I wasn't impressed with the debating skills of the rational response squad. This was my first time seeing them after just hearing about them. Even if they know the material well, they need to be more convincing in a debate like this. I noticed the guy's body language. He seemed to lean towards his girlfriend and not smile. To win people over, i think more experience is needed in public speaking. The good stuff was that good points were made by the squad.
The redhead, Kelly, is way hot!
Other than that, I really don't think about them. I was subscribed to their email list for a while, but it wasn't a very good one.
I have a somewhat negative opinion of the RRS. I first learned of them at IIDB, where they were promoting themselves with a clip of a podcast or something. I listened to it and it was immature religion-bashing. I posted that I didn't like it and then Brian Sapient got angry and said that I shouldn't judge them by this clip (which they themselves specifically provided as a sample!). He and I exchanged some tense private messages which ended when he told me not to contact him anymore. I know this is all hearsay to you, but you did ask my opinion.
I have mixed feelings about the Blasphemy Challenge. It certainly raised a lot of awareness, but they way that some people made their videos really antagonistic, even some who I had previously respected like David Mills, made me uneasy about the whole thing. I never made a video myself.
I think the RRS presents too negative a view of atheists (arrogant, emotional, puerile) than I prefer for us to present, but they do serve a purpose in some ways.
There are a lot of secular groups out there, especially in the past few years, and each one of them has their own identity. Some are more activist, some are more social, some are more intellectual. No one is going to be happy with them all. The RRS, given that it's more active and confrontational than most secular groups, is predictably going to get a lot of attention. It can be argued if this attention is a good or bad thing, but I tend to lean towards the positive side. As a social pseudo-movement, the bleeding edge has to be the most offensive, especially given the low regard most people have for atheism.
I discussed this further on the Apologia podcast if anyone is interested in hearing what Christians and atheists were able to agree on about the RRS.
http://www.drzach.net/apologia.htm
I think Kelly is hot 
I think their style has a lot to do with where they're from - Philly. If you've listened to the Bloodhound Gang or watched Jackass you start to get an idea...
They also reflect something that hasn't been acknowledged enough: atheism is a youth movement. I think they appeal very well to the high school and college crowd and they encourage participation.
And like it or not, this demographic is what counts. They maybe come off as childish and immature, but to an 20 year old, it's a lot more relevant than reading about Bertrand Russell and the plight of the agnostics.
Listening to Moore's podcast now...
There's something that really bothers me about all these side discussions of the RRS.
What is really catching my attention is that weak atheists and Christians are both finding common ground to deride strong atheists.
This isn't very different from atheists who were "sort of glad" when Madelyn Murray O'Hair got murdered because they didn't like her atheism.
Personally I think agnostics and weak atheists should just shut up and get the f* out of the way. But that's just my opinion. I'm sick of the ad-hominem attacks from agnostic styled atheists that if anything really hurts the reputation of atheists, it's that. The agnostic / weak atheist position is the CNN / Fox News no-follow-up weak-journalism style of atheism. I'm sorry but it just is.
1) If you accept the historical record and deny that Jesus never existed, you are NOT extremist. Accepting facts is not extremist.
2) If you think of religion as a mental illness, you are not immature. You are probably right. There is more truth to this than there is to the official stance of the APA for 30 years that homosexuality was a mental illness.
3) Being assertive about facts is not arrogant or immature, even if you're an 18 year old high schooler who doesn't have a degree in PR. Let's just agree on this much.
I think it really comes down to the fact that they are just young and full of exuberance. I remember being that way in University too. I really enjoyed knowing everything about everthing.
The older me wants to cringe at such behaviour, but I think we need to just understand it and realize that maturity comes from experience.
The RRS has one redeeming quality: it forces people to notice that those who believe in reason are starting to make their voices heard. Other than that the RRS is pretty much counter-productive to the cause of atheism. They are reactionary, lack a proactive ethos, and the level of maturity needed to move things forward.
Just from looking at the banner, they do look quite immature, and are probably the impression most theists get of atheists.
This is unfortunate, as the arrogonce of making the "atheist=rational, theist=stupid" divide is probably what generates most of the hate towards atheists.
I think they're immature and their arguments and presentations tend to be weak. I don't think they're the best "spokespeople" for atheism, but it's not really any of my business if they want to speak out as individuals. For example, Brian seems extremely dogmatic and unwilling to listen to others' opinions and respond appropriately and civilly. I don't think that's the best way to reach a larger religious audience. People get turned off by rudeness. I certainly am, and I should be on their "side".
OTOH, they're out there and raising awareness. I thought the Blasphemy Challenge itself was stupid, but if it got some folks to think about the Bible's teachings and maybe moved them away from fundamentalism, then that is a good thing.
I Think the RRS accomplished its goal of raising awareness with the abc debate.Whatever there faults,the got a major news station to show a debate about god.It shows people who are belivers that talking about it wont get you struck down,and atheist that there are pthers like themselves.The debate itself was kind off weak,mostly when kelly kind of went into a rant.
Oh yes, and treating theists as stupid is extremely counterproductive. Not to mention false.
I am a member of Mensa but it took me a LONG time to realize religion was false. People really just do not think analytically about their beliefs. It's not that they're stupid (in many cases anyhow), they're just misinformed or uninformed.
I never really paid much attention to them. They might be good for appealing to a younger audience ('m 38 and a married father of two) but in terms of adding anything to the debate between mature and educated adults, I get the impression that they might be counter-productive.
They tend to come off as children. Unfortunately, this is what I think theists will say: "They're just kids, they'll outgrow this phase of nonsense".
Yes it's counter-productive if you're trying to date them or something. I should know - I've had a couple Christian girls walk out on me from restaurants because I was less than Charitable when they pressed on me to convert. Otherwise: who the hell really cares? What kind of knee-jerk pussy-footed reactionary bullshit is it to accept the Christian ad-hominem attacks that atheists are "arrogant" and that we think theists are stupid? What principle is there that says that I should treat a religious view with kid gloves and extreme deference so as to not offend the theist? What makes them so different from anything else? I've got news: Christianity *IS* stupid. The other alternative is that it's a mental illness. But it's not a "mistake in logic" that's even worthy of honest debate.
I've watched the dateline RRS debate and the RRS team was more than affable. They came prepared to debate by the rules of the debate and they formed their responses based on their opponent's arguments.
Just the fact that I can't say ANY of that about the Christian team is remarkable. They broke the rules of the debate right off the mark and then they went on to make extremely condescending ad-hominem attacks on the RRS. Even as they were completely incapable of responding to any RRS positon. To the point of being dumbfounded speechless and having no response at times.
So why are we even talking about them here? They did FINE and they behaved very well. And they showed atheists in a very positive light just by the tension that was created that night. On the one side, you had some old dude and a washed up actor who were speaking in a condescending manner to an intelligent young lady and a young man who both played by the rules and came prepared to debate. For ANY young people who watched the debate, it was a clear win for atheism on all levels. They pitted old, rusty Christianity against young, vibrant atheism. Classic David vs Goliath turns into the Emperor Has No Clothes type of story.
Why is that not apparent here? No, instead we have these "immature" bashes - all you're really doing is bashing some videos made by quite possibly 16 year olds - as being too immature and bad for atheism. What do you want, little fucking Socrates running around using big words? Give these guys a break. Look at it this way - their generation has more atheists than yours. Argue with that.
Take it easy, bbk. We are talking about the RSS here because I asked what my readers thought about them. I'm genuinely interested to hear how they are perceived by other atheists, and I'm interested in the full range of opinions. I will share my opinion in another post, but I created this one to hear from others.
Speaking of Mensa:
"There are many intelligent reasons to join Mensa. Whether you actively attend Mensa meetings or simply relish the intellectual stimulation that membership promotes, you'll find the benefits of Mensa membership to be numerous indeed."
It seems to me that a member of Mensa calling someone immature and arrogant is the pot calling the kettle black.
@damiank - it's hard to be impressed with the debating skills required against morons like Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. Besides, had you actually paid attention, you'd have remembered that when Comfort immediately invoked the 10 Commandments, he broke the pre-agreed-upon ground-rules of the debate and forfeited his side. They lost in 2 minutes flat.
But then all you really wanted to talk about is how friendly he looked. Guess what? A debate is not what politicians have fooled you into believing. Brian and Kelly swiftly and precisely defeated every one of kirk and ray's arguments with reasoning, logic, and evidence. That's what debating is. It wasn't a lecture or a press conference.
@ Kevin Morgan, bbk,
Yes, I'd say you think about them very little, you sexist morons So what if Kelly is hot? What does that have to do with anything?
@Secular Planet
You really are going by just one video. Plus, you don't bother to explain whether or not Brian had valid reasons to be angry about what he was angry about. Sometimes anger is justified. But to you, apparently, any anger at all is a point against us. You're the kind of secularist that goes against the cause because your standards are too high, seeming to exclude all except the most passive and apologetic, even when they're justified to stand firm.
Same goes to anybody who makes excuses like "oh well they're from philly" or "maturity comes from experience"
You people really just don't understand the point of the Blasphemy Challenge — like any of you have bothered to ask them in their open chatroom(s) in which they show up very frequently. The challenge wasn't so much directed at Christians as it was a neon sign in an alley. It was to help young secularists, agnostics and atheists have some kind of outlet in which to make a stand or learn to make a stand against oppressive theists around them, to learn to stand up for themselves in some way. For many, the B.C. was the first thing they've ever done to rebel against their asshole parents who psychologically beat theism into them every day.
People like those in this thread keep talking about how RRS is counter-productive and don't help anybody. But you haven't bothered reading the hundreds of rejuvinated people on youtube and the many, many more letters and emails Brian, Kelly and Rook have received thanking them. I think that nearly 2,000 individuals much disagree with you on this point, and many more who don't bother writing thank-you notes anyway.
Every passive or apologetic person that was not resisting oppressive theism is something taken away from the oppressive theists and given to the secularists. Like a turnover in dodgeball. That does nothing? What bullshit.
Yep, RSS can be quite 'in your face' but sometimes a bit of that is needed to get people to become aware of something. As others have said, RSS are a younger group aiming at a younger audience (though I read their blog also).
Educate
Agitate
Legislate
This has been the modus operandi of many movements over the years, including the 'civil rights movement'.
RSS probably fit into the Agitate, there are plenty of other groups that fit into the Educate.
vjack - I know. I didn't mean to say that we shouldn't be talking about RRS. What I meant was in respect to the seeming need to discuss whether or not they are mature enough to speak for atheists. I haven't seen a single claim of immaturity against them that wasn't born out of something misconstrued or unsubstantiated.
Shouldn't atheists realize just how stupid this whole thing is? We're so sensitive to Christians calling us arrogant and immature that we completely forget - it doesn't take a PhD to say that Christianity is full of crap. It takes a 12 year old. I really want to meet the one single atheist who has talked to a Christian and never been called arrogant or immature. Let's start with Dawkins and work our way down. Whose ever managed to portray atheism as "mature" and "humble" in the face of Christians?
Aerik, thank you. If this was a feminist site, I'd love to get into it with you over calling me sexist. But let's just say I take it as a compliment.
re: Kelly being hot, I think it's awesome that she is.
Limiting this to what it has to do with atheism: I've heard hundreds of derogatory remarks in my life about atheist women all being fat and ugly and hate their life, therefore hate god and call themselves atheist. And the truth is, there are far too few atheist women. So it's great to see a pretty lady on national TV debating on the behest of atheists.
Every little bit helps, even if it's good looks - especially when it can help other women overcome the Christian stigma that becoming atheist means you're an ugly unlovable wench and come out to their family and friends as an atheist.
@ Kevin Morgan, bbk,
Yes, I'd say you think about them very little, you sexist morons So what if Kelly is hot? What does that have to do with anything?
I have to say, that's exactly what I was thinking, but, of course, to say anything makes you "too sensitive," or whatever. As an atheist and a woman, I usually find the atheist community a kind of bastion of reprieve from the drool-cup comments like "so-and-so is hot." It's not that I mind that anyone finds anyone attractive, but when that's all that is said about her, frankly, it's annoying. Kevin, your comment was especially annoying..."the redhead," and then the woman's name. Great.
I expect atheist men to be better, smarter, and more decent than that. Give us a break; try to see us for the equal intelligent people that we are. I would never go into any place and yammer on like an idiot about how hot any guy is--I don't even do that with my female friends. It's base and it should be beyond people who pride themselves on their intellectual prowess.
I usually find the atheist community a kind of bastion of reprieve from the drool-cup comments like "so-and-so is hot."
I wish that were different in the RRS chatrooms. Even though they have a consistent habit of denouncing and booting chatters who come online just to talk about Kelly's breasts, the rooms keep attracting christians, agnostics and atheists of all stripes who's first thought is "whoa look at Kelly's boobs, wowzas" It gets old real fast, as does the fact that people like those in this thread can look at that and see RRS as infantile rather than the agnostics and atheists we still criticize and occasionally boot for acting like idiots.
And you know what else is really interesting? If you go to Richard Dawkins's website, he has an official RRS member badge. He considers himself a member, and they consider him a member. He's done an hour long interview with them. Every time I see somebody say that the RRS is immature and should act more like someone like Dawkins, I laugh because Dawkins himself doesn't see it that way.
I wish that were different in the RRS chatrooms. Even though they have a consistent habit of denouncing and booting chatters who come online just to talk about Kelly's breasts, the rooms keep attracting christians, agnostics and atheists of all stripes who's first thought is "whoa look at Kelly's boobs, wowzas"
Oh, look. A reason not to be thrilled with RRS. Surprise connection between juvenile behavior and general run-of-the-mill sexism...go figure. Well, thanks for putting me off ever going to their boards...saves me a few minutes of time. 
Serious note to the guys...no on wants to be a killjoy, but really, I don't think we women ask for much. To this blog's credit, this is the first time I've noticed this kind of crap, so all things considered, that's not too bad.
No, the RRS does not create the juvenile behavior nor does it engage in it. It's just the consequence of an open public chatroom. If you can't get past that, you have a real problem with pointing fingers.
And also, IsThatLatin, the boards are not contaminated as such. The boards have proper moderation where people don't get to come back within an hour because RRS has full privileges over who is or is not a member. They just don't have that same power over at stickam.com. There is nothing more to it.
Uh... Can we get back to atheism now? Thanks.
I found a GREAT site all about dissecting the Bible, Christianity and Religion in general. It contains HUNDREDS of posts/topics, all categorized for easy surfing. AND all are in blog format so you can comment on each and every one! It’s a totally non-confrontational site. This Doubting Thomas guy has simply made a site to list all the questions/comments that have come up over his many years of studying religion and the Bible. This guy’s brilliant! His titles alone crack me up. ALL ATHEISTS should visit this site regularly, if for no other reason than to stock up on ammunition for those who attack you for your beliefs/disbeliefs.
EXPAND YOUR MINDS EVERYONE!
Here’s the address: http://doubtingthomas426.wordpress.com/
SPREAD THE WORD!
Wow, you should really moderate these comments and delete the one above from Frank Walton, who selectively chose only the negative comments here and posted them to his blog to give a false impression that atheists hate the RRS. But then again, who cares about honesty and the truth when people's souls are at stake, right?
As far as the RRS, I think they're great, whether or not I'm 100% comfortable with the strategy and approach that they take.
They totally demolished Kirk Cameron and his buddy in that debate, but I agree that their speaking and presentation skills could use a little work. Being right and rational and supporting your arguments with evidence is all good, but it helps if you can communicate your message effectively as well.
I've only seen them on the ABC Nightline "debate" on "intelligent design" vs. evolution, and I wasn't impressed at all with their debating skills. I wish that ABC could have found individuals more suited to the event; neither one was particularly convincing. The female was annoying and the male frequently went off topic. It seems they were more interested in promoting themselves that the ideas. Michael Shirmer or Professor Ken Miller would have been infinitely better.
Kevin, I'm not familiar with Frank Walton. I regularly delete comments that violate the comment policy and ban repeat offenders. I agree with you that including only the negative comments about RSS is misleading, but I cannot control what he does on his site.
I liked the Blasphemy Challenge. I thought the idea was good, and many of the videos that were made in answer to it were interesting.
The RRS (not the RSS) itself... I don't think of them much. They seem to have a good idea now and then, and it seems that they are getting along, but I don't pay much attention lately.
Their success will really depend on their ability to come up with original ideas to put atheism under the spotlight, since when it comes to pure political and social advocacy, there are groups that are much better able to do the job than they are.
Two thumbs up for the "Rational Responders".
There has to be people that have the time, energy and resources to help educate the people of the evils of theocracy in America.
Corey Mondello
Boston, Massachusetts
cpmondello@yahoo.com
www.CoreyMondello.com
12-18-07
You really should just delete Frank Walton's comments entirely. Not only does he habitually lie about and distort RRS's views, but he knowingly falsely he accused RRS original Rook Hawkins of plagiarizing Dennis McKinsey. Frank Walton plays dirty and should not be tolerated.
Also, Walton's real blog is atheismsucks.blogspot.com - to make what's basically a hate site out of their name and sticking it on another blog platform is what is known as cybersquatting, and since it leads people using search engines to believe the site is by the rrs until they visit it, is in reality an attempt at fraud. Again.
Not that I'm vjack, but... I don't see how the guy did something wrong in the specific post he left here.
Not only did I learn about who he is (I've been to atheismsucks before and wondered wtf), but I think he leaves us with a lesson to be learned. When atheists make unsubstantiated claims about each other, Christian nutjobs take advantage of it to the greatest extent possible. So I find it entirely within the scope of this thread to leave his post and his link on here.
Interesting tidbit about Walton...I went to his site and left a comment on the post he did about this thread. My comment simply pointed out that he was being selective in the information he reported by only reproducing the negative impressions here and ignoring the pro-RSS comments. The comment was not permitted. This tells me quite a bit about Walton.
Vjack, I'm writing a blog about this now. I would highly appreciate the removal of the mentioned bloggers post. We will be taking him to court soon for many many cases of libel, and you are helping to propagate it, increasing his page rank, and validating his illegal cybersquat of rationalresponders.
Somehow RRS's own Rook Hawkins apparently managed to extract the claim "The worshippers of the Sun-god Serapis were also called 'Christians'" from the following passage from Historia Augusta:
"The land of Egypt, the praises of which you have been recounting to me, my dear Servianus, I have found to be wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumour. There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis. There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Christ. They are a folk most seditious, most deceitful, most given to injury; but their city is prosperous, rich, and fruitful, and in it no one is idle. Some are blowers of glass, others makers of paper, all are at least weavers of linen or seem to belong to one craft or another; the lame have their occupations, the eunuchs have theirs, the blind have theirs, and not even those whose hands are crippled are idle. Their only god is money, and this the Christians, the Jews, and, in fact, all nations adore. And would that this city had a better character, for indeed it is worthy by reason of its richness and by reason of its size to hold the chief place in the whole of Egypt."
Source for Rook Hawkins quote: http://www.rationalresponders.co...t_campaign/
3997
Source of quote from Historia Augusta:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/
Tha...mus_et_al*.html
Sources linking the two quotes (pay attention to the name Vopiscus):
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthre...ead.php?
t=46382
http://www.infidelguy.com/foruma...iewtopic&
t=3311
Note that the last two sources are necessary only because Hawkins doesn't cite his sources clearly. But then, if he did, the misquote would have been far more obvious.
Aside from cutesy redefinitions of "mind disorder," it's this sort of thing that makes me find the RRS loathsome.
Alright. Seriously. If that's plagiarism, then any time I agree with a person I'm guilty. That's some piss-poor 'logic'
Aerik: "If that's plagiarism, then any time I agree with a person I'm guilty."
I gather that you are talking about Frank Walton's statements about Rook Hawkins, not mine. IIRC, Hawkins has quoted McKinsey a lot, but that's because they work together. As you can tell by my post above, I'm less than impressed with their output.
Yeah. Rook's quote in no way resembles anything McKinney can be found to have written or said. Walton's argument is basically "He didn't know this fact before he talked with McKinney — therefore, he's plagiarizing him!"
With some reluctance, I deleted comments in this thread left by Frank Walton for the purpose of promoting his anti-RSS blog. While he has a right to his opinion, his willingness to distort information, including this very thread, and pattern of relying on personal attacks rather than solid argument, leaves me not wanting to promote his blog.
I am not impressed with them at all nor their tactics. The last thing I want people to think when they hear the word "atheist" is people who go around disrepecting others and act like asses. But I guess it's too late for that, so I'll be representing my lack of belief by using another term (not atheist) and one I am not going to spread around so that lame organizations like the RSS will make it look bad.
I am interested in what you have to say about them as I've noticed some fellow people in our community don't think too highly of them as well.
I'm always interested in why people assume that absolutely everything RRS does is "acting like asses."
So once again I'm going to ask the question: Can you show me, in spite of my own experience with them, a clear line of ass-like behavior that would justify your generalizing their entire existence as nothing but a bunch of assholes?
You people never get back to me on that.
And now that I've looked at your homepage, NamesAreHardToPick, I have to say I'm not impressed by a person who makes a blog post simply out of a picture of a male cheerleader holding up a female cheerleader and typing nothing but "Too many jokes."
And you say the RRS act like a bunch of asses. Grow up.
No, Walton, it's unfair for you to quotemine. And make false accusations of plagiarism. And lie. And distort. And everything you do.
followup:
You're also a sexist pig because you never refer to Kelly in any other context than as Brian's girlfriend. Her entire existence, to you, stems from her being somebody's girlfriend.
A recent comment by monkeymind on Friendly Atheist quoted "Sapient" making this unlovely reference to anal rape, "You’ll have a hard time enjoying our 'behaviour' if you’re on the ass end of it, I get that." This quote from the same post of Sapient's where he prides himself on shoving bitter pills down people's throats--Sapient's analogy, not mine. Then there is the matter of RRS being sloppy in their efforts on Jesus-mythicism; I showed an example of this above.
Aerik, yes, the RRS is acting like an ass.
That's not a reference to anal rape. It's more conducive to spanking, or being hit with the 'butt' of a rifle, the 'business end' of a plunger, the 'butt of a joke' if you will, like the head versus the ass of a two man donkey costume. But it's nice to see you're willing to distort as skilfully as Walton. It makes me wonder if you even read the rrs forum thread the moron monkeymind's quote came from. He was responding to a belligerent and nonsensical comment. The essence of Brian's comment is that it's not surprising to see somebody angry at somebody else for exposing their own ignorance and deception. RRS frequently catches theists and woo-woos in fallacies and lies, and they explode with these insane rebuttals and that helps expose their true colors. That's all Brian was referring to. How does that make him an ass again?
"It makes me wonder if you even read the rrs forum thread the moron monkeymind's quote came from. He was responding to a belligerent and nonsensical comment."
The "belligerent and nonsensical comment" was nothing of the kind. Indeed, your description of the comment as "belligerent" tells me that you didn't actually read the comment to which "Sapient" was replying.
You didn't even link to the comment in question.
Aerik: "You didn't even link to the comment in question."
Right above where Sapient says "You'll have a hard time enjoying our 'behaviour' if you're on the ass end of it, I get that," is the quote from Mriana, "It is indeed their behaviour I do not like. I’m sure they can be very fine young people, but their behaviour has little to be desired and is indeed a big turn off to me." If you go to the link I gave just above, the one reading "belligerent and nonsensical comment," you'll find the comment that has those very words from Mriana. Scroll down if you don't see the words immediately; it's a longish comment.
Brian has a huge but hyperinflated and fragile ego. I'm not as familiar with the others in the group but I've seen signs of it in Richard Carrier (and his wife). Just because they're intelligent atheists, they seem to have jumped to the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with them and is a theist is a fuckwit who deserves to be pounded over the head until they submit.
I think perhaps their tactics appeal to the younger generation of rebellious youth. I don't think it appeals at all to more thoughtful and truly rational atheists.
LOL, anal rape.
Actually, Walton, all you've done is proven that Rook did NOT plagiarize. He prefaces his long list of evidences or lack thereof for jesus's existence with
There is NO EVIDENCE at all for a historical Jesus. The following posts will be a combination of works I've collected to prove my point. Whether Jesus existed is hotly debated, and unfortunately for you, your side lacks evidence where my side has evidence contrary to popular belief.
(emphasis mine)
He plainly stated that the text you claim he's plagiarizing is something he's collected, not written.
Let me guess...it's got to be james lazarus. Or one of the other IG lackies. If anybody's dying, it's not us... in fact, we're gaining popularity everyday. More media requests, more invitations, higher rankings...all of it. Stop fucking whining that we came onto the scene and dominated from day one and are now in the top two atheist websites on the internet. Whether you like our tactics or not, that is a fact that cannot be diminished no matter how many times you people claim we are dying.
As to the comment about Brian personally, not to mention the inclusion of a story that would have been a very personal revelation, you are a fucking asshole and any credibility that you might have had is destroyed by your overly zealous hatred of Brian.
Don't fret...we don't sit up at night crying because IG and other assorted nobodies think that he's a "bitch". Take your personal vendetta and shove it up your ass.
Sorry to comment twice in a row, but i forgot to address the Islam issue. I have written blogs about Islam and also publicly stated that I thought women should burn their burqas and their korans in a video on youtube. I intend to take them on much more strongly in the next year, but up until now haven't had sufficient knowledge of their religion to do so. So, again, go fuck yourself.
You don't have sufficient knowledge, in general.
What's really sad is that I've sat in on too many Infidel Guy shows to believe that Reggie has it in him to hate anybody that much.
Is it open game on IG now all of a sudden? If so I'd be glad to talk at length about why his site became a failure and ours is one of the top 3 atheist sites in the world. I wouldn't feel good doing it though, cause I'm not a complete twatwaffle like the twit above. (Lazarus is that you? Feel bad you ruined IG's career?)
Reggie is that you? Or maybe Frank Walton? Who's the "insider atheist" claiming I'm a pussy as you pussy yourself out of making yourself known?
Vjack... got an ip on em?
This is a tad late. Recently I accidentally stumbled on Kelly's blog which had one titled "OMGZ!!1! Internet Addiction Is Not Listed In the DSM-IV!!"
"So what if a person never leaves their home or allows their relationships to fail because they need to get to the next skill level in WoW? I won't believe that this a problem until there is REAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE--like inclusion in the DSM." --kellym78 12:34am 22Jan2008
The DSM isn't "Scientific Evidence" onto it self, it's a multi-axle diagnostic system created by the APA. It's not a book that you read from beginning to end (multi-axle not linear dimwit) which BTW Kelly did and claims to be an expert, it's a tool used by members of the mental health care field. But there likely is NOT a separate entry because a number of disorders are already listed related to this type of anti-social behaver.
Not to put light people who have real issues with spending too much time on a computer. I'm sure there are philatelic addicts as well.
What's funny is their claim is religion is a mental disorder, which isn't listed in the DSM and by her own logic must not be a real disorder, is the fact that the APA doesn't support health care professionals imposing their religious/spiritual beliefs nor lack there of on others. Yet somehow on this issue the RRS are qualified to be ahead of the curve to say this is a separate disorder.
http://www.psych.org/edu/other_r...ives/
200604.pdf
It's this critical lack of self reflection that makes the Rational Response Squad a pack of unqualified narcissistic douche bags trying to wrap up a sociological issue under the narrow microscope of psychiatry. Sapient him self believes a pill will address a belief.
As far as the Burqa goes... this falls into the category of cultural intolerance. On the one hand, I can agree that requirement to wear them is very restrictive, but on the other hand THEY ARE POPULAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND KEEP THE SAND AND SUN OUT OF YOUR FACE. You might as well ask a Mexican to burn his sombrero. In America they are less practical but if you'll actually ask, you'll see the kids wearing them out of protest and their need to rebel against their parents. This is freedom of expression.
Commenting by HaloScan
