Letters to the Editor
sunspot
Published Letters: 349 Editor's Choice: 43
-
The philosophy of atheism?
[Read the article: The believer]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As the philosophy of Atheism is diametrically opposed to the notion of being open the experience of God.
More made up nonsense and handwaving from the theists. Not only are you guys inept when it comes to science, you can't even handle a simple philosophical discussion. I'm open to anything you have some evidence for - repeating the same tripe over and over again without providing any evidence for it does NOT constitute evidence. I know it works that way in the loonie la la land of cults, but back here in the real world it just doesn't cut it.
There's a simple test you can perform to detect this kind of bullshit. Simply substitute the term "Invisible Pink Unicorn" for "god". If the result is ridiculous, so is the assertion the theist is making – i.e., "you're just not open to the experience of the Invisible Pink Unicorn". Or, "millions of people believe in the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, so it must be true." Or how about, "life would be meaningless without a supreme Invisible Pink Unicorn to give it meaning." Or even better, "The universe must have been set in motion by some creator. Therefore, the Invisible Pink Unicorn must be responsible for the creation of the universe." Only fellow IPU worshippers would be convinced by this prattle – anyone who wasn't brainwashed into the cult would dismiss this crap instantly, the same way they dismissed those cranks who offed themselves when comet Hale-Bopp swung thru the inner solar system. Loons.
On the other hand, if you substitute "Invisible Pink Unicorn" for some unseen force of nature that has observable impacts on the universe around it, the result may sound a bit funny, but at least it's certainly verifiable. To parallel the black hole example, for instance – "You cannot see the Invisible Pink Unicorn directly, but if you fill the room with smoke you'll notice the outline of the IPU's body."
-
More strawmen, more baseless assertions, more made-up crap
[Read the article: The believer]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Invisible pink unicorns equal god, there for god does not exist as invisible pink unicorns do not exist.
Nobody said that, other than you. Strawman. What I said was, if you substitute the Invisible Pink Unicorn for god in the arguments you've presented for god to date, it would demonstrate how ridiculous those arguments are. And as I expected, you can't offer anything to refute that statement, so you resort to misrepresenting what I'd just said and then attack that misrepresentation.
I thought you religious types were supposed to have morals and not be deceitful and all that.
The mind of the atheist is capable of such critical analysis as to know all things before exploration.
Well, the atheists around here have been trying to explore theism for several days now. They keep asking for evidence, and you theists wave your hands, digress, repeat a bunch of baseless assertions over and over again, mischaracterize what's plainly just been said, demonstrate a profound lack of understanding when it comes to science, philosophy and rational thought, and otherwise behave like a bunch of dishonest louts and conmen. We'd have an easier time getting a straight answer out of a group of politicians or used car salesmen. Makes me think maybe you don't have any evidence, and were just hoping nobody would call your bluff.
As I had previously said, my hope was simply to convince you that people of faith were not fools, clearly I have failed
Hey, you finally got something right! Congratulations!
Being open is not ceasing to think critically, it is just being open to observations.
Of which you've provided none of any value whatsoever in support of the "god" conclusion.
-
Make all baggage checked baggage
[Read the article: Getting beyond our airport security obsession]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It would be a fairly simple solution to at least part of this problem. You could designate one bag as the bag you'd like to go in the overhead bin. They'd be properly screened by the advanced equipment used to screen the baggage that goes in the hold. Before passengers board, baggage handlers would go thru the cabin and place your cabin bag in the overhead bin above your seat. Planes would probably load faster this way, security lines would certainly be shorter and the airlines would probably end up saving money.
-
Brazil
[Read the article: The mad Russian]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Gilliam's dystopic vision still shocks and upsets well after its appearance way back in 1984-and-a-half.
It's also somewhat creepy, with its plastic-surgery obsessed plutocrats and non-stop terrorist bombings mirroring our own current predicament.