Recent comments

  • Reply to: Clarifying Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs, Pt 2: The 144,000 and the "Gotcha" question   3 years 4 months ago

    Right, many of the 144,000 are long gone, and there's no roster of names recorded in scripture, or anywhere.

    Even in modern times, I don't know whether any sort of name-taking goes on. If I were to attend Passover and partake of communion, it's my understanding that the Witnesses would take note of that fact for counting purposes – but would they also ask for my name afterward? I have no idea. (Anyone out there know?)

  • Reply to: Evil is as evil does   3 years 4 months ago

    Thanks for the comment. The URL you close with is an interesting piece.

    There's a sober argument put forth by Atheists United San Luis Obispo board members, suggesting refusal to teach Creationism / "Intelligent Design" on the reasonable grounds that it fails to meet the burden of proof as valid science.

    Then there's the rebuttal in favor of teaching Creationism / "Intelligent Design" – a rebuttal that has to resort to calling out "militant" and "ardent" atheists guilty of "intimidation and bullying", as well as "censorship" and "treating the theory of biological evolution as if it is infallible dogma that is above critique or refutation". This is followed by – right on schedule – a call for "academic freedom" in presenting the opposing Creationist viewpoint.

    Naturally, that call for "freedom" forgets to mention the corresponding "freedom" to teach alchemy, astrology, phrenology, and a thousand other "competing ideas". How convenient!

  • Reply to: The Strong Antitheist   3 years 4 months ago

    To put it another way, for those who want to trade in religion for antitheism, be careful what you wish for, you might end up getting it.

    That's a rather silly thing to say. Unless you fall for some sort of New Agey "wishing creates reality!" schlock, what you wish for has no bearing on what is real. Is the "afterlife" real? Do gods really exist? Do any such gods really (as many believers claim) do horrible things to babies to "test" parents?

    The actual answer to every such question is a separate matter from what we do or don't wish the answer to be.

  • Reply to: It's not a rock problem either   3 years 6 months ago


    If you took away the right to bear arms or took away "assault rifles" the problem still exists. If you took away all guns, criminals would just resort to weapons of mass destruction much like what was used at the Boston marathon or Oklahoma city bombing.

    Radicals will always find a way to carry out their dirty deeds. 

  • Reply to: It's not a rock problem either   3 years 7 months ago

    I love this false logic. How about "Rocks don't build walls, people do." If rocks are as inherently dangerous as guns, let's do a test. We'll put some rocks on a table ir a room foll of 3 year olds. Then let's put some handguns on a table in another rooms with 3 year old. The logic on the billboard is a "false equivalency" and can be used to justify the use of anything that is inherently dangerous. Why not hydrogen bombs? They don't kill people but people do? 

    And let's not forget that the preponderance of these gun deaths are hand guns. You may be able to justify the use of any kind of rifle for sport or hunting, but hand guns were designed for one reason and one reason only. We are a nation that is simply besotted with guns.