1. Church Preaches The Music Of Beethoven

Comment #285455 by larhule on November 17, 2008 at 7:34 am

Fabulous! I certainly identify with this congregation however, please also include a few sermons from the Book of Stravinsky.

2. Bad Faith Awards 2008: Vote now

Comment #281973 by larhule on November 11, 2008 at 8:12 am

Oktar's antics are by far the most sinister but being an American I felt I had a duty to choose Palin.

3. Sarah Palin's War on Science

Comment #275687 by larhule on October 31, 2008 at 11:36 am

"He answered this in a recent interview. His position is that since the Iraqis have now expressed their wish that the foreign powers should leave, he has no problem with that."

Would you happen to know where I can read/hear/see this interview' I would look on YouTube myself but I wouldn't know where to begin to dig through the thousands of Hitchens clips.

4. Sarah Palin's War on Science

Comment #275489 by larhule on October 31, 2008 at 8:43 am

Fuck, I always post too late! Well, I hope enough people will be see this and jump in with some thoughts...

Great article by the Hitch, as always! Keep it coming!!!!!

The question I would like to ask Hitch is this:

Up until this point you have described yourself as a "single issue voter", that issue being the Iraq War. Given your support of regime change how do you reconcile that stance with the final statement in this article which basically condemns a vote for the McCain/Palin ticket who are in essential argreement with you on your "single issue" of regime change in Iraq'

5. Bill Maher's Religulous Opens Today

Comment #260605 by larhule on October 5, 2008 at 6:32 pm

I will see this but I'm preparing for a crappy film. I just find Maher to be terribly unfunny and his delivery to be dripping with the kind of cheap sarcasm you would normally expect from right-wing morning talk show hosts.

6. The world according to Hitchens

Comment #258675 by larhule on October 2, 2008 at 9:24 am

Welcome to the Obfuscation Show with your hosts, the ever-cynical Laurie Fraser and the frivolous & incompetent root2squared. Cheers to al-rawandi and Fanusi Khiyal for their elegant and honest flushing of these fools.

7. 'All Terrorists are Darwinists': An Interview with Harun Yahya

Comment #252604 by larhule on September 23, 2008 at 11:59 am

"Darwinism was the foundation of Hitler's and Mussolini's Fascism and Stalin's Communism."

***WRONG***

8. Humanists take legal action on GCSE exclusion

Comment #252600 by larhule on September 23, 2008 at 11:56 am

I would like to hear the actual QCA decision and any explanation related to such a decision. You would think that would have been important enough to include in the article.

9. Look Who's Irrational Now

Comment #251176 by larhule on September 21, 2008 at 7:01 am

Bill Maher is a shitty spokesman for atheism. Couple that with this illogical writer and you've got quite an insufferable and inconsequential read in the WSJ opinion section.

10. The real difference between liberals and conservatives

Comment #250370 by larhule on September 19, 2008 at 2:41 pm

I have to applaud Fanusi! This lecture was nebulous and meaningless. I'm trying to imagine a speech more insufferable than one that parades, as even-handed, its attempt to get liberals excited about being more accepting of conservatives by showing that liberals are generally more concerned with the virtue of acceptance. This bonehead lecturer should spend less time glorifying the two-party system/mindset and start taking some cues from Darwin, mainly, that we all exist in a variable context, each with our own individually arrived-at nuances. Such traits allow us free ourselves from ridiculous notions like liberalism and conservativism in hope of a more complicated, nuanced and accurate perception. Since when is TedTalks a forum for the archaic?!

11. Turkey bans biologist Richard Dawkins' website

Comment #250334 by larhule on September 19, 2008 at 1:09 pm

"According to Oktar's office, Istanbul's second criminal court of peace banned the site earlier this month on the grounds that it "violated" Oktar's personality.

In August 2007 Oktar persuaded a court to block access to WordPress.com. His lawyers argued that blogs on WordPress.com contained libelous material that the company was unwilling to remove.

Last April, he made a libel complaint about Google Groups, which was subsequently blocked."

If I were a Turkish citizen I would want this Oktar fellow dead.

12. Letter from Sir Richard Roberts asking Reiss to step down

Comment #247984 by larhule on September 15, 2008 at 11:57 am

someone call Ben Stein!

...then when he walks in the room, drop the 16 ton weight on his head!!!

13. Comedian Sabina Guzzanti 'insulted Pope' in poofter devils gag

Comment #245743 by larhule on September 11, 2008 at 11:43 am

I'm the homosexual demon from Hell assigned to the BenedictXVI case and I can confirm that Satan already has the signed documents from the Holy Trinity commanding that Pope Benedict XVI be tortured for an eternity by me! I'm thrilled! If Italian law enforcement has a problem with that they can come down to Hell and talk to Satan and I personally...WEENIE ROAST!

14. Theocratic Sect Prays for Real Armageddon

Comment #241445 by larhule on September 2, 2008 at 8:56 am

This dude has some of the worst trailer park/jail tats you'll ever see:

http://patholliday.com/christograms/from_scribd/images/an_angel_called_Emma/todd_bentley_tattoos_arm.jpg

What a vain little prick:

http://defendingcontending.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/2.jpg

I think I discovered his real identity. WWF wrestler Bam Bam Bigelow:

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/5413/bambambigelowak6.jpg

15. Museum in censorship row over Darwin sign

Comment #238737 by larhule on August 28, 2008 at 2:19 pm

There's a funny Monty Python sketch where an ape is being interviewed for a job as head librarian. The interviewers are very pleased when they discover that he would not choose to censor any book upon complaint. Turns out he's just a man in an ape suit trying to get the job because the library wants to be accepting of applicants of any species. The interviewers are very displeased and tell him to leave. Exit man in ape suit, enter real dog. What the hell is happening to your country, you limey bastards?!?! :)

16. Plan to exhume cardinal is 'homophobic'

Comment #237205 by larhule on August 26, 2008 at 7:52 am

"Jesus was a zombie". You gotta check out this song my friend wrote.

http://www.myspace.com/schafferthedarklord

It's called "Night of the Living Christ".

"Now tell me 'what would Jesus do?'
Well let me tell you what he'll do!
He will leave a trail of goo
As he prays
He prays on you!"

17. US school district sued over homophobic 'witch hunt'

Comment #234519 by larhule on August 21, 2008 at 1:36 pm

The only cure for things like this is public ridicule and strong organized opposition. This guy needs a Wikipedia page documenting his shitty behavior and we need contact information for people in charge of him so we can ensure them that there are a large number who STRONGLY disapprove of such terrible behavior. And he's still a teacher?!?!? Un-fucking-believable. Homophobia is wicked.

18. US school district sued over homophobic 'witch hunt'

Comment #234514 by larhule on August 21, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Since they announce that the faculty will have to undergo "sensitivity training" I thought you all would enjoy this stand-up bit from George Carlin:

"...after some police officers jammed a floor lamp up some black guy's ass and ripped his intestines out the police announced they're going to have "sensitivity training". And I say, 'Hey, if you need sensitivity training to be told not to jam a large cumbersome object up someone else's asshole then maybe you're too fucked up to be on the police force in the first place.'"

19. After Bibles seized, U.S. group won't leave Chinese airport

Comment #234509 by larhule on August 21, 2008 at 1:13 pm

"I somehow don't think you can bring 300 copies of porn into the U.S. for distribution either."

Gotta love the scientific, well-researched language of "I somehow don't think".

"The reason that you get banned may be different, but get banned you probably will."

Ah, the language of ignorance. Why even post?

"This is a case of cultural imperialism plain and simple."

No. It's a case of missionaries taking their holy books into another country. The Chinese law banning quantities of religious texts is not put in place to fight 'cultural imperialism' but the spread of foreign faiths. And it's mechanism is censorship. Why would you side with such garbage and blame the Christians FIRST for 'cultural imperialism' without at all condemning the Chinese for ridiculous censorship?

"There are many books that are outright BANNED in most western countries, try and take 300 Anrchist cookbooks or something into the land of the free and you'll end up in Guantanmo guys."

Even if that were true, which it is not, you could just go check it out at the public library instead.

"Better yet try 300 Korans and grow yourself a nice beard and wear a robe"

Where do you think US mosques get their Korans?

"So all this BS about free speech doesn't fly with me."

I can't deny that free speech doesn't seem to fly with you. Nor does it seem defensible to you.

20. After Bibles seized, U.S. group won't leave Chinese airport

Comment #233699 by larhule on August 20, 2008 at 9:39 am

"I find it sad that so many posters here are so blinded by their animosity towards religion that they are willing to support a cynical totalitarian state, if its contempt for free speech & the free exchange of ideas can be seen to be 'pro-atheist'.

Another reminder that modern atheism is not necessarily aligned with sweetness & light."

I AGREE! Ought we ban any discussion that Heaven may not exist simply because it might cause children extreme stress? What do you "skeptic" fools not understand about "absolute" as applied to freedom of speech? If anything, these missionary stooges should be praised for showing Chinese citizens how to protest the foolish rules of a repressive regime.

"Suppose the U.K passes a law banning radical Islamic literature from Saudi Arabia and someone tries to smuggle in 300 copies of some such material for distribution at mosques and got the material confiscated, would that be a problem for free speech defenders?"

Ummmm.....YES! I don't see why this is difficult for you to grasp. I would call the beliefs of scientologists 'radical' as well. The moment these supply chains switch from books to bombs is when we put our foot down. Putting your foot down any sooner makes YOU the repressive one.

"I'm not sure taking Bibles into China would have anything to do with free speech in my opinion. It's history is shady and we don't even know who wrote it."

Foolish! Just because the Bible is not true and we don't know who wrote it?!?!?!? Shakespeare wrote fiction and we're not sure of his identity either. How plainly idiotic.

"I'm sure America has books banned for good reason, and so China has their reasons for restricting the Bible."

Wow, someone is definitely NOT a scholar!

"It is not a violation of the freedom of speech,nor is it a violation any right for that matter,-- missionaries don't have a natural right to go to any country and pester people with their superstition."

This doesn't mean that it shouldn't be protested and that you ought not be on the side of these Bible-carrying protesters. The issue for me is not an exercise in blindly regurgitating Chinese law, it is the reaction by "skeptics" to side with anti-religion before free speech.

"i think theres a good reason communism bans religion - they see it for the backwards, disruptive element it is."

again, an anti-religious fool quick to throw the labels 'backward' and 'disruptive' in a sentence with the words 'communism' and 'religion' but only apply them to 'religion'. revealing!

"considering the filth in the bible i wouldnt be surprised if it could well fall under "incitement to hatred and abuse" like any inflamatory prose. still undecided whether it is wrong to ban it though."

UNDECIDED?!?!?!?!

"I love free speak, but some limits must be imposed in cases of hate spreading."

So who do you nominate to determine what is hateful? The contributors to the Richard Dawkin's message board?

"Sharing your "love of Jesus Christ," whatever that means, isn't a human right much less a civil right."

If your 'love of Christ' is conveyed by your words and your printed materials then who is to say that it is not a human right to express that? Again, this is an infringement upon the absolute nature of the theory of free speech (in China it is often only a theory, and hopefully for some, a dream).

"Keeping 300 Bibles out of a country, clearly more than is required for personal use, isn't a free speech issue so much as it's trying to quarantine a society from Infection."

Just because you don't agree with the meme, or because the meme is not true doesn't mean that government should take to quarantining it citizens in order to eradicate ideas that they have a choice to believe. Let's hear you condemn that sort of behavior because it almost sounds like you're a supporter of it!

"if this material (or speech) will cause emotional or physical harm to innocent women and children (not everyone in this world is a big, tough, man with good rational thinking skills) Ten-year old brides don't have much say in the matter before they are raped for years and years."

The idea that there is no Heaven causes a lot of people harm. What should we do about that? Ten-year old brides should not be protected from rape by limiting free speech laws, they should be protected by laws that severely punish men who put their penises into ten-year old girls.

"So if this right to spread lies and destructive ideologies hurts innocent children, then are they just unfortunate victims of this liberty?"

Yes. But why can't they be protected by some other law that more specifically addresses the harm? If the only harm is that of being led to believe something that is false then I have to say...TOO BAD! You cannot legislate to protect stupid people from their own stupidity when the legislation requires amendments to free speech, especially when all you're seeking to limit are thoughts and ideas.

"For obvious reasons, the only material that I know for sure that is actively banned in the US is child pornography, but how different is a religious text that promotes (if not condones) child marriages?"

Apparently the depths of idiocy know no bounds! Child pornography requires sexual assault of children. The creation and spread of religious texts does not. If you seek to prevent child marriages (I'm with you) then make it unlawful to marry a child, not to read about marrying a child!

"My opinion is that one person's freedom stops when it encroaches on another's - especially if that encroachment involves the physical or psychological harm of innocents."

If I take away your right to speak openly then I cannot expect to enjoy the same right myself. That is exactly how every limitation of speech proceeds logically. Amongst all of these clumsy what-if's I would really enjoy a clear unambiguous condemnation of free speech amendments. As yet I have yet to hear a clear unambiguous argument in favor of them.

"I simply cannot agree with your opinion that freedom of speech (or press) is absolute and that there are no "tough", grey areas. If it were just us independent, educated, free-thinking adults - then yes - but there are some people out there who deserve and need a little protection sometimes."

WHO?

"Maybe we should just let the harmful ideology infiltrate the uneducated gullible masses in the name of liberty and then we can try to catch the child molesters after the fact?"

Correct!

"I hear that a convicted child molester is writing a book from his cell that explains the top ten secret guaranteed ways to lure children into your vehicle - let's all rally behind his absolute right to free speech!"

Yes, support his right to free speech. Read the book so you're aware of the "top ten secret guaranteed ways to lure children". How secret and guaranteed will they then be?

"This is obviously not about free speech or freedom of publishing, it's about proselytizing."

Proselytizing is speech. So yes, it most certainly is about freedom of speech.

"The right to free speech is only applicable to citizens. What amounts to cross border spamming or distributing international junk mails by foreign nationals is not covered under free speech."

You're correct that free speech does not transfer across the borders of China. Care to criticize that reality? Or is it sufficient depending on the content?

"I know this example is extreme, but lets say someone created a cookbook which precisely illustrated how someone could create a nuclear weapon with common household materials. Is a country obligated to allow the distribution of such material under the pretense of 'freedom of speech'?"

How could you use such an extreme example then refer to freedom of speech as a 'pretense'? That's far from a pretense, sir! Free speech is dangerous. Thankfully in real life it is not THAT dangerous. But hey, whatever allows you to control the distribution of your most hated book, right? Why, when the issue is clearly the free speech rights related to religious texts must you bring up a unreal example? Stay on topic. The exercise in theory is not helped by your flippancy.

"There should be no "list" of banned materials. What next? Video games? Music? The Internet?"

Finally! A comrade!

"let those negative materials fall by the weight of their own doctrine"

Brilliant!

"So a pamphlet that posits that a man infected with HIV can be cured by having sex with a 12 month old baby girl should be allowed to be published and distributed freely in scientifically ignorant sub-Saharan Africa?"

Yes. If it were not freely distributed then the vast majority of those who read it would be men infected with HIV so terrified by their disease that they would be willing to do ANYTHING. Allowing free distribution gets the texts into the hands of mothers who have 12-month old baby girls, so that they might know what they are up against.

"How many babies should we allow to be raped while this little free press experiment sorts itself out?"

We are not allowing them to be raped, you cretin! The country can create laws that punish those who rape children! The government can distribute the authority much more clearly and concisely and quickly than your flippant example of this underground chain letter. Is it a travesty to jail a man who rapes a baby because he read a piece of paper that said it was OK? I hope you hear how ridiculous you sound.

"A free press is the freethinking man's best friend, a charlatan's best outlet for pedaling his particular brand of lies, and the uneducated man, with limited resources, is at the mercy of the more powerful and persuasive of the two."

Um, so let's make the free thinkers powerful and freely distribute the criticisms of the charlatains and let the people make up their own minds. Even the pessimists like yourself.

"Pamphlets don't rape children, people do. And each individual crime should be dealt with on a case by case basis so as not to step on the toes of law abiding citizens whose morals differ from yours."

Thank you Fire Marshall Bill!

Before you reply, consider that I've already stated that I'm discussing free speech in general, not as it exists (or does not exist) within the framework of any country's legislature. Don't be a goon and tell me that China has no free speech laws. I have already stated my opposition, my protest, and my support of those who engage in a similar protest. If you support free speech, say it before you criticize religion, as the former must be available for you to engage in the latter! (though both are much appreciated)

21. After Bibles seized, U.S. group won't leave Chinese airport

Comment #232733 by larhule on August 18, 2008 at 2:38 pm

"I'm afraid I have to side with the Chinese. They are a soverign nation and can run their country however they like. If you travel there with the express purpose to break the law, you get what you deserve if you're caught."

Very true. Reminds me of a George Carlin (peace be upon him) stand-up bit:

"...who cares about some mercenary civilian contractor from Oklahoma who gets his head cut off? Fuck 'em. Hey Jack, you don't want to get your head cut off? Stay the fuck in Oklahoma. They aint cuttin' of heads in Oklahoma, far as I know."

22. After Bibles seized, U.S. group won't leave Chinese airport

Comment #232727 by larhule on August 18, 2008 at 2:33 pm

What's so tough about siding with Christians on an issue such as freedom of speech? You must understand that you've implied that freedom of speech ought not be absolute. If that's not what you meant then try rephrasing your posts so that you don't say something idiotic like it is difficult to support the free speech rights of certain citizens by virtue of the foolish ideas that they spread. It doesn't matter that the speech is untrue or hurts. Get over it. It's fun and easy to bash the religious in the atheist garden (I quite enjoy it myself) but freedom of speech should be unalterable. Please internalize that concept. I'd like to be able to continue to take a shit on the faithful and China without the fear of jailtime or worse.

23. After Bibles seized, U.S. group won't leave Chinese airport

Comment #232653 by larhule on August 18, 2008 at 12:40 pm

"Yay- China gets it right for once"

DISGUSTING!

24. After Bibles seized, U.S. group won't leave Chinese airport

Comment #232648 by larhule on August 18, 2008 at 12:32 pm

This isn't a "tough one" nor do you need to live in "a diverse city" to understand it. Freedom of speech is absolute and China sucks ass for not guaranteeing such a right as absolute. The few replies that I have read to this article can only assure me that in both principle and practice, I would much rather live in a country with absolute freedom of speech than one populated entirely by atheists without that freedom. Sometimes, my comrades, you just turn my stomach! Now that you've so proudly and repetitively slammed the idiotic claims of the religious perhaps you ought to step up to the far more lucid, nuanced, beneficial and brilliant foundations of free society!

25. More reviews of 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #229212 by larhule on August 13, 2008 at 8:20 am

AA Gill: "It also revealed a sorry truth. He is much happier, and much more accomplished at, knocking things down than building them. He'd rather be against something than for it."

Gotta love it when critics criticize professors for being more focused on criticizing than teaching. How transparently foolish!

26. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208786 by larhule on July 11, 2008 at 8:48 am

Letter sent:

President Bruininks,

Dr. Myers is a wealth of creativity and rigorous intellectual honesty, traits which are the foundation of higher education in America. I hereby offer my support of the heat that he creates in his blog and feel that its content in no way contradicts his duty as a public intellectual. Dr. Myers excites students and the public about evolution, secularism, and learning, while never contradicting the oath of honesty demanded by those who maintain the collegiate experience. Sadly, such a person cannot exist without being disputed/hated/threatened by people with principles that conflict those of academia.

Forgive my presumption, but it is your job to ensure that such treatment does not change the course of academia. To that end, this is someone you cannot afford to lose.

Sincerely,
*REAL NAME*

27. Carlin on Religion

Comment #198942 by larhule on June 24, 2008 at 8:01 pm

All of the beauty in humanity wrapped up in one man. That is George Carlin.

28. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #194075 by larhule on June 16, 2008 at 11:48 am

Fellow Ummagumma fan,

He likened me to Pol Pot even BEFORE I called him a "baby". I think it was "queen" that set him off. But really, how apt both of those titles are! What a complete stooge.

Commander of the Khmer Rouge, cleanser of dirty diapers & diatribes and keeper of the Highest Gaydar,
-LARHULE

29. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #193893 by larhule on June 16, 2008 at 7:44 am

I've been emailing back and forth with this nutjob, Yomin Postelnik. I thought you all might enjoy reading what he REALLY thinks of atheists. Email me if you want to read them.

LARHULE@GMAIL.COM

30. Physicists in Congress Calculate Their Influence

Comment #193873 by larhule on June 16, 2008 at 7:17 am

That dude on the right is pinker than my leotard!

31. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191103 by larhule on June 10, 2008 at 8:10 am

Stryer, I dig your Socratic fire. You obviously don't need it but consider this a handful of encouragement for pinning responders to their words! The shit you catch for 'attitude' is totally fruitless and only serves to preserve a cold slate for everyone to hold hands and engage in boring, mass eye rolls in response to another stupid religious treatise.

32. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190785 by larhule on June 9, 2008 at 2:47 pm

I believe that men can breast feed. It's creepy and hard for me to even want to think about or accept, but it's apparently possible. I bet that milk tastes awful, like saw dust, old Busch light and motor oil....that is, if it's anything like mine.

33. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190779 by larhule on June 9, 2008 at 2:36 pm

I got so excited to see a headline that someone had actually proved the existence of god. However, I must say that I was unable to find a proof for the existence of a divine creator amongst Yomin Postelnik's tired and flippant examples. I don't expect this to be a surprise to any of you as he ended the article with the following cop out:

It should be noted that although this column is comparatively lengthy, it is still only a column and barely scratches the surface of the clear proofs that evidence the existence of the Divine and the Divine nature of the Bible, the Torah. The reader is encouraged to study further and to ask questions.

By contrast, the ability to adapt to small conditional changes is also a fascinating aspect of the body...

[Atheists] believe that not only did whole planets appear spontaneously, but also believe that the fact that these planets do not collide as meteors do, that they have gravity, that they contain the proper atmospheric conditions for life to take hold and contain sustenance to sustain this life all happened by mere fluke.