Blasphemy Resolution

ICONIC FREEDOM's Avatar Jump to comment 297 by ICONIC FREEDOM

righton - I received my CCW here in Arizona in December and exercising my 2nd Amendment Rights is a great freedom when you consider that dems want gun control in the face of evidence to the contrary of how it equalizes those who threaten others

Check out John R. Lott's blogspot if you get a chance

I used to tell folks in NY who would argue this issue: first of all, you're thinking you know how others should live and thus controlling my free choice. Second, when I'm on the subway with a CW and someone comes on to rob the car, I'll let you step forward as the sacrifice while I hold my gun to protect only myself.

they're such hypocrites

Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:16:00 UTC | #332232

Go to: Freedom Under Fire: U.N. Anti-Blasphemy Resolution

ICONIC FREEDOM's Avatar Jump to comment 296 by ICONIC FREEDOM

hayesky, are you serious?

There are stories replete with speech code enforced on University campuses around the country - look for the film Indoctrinate U, we can start with that

where do you think Politically Correct speak came from


how about the regulations and forcing NINJA loans through Fannie and Freddie, taking away the free choices of the market to act in its own self-interest of solid financials

forcing gorebal warming spending through legislation, thereby forcing Americans in their ideology of a questionable science at the very least, but one where the models and data have NEVER been made public

how about Reid pushing through a billion dollar train from L.A. to Vegas that was VOTED DOWN by the people of California

wanting to make it painful for coal mining through taxation so as to eliminate it

raising taxes on gas so that we reduce our usage; where is the personal choice to make that decision?

Dems think they know better so they want to force others to make choices they don't want to make or will eliminate the choices that Americans would otherwise make for themselves because the dems have outlawed certain options, etc.

wanting to impose the plethora of spending recently whereby our taxes will increase to pay for programs that AMERICANS are not in support of

bailing out the auto industry

bailing out AIG

bailing out banks; forcing them to take money when some of the ones they forced it upon didn't want it

look, anytime either party is not giving you a choice, they are inherently trying to control and manipulate, thereby taking away freedom and free choice

if you can't figure it out for yourself where your freedoms are slowly being taken away, then you're not paying attention

conservatives and liberals LOVE to sit around and decide how the world ought to live and then seek legislation to impose their personal subjective morality and values upon everyone else

government laws need only seek to uphold freedom and free choice of the individual to decide how to live his life at no cost to others without their consent

life your life in this way; take ownership of personal choice; be response-able to the choice at no cost to others

LET EACH CARE FOR SELF AND ALL WILL BE CARED FOR

Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:12:00 UTC | #332230

Go to: Freedom Under Fire: U.N. Anti-Blasphemy Resolution

ICONIC FREEDOM's Avatar Jump to comment 290 by ICONIC FREEDOM

Yes, the U.N. is very similar to the democrat party with all their desires to control, regulate and manipulate

The U.N. thinks it knows how others should live and wants speech code like that of Universities who enforce such

Taking away a person's freedom is like boiling a frog; you can't throw the frog in boiling water you have to put him in cold water and slowly turn up the heat until it's too late and the frog is cooked - so too will be your freedoms and free choice

Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:47:00 UTC | #332220