1. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #139368 by Tyrant007 on March 5, 2008 at 4:40 pm

Columbia? Hell yes! I'll be there.

2. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66978 by Tyrant007 on September 1, 2007 at 7:00 am

Phil rimmer is spot on.

3. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66966 by Tyrant007 on September 1, 2007 at 6:13 am

I see only three comments posted. Strangely, I don't see mine (perhaps because I asked her to resign?) or Dawkins' (truly puzzled as to why they wouldn't post his). How many of you posted comments hours ago?

4. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66901 by Tyrant007 on September 1, 2007 at 12:52 am

Well said, Janus. I'd recommend that you post what you said as a comment on Sally's review, but it would probably take at least ten separate comments due to the character limit.

Veronique- yes, I've been refreshing this page every few minutes to see how it develops. But it's almost 4 AM here, so I ought to go. I look forward to reading the comments on Sally's review in the morning.

5. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66892 by Tyrant007 on September 1, 2007 at 12:32 am

Careful, Veronique--'tis not a sky god that our Sally believes in, but rather a mysterious higher force of dramatic invisible realities that counts amongst its abilities the power to transform in order to evade any criticism. Wouldn't want to lump all gods together now, would you?

6. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66890 by Tyrant007 on September 1, 2007 at 12:24 am

I posted a comment as well and spent about fifteen minutes trying to figure out how to access the comments section. Maybe it's just a data-eating form that doesn't actually make comments public.

I'll be writing a letter to the editor in any case. This is either the work of a fraud or a total buffoon. Or perhaps both. We'll see.

7. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66885 by Tyrant007 on August 31, 2007 at 11:56 pm

I'd also like to ask just what the hell she's talking about here.

"Cornwell clearly believes, as I do, that angels are not wispy, winged beings in ethereal nightgowns, but something far more subtle and profound: archetypal images that dramatise the invisible realities. As such, they can act as symbols for the formless elements of physics; but also for the creative imagination."

Okay, I thought she was trying to say that her conception of 'angels' is more abstract than that of the average layperson. Typical theological snobbery. But wait--"archetypal images that dramatise the invisible realities"? What does this mean? What invisible realities is she talking about?

8. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66880 by Tyrant007 on August 31, 2007 at 11:39 pm

Holy shit. Did she miss the first half of The God Delusion? The chapters "The God Hypothesis", "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God"? Her attack on Dawkins is the strawman of strawmen.

"Ha! Dawkins thinks there's no god because some people think God told them to do bad things. But MY nebulous conception of god doesn't!" Dang. She caught ya there, Dawkins. Gotta work on that logic, prof.

I'm starting to think that these reviews intentionally misrepresent Dawkins for selfish political reasons. This is just blatant dishonesty. I'm considering writing a letter to the editor calling for her resignation.

9. The hitch in Hitchens' thinking

Comment #66802 by Tyrant007 on August 31, 2007 at 1:42 pm

haha try again hitchens you don't know what you're talking about you never read nuanced theology or thought about higher forces, god is everything god pervades the universe god is the binding spirit of all god ties us together god unites us all in our transcendent brilliance of nuance and erudition of spiritual force healing powers beings mystery personal existential questions meaning of life spirit


-_- When I hear weasel words like 'higher force', I reach for my Browning.

10. My critics are wrong to call me dogmatic

Comment #66655 by Tyrant007 on August 30, 2007 at 8:40 pm

Is there any academic department other than theology that is fully comprised of charlatans? I can't think of any.

11. The Gullible Age: Review of 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #66644 by Tyrant007 on August 30, 2007 at 7:33 pm

She commented later: "As a clairvoyant you're only as good as the client."

The only piece of truth to come out of her mouth! The bigger the sucker, the better the psychic.

12. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #66637 by Tyrant007 on August 30, 2007 at 5:48 pm

Hilarious rant!

13. A Matter of Faith

Comment #66630 by Tyrant007 on August 30, 2007 at 5:03 pm

It makes my blood boil when schmucks like the BU guy talk about atheism as though it is an arbitrary religious belief system (when it is really just a word that denotes the obvious and rational position in terms that theists can understand), equal in stature with actual religions, and then argue that it is this 'belief system' that compels certain regimes to commit crimes against humanity.

So an evil regime DIDN'T believe in religious superstition. What else didn't they believe in? Any number of possible claims. They didn't believe in the juju under the sea, or the flying spaghetti monster, or Xenu, or alchemy.

We really, really, REALLY need to make clear that atheism (I'm starting to dislike this word--it implicitly makes religion seem legitimate) is simply a rejection of religious superstition, and not a positive ideology. Someone on the forums recommended that we start calling ourselves rationalists. Perhaps this would indeed be a better choice. As has been said before, no one needs to identify themselves as a non-astrologer or a non-phrenologist. It's simply taken for granted.