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

Comments by EvilConservative

Go to: Will your kid be taught that climate change is a hoax?

EvilConservative's Avatar Jump to comment 24 by EvilConservative

Comment 16 by alaskansee :

EvilConservative

What don't you understand about posting on a public forum? The feeblest part of your post wasn't the regurgitated lies but the plea not to be rebuked.

Personally I think the post should be removed for the utter stupidity of shouting at people with your fingers in your ears.

Also aren't there real "Evil Conservatives" that don't want you smearing them with your thoughtlessness?

I know plenty about posting on public forums. And I definitely know about posting on this forum. Many an hour I've spent posting on these forums with facts and quotes from reputable source only to have people basically say, "I don't believe your facts."

So I don't waste my time anymore doing the research and laying the facts out for people who basically have their minds made up already. Hence my post about links and facts and sources and such. I'm not gonna be dragged into that on these forums anymore.

Which is why I tell people to do the research themselves. Some will, some won't.

The "Evil Conservative" forum name is a double stab. A stab at the religious right who find my lack in a belief of God.....Evil. The Conservative part is a stab at the Left because they hate Conservatism and endorse Progressivism/Communism/Fascism etc..

And trust me...I think way more about everything than all my Left/Right wing friends.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:01:38 UTC | #921281

Go to: Will your kid be taught that climate change is a hoax?

EvilConservative's Avatar Jump to comment 21 by EvilConservative

Comment 20 by EvilConservative :

Comment 12 by Starcrash :

No matter what the scientific consensus is and whether or not you agree with it, it should be taught to kids. The consensus is always "the best view of the truth we have at the moment based on all the given information".

Who cares if it's controversial? If it turns out to be false, then the consensus will reverse their view --- it has happened, and we have no reason to suspect the majority of scientists of dogmatism. Teach the kids what we know, and if there's anything to be said about "controversy" on the subject, it should be that no truth can be absolute... but we can still call this theory true, given the weight of current evidence.

I don't agree with this in the sense that I want my kids school text books to be filled with facts. If the fact is still up in the air, then leave it out. If I taught my children based on consensus, then I'd be teaching them to believe in God since as Atheists we are the non believing minority.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:45:16 UTC | #921272

Go to: Will your kid be taught that climate change is a hoax?

EvilConservative's Avatar Jump to comment 20 by EvilConservative

Comment 12 by Starcrash :

No matter what the scientific consensus is and whether or not you agree with it, it should be taught to kids. The consensus is always "the best view of the truth we have at the moment based on all the given information".

Who cares if it's controversial? If it turns out to be false, then the consensus will reverse their view --- it has happened, and we have no reason to suspect the majority of scientists of dogmatism. Teach the kids what we know, and if there's anything to be said about "controversy" on the subject, it should be that no truth can be absolute... but we can still call this theory true, given the weight of current evidence.

I don't agree with this in the sense that I want my kids school text books to be filled with facts. If the fact is still up in the air, then leave it out. If I taught my children based on consensus, then I'd be teaching them to believe in God since as Atheists we are the non believing minority.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:44:40 UTC | #921271

Go to: Will your kid be taught that climate change is a hoax?

EvilConservative's Avatar Jump to comment 19 by EvilConservative

Comment 17 by Nastika :

Comment 11 by EvilConservative

Climategate II http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100119087/uh-oh-global-warming-loons-here-comes-climategate-ii/

I don't believe it - you actually quoted referenced a Delingpole blog while I was composing my comment. Spooky.

James "It's not my job to sit down and read peer reviewed papers" Delingpole: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Xu3SQcIE0

So this English Literature graduate is your authority on climate change?

Fine, that is why I posted 3. So you don't debunk the one from NASA or CBS News then. My point is made again.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:42:06 UTC | #921268

Go to: Will your kid be taught that climate change is a hoax?

EvilConservative's Avatar Jump to comment 18 by EvilConservative

You are all doing what I told you guys not to do. Quoting me that your right and I'm wrong and the proof is proof. Which I knew you guys would and you all fell into the trap/mindset I knew you would.

I probably didn't explain myself properly in relation to the context of this article. There is NOT enough solid concrete proof to give evidence of Global Warming. There is NOT enough solid concrete evidence to prove "Man Made GW". There is NOT enough evidence to prove that GW does NOT exist. Its all still up in the air. 30 years ago scientists were complaining about Global Cooling.

But I'm not saying I don't think GW exists. There is as much data proving its existence as there is disproving it. I don't know what is true. Neither side has won the argument. Having said that, do we teach it in schools as fact? I don't think so. I say leave it out for now.

BTW, the 90% of scientists argument doesn't work. If I took that same reasoning and applied it to Atheism, then we the 10% of the world who don't believe in God are then wrong, because 90% of the other people do believe in God. The human race has plenty of examples showing that the majority can be wrong.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:39:13 UTC | #921266

Go to: Will your kid be taught that climate change is a hoax?

EvilConservative's Avatar Jump to comment 11 by EvilConservative

Comment 3 by Kalex :

Wrong wrong wrong "EvilConservative". Your Climategate BS was just that - BS. All of the investigations showed the scientists did not manipulate the data. I'm surprised you would believe FOx News and Rush Limbuagh before the extrememly vast majority of climate scientists.

Shame.

Wrong wrong wrong. I don't watch Fox, and I don't listen to Rush.

Here is your latest climategate link filled with emails showing scientists manipulating data.

Climategate II http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100119087/uh-oh-global-warming-loons-here-comes-climategate-ii/

Here is one from NASA getting caught http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30000

Here is one from CBS who in case you didn't know are NOT affiliated with Rush Limbaugh or Fox news.

Told ya.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:06:01 UTC | #921250

Go to: Will your kid be taught that climate change is a hoax?

EvilConservative's Avatar Jump to comment 2 by EvilConservative

Both sides of the political spectrum have organizations who plan and spend money to inject their points of view into school education. So today its "this" document leak, tomorrow it will be another document/email leak.

Global Warming education shouldn't be given a free pass into schools. The Global Warming debate is wrought with political partisanship, mixed facts with prominent scientists on both sides. The scientific community has been caught with its pants down on this one multiple times secretively manipulating data which only hurts their cause. This topic is wrought with corporate money pandering on both sides under this President and past presidents.

I have a feeling that by the time the dust settles on this issue, we'll be ready about it in our history text books instead of our Science text books.

FYI: Don't reply to this with some global warming is real link, cause for every one of those you can post, I can find another credible organization saying the exact opposite. I can also link page upon page of big oil/Solyndra scandals all day. So don't post me any corporate greed links either.

Last but not least, don't tell me that because I haven't posted any links myself, that I'm making this up. I don't need to post the massive returns of a basic Google search into this post because you don't want to do the research yourself.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:16:25 UTC | #921216

Go to: Gingrich envy, and Theocracy-palooza

EvilConservative's Avatar Jump to comment 16 by EvilConservative

I'm a little different than most posters. I'm a fiscal conservative atheist. So I'm pretty much 90% Right Wing, but I'm an Atheist.

I'm trying to compare the "higher power" of a deity (Religious Right) with the "higher power" of a Government (Liberal Left). For every statement said against the Religious Right Higher Power in the video, I could make an equally opposite statement in regard to the Government.

You mention "as if we had a choice". The choice that you or anybody feels they are loosing when it comes to decisions made by the Religious Right are already being taken away by the Liberal Left for a different reason. So Sean (Video) can't make the claim that liberties are being taken away exclusively by the Religious Theocrats when they are also being taken away by the Left.

Its an observable fact that the Right cares more about the Constitution/Bill of Rights than the Left. You can't watch/listen to Right Wing media without the Constitution being mentioned. The right has TV shows dedicated to the Constitution and Law. The Tea Party is a party who cries out against violations of the Constitution. You don't see Occupy participants complaining about Constitutional violations. When I listen to Left Wing media, I don't see any mention of the Constitution/Bill of Rights except to decide which Article to get rid of as was the case on the Bill Maher show a couple of weeks ago (the one with Bill Engval on it). This is how I can tell who appreciates the Constitution/Bill of Rights more as a group.

Despite Obama's history with Constitutional Law, it apparently didn't mean a thing when he enacted Health Care Reform that included violations to Articles 1.1 & 1.8 of the Constitution and the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights. His list of violations is easily searchable on the Internet. And let me clear, it's not just him. There are some in both parties that do it. My argument is that Sean (Video) shouldn't be singling out the Right for violations. He needs to remember the Left is just as guilty if not more so in the last 3 years.

And who cares about the "ideals" of the founding fathers? They promoted slavery. They felt that being taxed without being able to vote was a good enough reason to kill people, and after they got their country they taxed women without allowing them to vote. I respect the founding fathers, but I certainly don't worship them or treat their words as gospel.

This IMO is borderline ignorant. I'm sure your familiar with the term "moral zeitgeist". Your basically condemning these founders because they don't meet the ethical standards of today. That isn't logical.

Some time well spent with the History Channel and the web and you'd know that the founders wanted to tackle slavery in the Bill of Rights. But at the time they had 13 individual colonies and they were trying to get them all to form a single country. It took 2 years for those colonies to ratify the Constitution without the issue of Slavery. After days of deliberation the Constitutional Congress left it out. They had to. It would have prevented the forming of the US and years later that issue alone was enough to divide the US in half. They didn't promote slavery, it was addressed, but the time wasn't right. I think you need to do some more research.

The main reason you need to know these things (besides being factually accurate in conversations with others) is that these things the founders laid out for us in early US history are valuable. They were fought for and paid for in blood. You need to know why they are valuable and prevent them from being taken away by either political party or a religious group.

Tue, 29 Nov 2011 22:48:12 UTC | #894227

Go to: Gingrich envy, and Theocracy-palooza

EvilConservative's Avatar Jump to comment 14 by EvilConservative

Some good points in the video. I can tell by frequent mentioning of the "Right Wing" that Sean would be of the "Left Wing" persuasion.

Like most Left Wing rants they often leave their side out and I gotta say the current administration hasn't given the people of the US a reason to appreciate their side either. While the secular left worries about the theocratic right giving up peoples liberties to a so called "higher power", the Left is more than willing to give up those same liberties to the higher power of government (aka regulation, taxes, healthcare, spending etc..) In a two party system we're left with a lesser of two evils, and I know only one charges 10% of everything I have.

The Left is not upholding the ideals of Jefferson & Madison either. The Bill of Rights is an excellent document and I myself would definitely prefer it over any religious document any day. While the religious Right Wing would have you read the 10 Commandments in school, they are also way more likely to have you read the Bill of Rights and the Constitution than their Left Wing counterparts. Following our founding documents and basic rule of law is not a staple trait of the Left Wing party.

So.....like the failures of the Republican Party which allowed Obama to win easily, it will be the failures of the Democrat Party that will allow the Right to make a comeback this election cycle. As a consequence we will once again be at the mercy of Right Wing Theocrats.

Mon, 28 Nov 2011 23:53:06 UTC | #894017

Go to: This Video is Frightening…

EvilConservative's Avatar Jump to comment 35 by EvilConservative

This video is definitely targeting children. This video uses techniques developed by the "Baby Einstein" series of child videos. Simple sounds, bold colors etc.. While "Baby Einstein" teaches kids music, numbers, colors etc., this video goes straight into child indoctrination.

I think I'm gonna hurl......

Wed, 08 Sep 2010 16:59:57 UTC | #513986

Go to: A Taxing Question

EvilConservative's Avatar Jump to comment 10 by EvilConservative

The premise behind tax exemption in the US is basically this. If a government wants to hinder or prevent something, tax it. If a government is allowed to tax religious entities, then the government could tax one religion more than another thereby exhibiting preference for one religion over another. This breaks separation of Church & State. So the goal is to not tax religious organizations period and remain neutral.

Here is the IRS link for 501(c)(3) tax exemption guidelines.

http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html

Now you're right in that the line is often crossed and can be gray sometimes. Even the text of the rule says the organization:

may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities

None of this stops presidents or politicians from siding with religious organizations because the individuals can give money while the church cannot. Not too hard getting money for your campaign when religious people often give 10% tithe anyway.

Many organizations do gain and loose their 501 status. It happens more than people think its just not big news. Loose your 501 status, disband the organization, make a new one and reapply for 501.

Updated: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:45:36 UTC | #501481

Go to: Atheism and Religious symbols

EvilConservative's Avatar Jump to comment 1 by EvilConservative

Humans and symbolism have gone hand in hand for centuries. Despite our anti religious posture, we have a Scarlet A for our symbol here so we are not immune from symbology. Symbols do mean something. For you, those necklaces don't represent their religious representation, they are just tokens of past loved ones.

But to others, they represent their intended religious connotations and in their eyes you are being hypocritical. A non believer wearing the icons of believers. So if I was you I'd expect some flak for it and just move on.

Updated: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:10:49 UTC | #489010

Go to: Glenn Beck

EvilConservative's Avatar Jump to comment 25 by EvilConservative

Away from PC for a bit. Boy did this discussion blow up. Here we go.

Tyler Durden,

You need to do some research, and I'm not going to do it for you. I've posted too many times on this site huge posts with proof and all people like you do is discard it or claim the source is lying or false. So I'm not doing it anymore.

At the time before the election, Obama's relationship with the church as well as tons of audio/video/interviews were all over the news and web. If you're saying "Where's the proof?" 2 years after the fact, then you're just not paying attention. The right tried to warn everybody, the left didn't listen or didn't care. The chips fell and now it's spilt milk.

No I'm not a conspiracy theorist. My replies were to the OP's original question. I don't think Obama is anti-white. I regret that he grew up and put himself repeatedly in the arms of the anti-white culture of that particular black community. A president should be someone who embraces all people of all races and unfortunately he didn't run in those circles.

I'm not a "birther". Me being a "rational" person realizes that humans often create conspiracies where there are none. I'm the kind of person to side with human incompetence rather than some elaborate human conspiracy. All Obama had to say was, "That short certificate is all I have. I don't have a long birth certificate. When the paperwork was drawn up, I was 1 day old at the time and that was 40+ years ago." He then tells Hawaii to post whatever they have. See how simple that is.

What I DO care about is the process of the whole thing.

There is no governing body to handle the verification of a presidential candidates citizenship status. So the whole "birther" controversy can happen again with another president. Instead of being "transparent" like promised, Obama has decided to hire lawyers to prevent people from finding out about his true citizenship, his college student stats and the fact that Hawaii has locked up his documentation. This is "character" revealing on behalf of Obama and he just isn't keeping promises.

What you claim as being pro white or pro American actions of character by Obama just aren't. There is a larger agenda and various forces at play that are beyond that. Character is where you say something, and then follow through with it, and not doing the opposite of it. You say he has character on Universal Health Care. That's the agenda.

It was Obamas character that kept the meetings locked up and private despite promising during the election that they would be open to the public. He only finally let CSPAN cameras in the meeting until "caught" breaking his promise. And even then it only lasted a couple of days and then they LOCKED the doors.

It was Obamas promise to have all bills on the web for everybody to read before he voted on them. Instead of showing character and keeping his promise, he voted and passed UHC with no web posting. NONE.

Russ Williams,

Congratulations. You found a website that handily keeps track of Bush Administration "scandals".

First off, EVERY president is gonna have them. It's the nature of the game. What you're calling scandals are just lawsuits, and as long as there are two sides to every argument and a highly litigious society, you're gonna have lawsuits.

I'm not gonna post it. It's on Google if you look, but Bill Clintons page is bigger than Bushes by a mile. Obama will have his lawsuit page as well.

And you're post doesn't go into any depth on each individual scandal. I can tell you got this from a Left Wing website cause many of those statements are half truths with no background.

Rather than go into each one individually, all I've gotta say is, if they were guilty, they were guilty. None of those scandals involve President Bush himself do they? And its easy to say that all of this happened under the Bush administration because that "blanket" is huge. Statistically you're gonna have bad apples out of the millions of people in government in Washington DC. Bush didn't try to cover any of this stuff up. There was full transparency as much as the law would allow.

If you want to discuss one of those scandals above individually, be my guest. But I'm not gonna address each one now as it would make this post longer than it already is.

Updated: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:10:19 UTC | #481418

Go to: Glenn Beck

EvilConservative's Avatar Jump to comment 13 by EvilConservative

Comment 10 by Tyler Durden :

Comment 9 by EvilConservative :

Glenn Beck gets the Obama "Anti-White" issue from the fact: that Obama was a member 20+ years of a Black Liberation church which through its charter and preachings by its head pastor is openly anti-white. You can't deny it, we've got video and audio of it.

Can you cite specific examples of actions (i.e legislation) undertaken by Obama (either as POTUS, Senator, student, or community organizer) that would underline this claim?

You may have "video and audio of it" but actions speak louder than words.

Put up or shut up.

(Bill and Monica, seriously?)

Here is a perfect example of the "Separation" I talked about. To this person it's perfectly acceptable to be a member of an anti white church for 20 years as long as that person isn't caught saying anything anti-white.

You're right, there are NO anti-white statements on record from Obama save a minor one in his inauguration. But he's reciting a prayer and not an actual statement. A prayer he learned from the Black Liberation church he went to for 20 years.

Obama's actions DO speak louder than words. He attended the church for 20+ years. Year after year he went to this church every Sunday and listened to anti white hate speech. At what point during this time period did he not figure out that maybe what was being said at the church was racist? At what point did he figure out he should stop going?

Oprah Winfrey went to that same church but stopped going because of what was being said. She knew what was right and ACTED on it. And of course the church went after her for it saying "She had lost the true faith."

Now Obama has openly condemned what the church stands for. But only after he got "caught" by the likes of Glenn Beck and other Right Wing news outlets. But people were looking. Obama didn't make the right decision while attending the church. Not an act of good character.

The OP wondered where Glenn Beck gets Obama's anti-what sentiment from. I've given the reason and examples and the proof. The issue here is, if a person associates himself with a particular organization for a long period of time, does that person believe what that organization believes. I think the answer is yes.

This website is a meeting place for Atheists. I've been reading and posting on it for almost 2 years. You can probably assume that I'm an Atheist. Imagine if I went to Atheist meetings, websites and read books on Atheism for 20 years. You can probably assume I'm an Atheist.

Updated: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:32:52 UTC | #480616

Go to: Glenn Beck

EvilConservative's Avatar Jump to comment 9 by EvilConservative

Glenn Beck gets the Obama "Anti-White" issue from the fact: that Obama was a member 20+ years of a Black Liberation church which through its charter and preachings by its head pastor is openly anti-white. You can't deny it, we've got video and audio of it.

People on the left have a very unique talent. People on the left can separate people from things they've done in the past or organizations people have belonged to just as long as they aren't "spouting" those beliefs at the current time or as people on the right call it, putting up a front to hide what you really believe.

Imagine if Bush was a 20 year member of an anti-black church. That wouldn't be tolerated for 5 min. But Obama can be a member of an openly anti-white church and it's OK. Because he doesn't say anything anti-white. He went there for 20 years but didn't inhale.

The Left has many examples of this kind of "separation". Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Senator Byrd who is an ex KKK Grand Wizard and currently the longest sitting Senator (51 years) are some examples.

For the Right, it's about character. Character is molded over time and is largely affected and reflected by who you hang around with or are associated with.

Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:35:26 UTC | #480368

Go to: A bit confused

EvilConservative's Avatar Jump to comment 26 by EvilConservative

It is true that Liberals and Conservatives both think they are rational in their point of view and processes. The difference between the two often comes in the form of the fix.

Ask a Conservative & Liberal politician and both will say they want to eliminate poverty.

But a Conservative politician will want to approach the problem differently than a Liberal politician. The Conservative believes in self responsibility. So Conservatives are willing to help a person in poverty if they help themselves and they don't want the government doing it because the government will screw it up.

A Liberal politician wants to eliminate poverty but doesn't care about the self responsibility part of the equation. The fact that the person is poor for whatever reason is enough for them. The root cause is not an issue. Liberals also think that Government can properly organize and resolve the issue. History shows the government can't do this correctly without fraud waste and abuse.

See the difference in thought process? The Liberal ignores the root cause and ignores the poor history of the governments performance.

A perfect example of this is happening currently in my home town Tulsa.

Liberal politicians have passed a bill to build a 60 unit apartment complex in a poor part of town to help people in poverty. The bill requires $6 million dollars. That's $100,000 per person.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100609_11_0_CityCo238778

When it's all said and done, you will have a bunch of poor people living in a nice apartment. It will probably be the nicest place they've ever lived.

How many times have we heard over and over again how Government housing fails. The people who live in these house don't take care of them. The Apt's become run down over time. None of the ill's that made these people poor have been solved. They are still doing drugs, still causing crime and still uneducated. This goes back to the "root cause" analysis I was talking about earlier. The root cause of why these people are poor is not being addressed by the Liberals in my state.

Instead they need to use the $100,000 per person have put them in a drug rehab program, send them to school etc. Solve the root problem, not the symptom.

Give a man a fish and he will not be hungry for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will not be hungry for the rest of his life.

Conservatives recognize and don't like the fact that some people don't give a damn about fishing and want other people to do it for them for free.

Updated: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 21:15:00 UTC | #479421

Go to: A bit confused

EvilConservative's Avatar Jump to comment 23 by EvilConservative

Comment 17 by Steven Mading :

I just deleted my comment here, because while there are good counterarguments to what EvilConservative claimed about how allegedly rational conservatism is, this is not the right place for them, since bringing them up would open up this thread into a generic left versus right debate about political positions in general - taking it far away from its narrow scope about atheists and conservatives.

Yes, I kind of took it to the political side of the argument. My ultimate goal was to reveal conservative thought processes and how in essence they aren't really that much different from a fact finding scientific process. Now there are "religious" conservatives who ignore that process, but they are conservatives versus change.

Fri, 11 Jun 2010 15:42:08 UTC | #479304

Go to: A bit confused

EvilConservative's Avatar Jump to comment 15 by EvilConservative

Comment 11 by holysmokes :

I am a self-proclaimed conservative, ...on most topics.

To me, a conservative is a person who takes care of his or her own. We do not depend on the government for handouts and look down on people who think they have a right to grab our hard-earned tax dollars. We are pro business. We feel that the government should enforce the laws that are already on the books regarding abuse of immigration laws, welfare, gun control and similar issues. We think prison should be a form of punishment, not rehabilitation. Make it a deterrent, not a way of life. In short, we think that people should make every attempt to stand on their own two feet. If so, they will always get help from us, however there is a fine line between a helping hand and living off the 53% of us who work AND pay taxes.

I completely part ways with conservatism when it comes to religion. If anyone ever comes up with a shred of credible evidence, then I'll re-evaluate my position. It really is that simple for me. The christians have a saying, "It's a foolish person who builds his house upon the sand." It's a shame they don't follow their own advice. "Faith" is an extremely poor excuse for facts and evidence.

Exactly. Ditto to Holysmokes. It isn't hard to be a Conservative and an Atheist. If you want to be a Conservative Atheist, all you have to do is be a person who looks at the facts.

I wasn't always an Atheist, but I sat down, looked at the facts and saw that one side had "proof" while another did not.

The same goes for Conservatism vs Liberalism. One side continually proves their points with facts while the other does not.

Example: Holysmokes is right, Conservatives like smaller government. There is volumes of evidence showing the failure of government run programs. The Post Office (in debt and dying), Medicare (in debt and dying and filled with fraud), Social Security (in the red, dying and filled with IOU's from other poorly ran government agencies), Immigration (not enforced, not run properly)....the list goes on. THE FACTS show that when government runs something, it will be doomed to failure, fraud and abuse. The same argument can be made for a public company but there is one difference. That public company will DIE. Unless saved by another large fraud waste and abuse body. cough GM/AIG/etc. cough

I find it hard to believe why most Atheists are also Liberals. Atheists are big proponents of the scientific method of logical thinking. They believe in non biased analyzing of the facts as well as testing and retesting.

But for some reason when you show a Liberal factual stats from across the country that towns where gun ownership is high, the crime rate becomes extremely low. They don't believe it. It's a fluke.

There are some moral issues which don't lend themselves so much to facts. Abortion is one of them. I'm against Abortion myself. But I still want it legal. I want to get rid of Abortion by changing the way people behave so that eventually it becomes rare, but available.

You can easily be a Conservative and Atheist. I call it analyzing the facts and making a logical decision based on those facts. It's about root cause and effect. I say "root" because many times Liberals look at a Symptom and fail to trace the problem back to its root. Ask yourself "why" something is happening, then ask yourself what is the root cause. Solve the root problem, not the symptom.

Updated: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 21:02:00 UTC | #479040

Go to: How do we stop these monkeys from hating each other?

EvilConservative's Avatar Jump to comment 8 by EvilConservative

I see the authors frustration. Humans can be very stupid.

My answer to him would be "lead by example". Its really the only way humans really change their beliefs while at the same time not going into a defensive mode when accusations are made at their current belief system.

If we want to convert people, then we need to show them through our actions that our "system" is better. Getting militant about our beliefs can have the opposite effect. It can entrench religious ideas and people even more.

Thu, 03 Jun 2010 19:22:37 UTC | #476148

Go to: How do we stop these monkeys from hating each other?

EvilConservative's Avatar Jump to comment 5 by EvilConservative

The first thing you do, is stop calling them monkeys.

Wed, 02 Jun 2010 19:28:36 UTC | #475853

Go to: In Texas and Very Frightened

EvilConservative's Avatar Jump to comment 34 by EvilConservative

Oh No! Don't look outside, there are hordes of religious conservatives hunting down Liberal Atheists as we speak. Stay calm. They only attack if you decide to spend their money on lazy people who don't want to work for a living.

Fri, 28 May 2010 14:31:18 UTC | #474424

Go to: Can atheists' arguments sound less offensive to religious?

EvilConservative's Avatar Jump to comment 17 by EvilConservative

I don't think it can be done really.  I've seen Richard engage in debates with religious people only to have the religious person flip on a dime and declare Richard of being offensive.  They are threatened by the discussion and then fall back to a "your attacking me, you're hateful" position. Even though Richard maintains a normal tone and states his usual arguements.

The turning point occurs here.  Many people are "defined" by their religion.  It's not just their belief system.  Religion makes them "who" they are.  They wake up every day and go about their daily lives and they do certain things a certain way based on their religious beliefs.  It's one half of their whole being.

From the eyes of the religious person, an Atheist comes along and literally tears down (through logical arguement) what they believe and have believed for most of their life.  By this time, "who" they are and what they believe are so melded together that any perceived attack on their religious beliefs constitutes being "offensive".

At some point in any lengthy conversation between an Atheist and a Theist the line will be crossed.

Thu, 20 May 2010 19:56:31 UTC | #471809

Go to: Have your tax dollars helped Evangelicals set stage for gay execution bill in Uganda through Bush's ''AIDS Relief ''program?

EvilConservative's Avatar Jump to comment 54 by EvilConservative

Rachel Madow has got to be one of the most pathetic news anchors I've ever seen. It's amazing how deceptive she is. She gives you enough info to get pissed, but NEVER gives you any details (proof).

Lets take Tom Coburn and Jim Inhofe. Two Senators from Oklahoma where I currently live. She names six people who have "participated" in Ugandan politics. She names Coburn and Inhofe in that list.

A quick search on Jim Inhofe's page shows that he does particpate in Ugandan politcs. He's trying to stop a violent religous group called the Lords Resistance Army from mutilating children.

http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=09495450-802a-23ad-49e0-672687421142

As for Coburn, I can't find a single link in Google that links him to Ugandan politics at all. None. All that comes up are pages about Coburn that happen to have the word Uganda on them. No articles or anything.

If you listen to Rachel, she practically links these two Senators to this Anti Gay bill in Uganda when there is absolutely no proof that is the case.

Don't get me wrong, these two are definitely not PRO Gay. But I see nothing that links them or shows that they endorse any of this.

You people (and you know who you are) need to do some research before you jump on the hater bandwagon.

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 01:28:00 UTC | #421640

Go to: Christopher Hitchens and Tony Jones: Does Religion Poison Everything?

EvilConservative's Avatar Jump to comment 2 by EvilConservative

Love the comment about brewing beer being a breakthrough. Good laughs.

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 12:45:00 UTC | #404056

Go to: Sam Harris on Real Time with Bill Maher

EvilConservative's Avatar Jump to comment 51 by EvilConservative

Love listening to Sam Harris. 9 min is never enough. He need's to show himself more.

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:34:00 UTC | #391154

Go to: Richard Dawkins and John Lennox at the Oxford University Museum

EvilConservative's Avatar Jump to comment 40 by EvilConservative

I think the big problem here is that throughout the debate, Lennox is allowed to quote the Bible as fact and as a factual history book. While I can appreciate Richard's "positive selling" debate style, it doesn't knock the legs out from under this so called scientist who appears to have not spent 5 minutes trying to study the origin of the very book he's quoting as fact. The Bible is filled with inconsistencies and complete rubbish and has been deemed a book of faith, not history.

Because this isn't challenged, Lennox looks more rational in a debate longer than he would versus another New Atheist like Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens who are quite knowledgeable about religious dogma and would tear Lennox apart as soon as he mentioned the "B" word.

Mon, 01 Jun 2009 13:59:00 UTC | #366615

Go to: It happened. There is now a Supreme Court vacancy

EvilConservative's Avatar Jump to comment 35 by EvilConservative

The original article is superfluous in my opinion. While the article is worried about a "Religious Appointee" to the Supreme Court,I've yet to see any recent Supreme Court decisions that were make or break due to a religious reason or Justice.

A search of Google on "Supreme Court Decisions Religion" yields a ton of cases, many rejected and mostly dealing with Freedom of Speech issues when Religion is involved. As much as I don't agree with Religion, it's the right of every American Citizen to practice and believe in it no matter how stupid it is.

So I fail to see what the issue is here because Supreme Court worst fears when it comes to Religion have failed to materialize here.

The Supreme Courts job is to determine the constitutionality of any cases it hears and make decisions based on the rule of law. No more, no less. So I'd take any Justice who meets this criteria.

All cases have to go through the State District Supreme Courts first before they reach the US Supreme Court. It's State Courts/District Courts that have a history of decision making that is affected more by its member beliefs. But that isn't what is up for grabs here.

Tue, 05 May 2009 06:52:00 UTC | #356408

Go to: Why We Believe in Gods - Dr. Andy Thomson - American Atheists 09

EvilConservative's Avatar Jump to comment 95 by EvilConservative

Excellent presentation Andy, keep up the good work.

While your work does expose or uncover the evolutionary human mechanisms that cause people to embrace religion, you're also revealing how difficult it will be to convince people that religion is not the answer/truth when it's wired so deeply into the core of the human brain. I suppose there will always be a percentage of the human population who will always believe in God/Religion due to the way our brains are wired.

I'd be interested in seeing some research that includes comparisons of active brain scans of people who are lying vs people who are answering religious questions and see if there are similarities. This could determine if people whole heartedly believe or if they just repeat the religious dogma knowing in the back of their minds that what they are saying may be untrue.

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:30:00 UTC | #353961

Go to: Oklahoma legislator proposes resolution to condemn Richard Dawkins

EvilConservative's Avatar Jump to comment 252 by EvilConservative

Wrong.

Ronald Reagan is to Conservatism as Richard Dawkins is to Atheism. They are both the epitome of their ideals and their movements. It's not worship.

Conservatism denotes a persons belief on certain principles. That's why there are Conservative Democrats and Conservative Republicans. You can be either party and be a Conservative.

There was someone at the event who announced himself as a 40 year old white male Republican who was about to get married. He said that by admitting he was an Atheist, he was ruining his chance of getting a job in Oklahoma.

He was just victimizing himself. When you apply for a job there is no Religion field on the application and you shouldn't be putting it on your resume'. There are laws that prevent discrimination based on Religion. Unless you work at a church, your religion or belief in Atheism shouldn't be a factor for your employment.

He admitted he was a Republican. He's probably less of a traditional Republican than he thinks. Probably doesn't know the difference between being a Conservative vs Republican.

Sat, 07 Mar 2009 09:39:00 UTC | #333832

Go to: Oklahoma legislator proposes resolution to condemn Richard Dawkins

EvilConservative's Avatar Jump to comment 94 by EvilConservative

Oklahoma is Red on the outside but Blue on the inside. We were the first state to go red in the last election and we have a consistent Red voting record as far as presidential elections go. Red since 1968.

But the state is Blue on the inside. Only three Republicans have been elected Governor of Oklahoma in the nearly 100 years Oklahoma has been a state (Henry Bellmon, Dewey F. Bartlett, and Frank Keating). The other 22 governors have all been Democrats.

Republicans won control of the House in 2004 and won control in the Senate for the first time in 100 years in 2008. This is also the first time in the states history that Republicans have won control of both houses ever.

The mayors of the cities (OKC, Tulsa) are Democrats and they've been in control for so long, the Republican's are even warry to run candidates for Mayoral positions.

So Oklahoma IMO is a Red on the outside, blue on the inside state by its history. And if I had to associate its laws with its history of control, then it doesn't bode well for Democrats. But I also think that religion jacks up the minds of whoever uses it, despite political affiliation.

Fri, 06 Mar 2009 10:36:00 UTC | #333569