1. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #177714 by NMcC on May 9, 2008 at 2:29 pm

D'Arcy

There's a PM for you.

2. Fleabytes

Comment #138228 by NMcC on March 4, 2008 at 4:47 am

STEVE

Thanks for the explanation. OK, that's a perfectly fair post and I am now happy to move on from it.

Actually, you've made me feel slightly ashamed for being so horrible to you. Sorry.

Regards.

3. Fleabytes

Comment #138213 by NMcC on March 4, 2008 at 4:23 am

3088. Comment #138190 by Storeo on March 4, 2008 at 3:35 am

"NMcC;

Sorry to be intrusive, but didn't you leave a few days ago vowing to never post again?"

Yes, that's right. I posted a 5 or 6 word question asking another poster if he got a PM from me (necessary, as it turned out, as he hadn't until then).

Steve Zara thought this was a great opportunity to show a nasty side of himself and be pathetically provocative. Unfortunately, I allowed myself be be provoked.

4. Fleabytes

Comment #138203 by NMcC on March 4, 2008 at 4:02 am

STEVE ZARA

No, don't stop posting on my account.

You're perfectly entitled to do so.

Just don't make posts with the sole aim of provoking me and then deny that you did so when called to account.

It's a simple matter of basic honesty.

As for the histrionics of others, well, I asked a straight forward question and he's refused to answer it because he knows he's been caught out - it's called a Fleaism. What's your problem?

You should guard against having double standards. It's dangerous.

5. Fleabytes

Comment #138143 by NMcC on March 4, 2008 at 1:48 am

Sorry folks, but I can't let this pass as it appears that Wee Fleaism might be contagious.


STEVE ZARA writes:

"No bait was intended. I was the one posting silly off-topic comments, and looking faintly (or more) ridiculous.

I had (sic) intention to upset, and if I did, I sincerely apologise."

Really? Well, I don't believe you. I'm stating here for all to see that I think you are a LIAR.

But here's a way to disabuse me of this notion. Answer the following questions, yes or no, and, remember, we atheists value the truth:

1) Was your motivation for making the post in question anything other than that I had just posted and you wanted to get a petulant dig in because of a previous comment of mine?

2) Did you lie when you typed the above response?

Only you, of course, will know whether your answers are truthful or not. But I'm happy enough with that.

6. Fleabytes

Comment #137507 by NMcC on March 3, 2008 at 2:58 am

Steve Zara writes:

"(I just wish the post of mine that Richard quoted had not been in the middle of a conversation about who was most attractive in Buffy. Still, if one does wash one's dirty linen in public...)"

OK. I'll rise to the bait, just this once, since I wouldn't want you to think that you had a pointless existence posting to a website every five minutes, morning, noon and night.

Firstly, I can't speak for Richard Dawkins, but do you really think for a second that he, or 'any reasonable person' would consider another person -supporter or not - who spends his entire life posting comments, 9/10ths of which are inane, to a web site as anything other than someone who's not quite playing with a full deck?

Secondly, I was going to say I'm surprised you are still on this 'wreck of a thread' as you called it, but then I realised that you posted that description when you were, given the nature of the post that you quickly deleted and your other apologetic posts that night to me and others, as I believe and as I've already stated and you haven't denied, 'tired and emotional'.

In regard to the Buffy reference, yes, go for it! I think I read an interview somewhere in which the best looking male on the show said that a drunken, hysterical, website stalker with no life and who is, self-confessedly, afraid of his own shadow was exactly the type of person he was looking to spend the rest of his life with.

Apologies to the rest of you.

7. Fleabytes

Comment #137484 by NMcC on March 3, 2008 at 1:34 am

Scottishgeologist

Did you get a PM from me?

8. Fleabytes

Comment #136422 by NMcC on March 1, 2008 at 6:32 am

RICHARD DAWKINS

Obviously, you've fixed the two things I mention in my post above, so it's now dated. However, the rest remains.

NMcC

9. Fleabytes

Comment #136421 by NMcC on March 1, 2008 at 6:27 am

RICHARD DAWKINS

I've no interest in entering into an unproductive verbal tennis match with you (and I'm sure you have neither the time nor inclination for one either), so I'll make this post and then I really will take my final leave.

If I was a Wee Flea type of charlatan, I'd claim that my last post must have got you riled. Firstly, you mistyped my initials, then you mistakenly attribute to me your own words and, finally, you fob off the serious question I posed in my last post with a soundbite.

Thankfully, as a proud infidel with some regard for propriety, I'm not as easily given to deliberate and dishonest misinterpretation as the humble Christian truth-seeker Robertson.

So, by way of agreeing to disagree on this one, I'd end this exchange by simply stating that the so-called 'death threat' was, indeed, in the same league as the cartoons and the opera. If only for the fact that, as all and sundry are perfectly aware, the alleged threat was about as real and as likely to come to fruition as the bomb on 'the Prophet's' head in the cartoon was likely to actually explode and about as believable as that the 33 year old Jesus really went about Palestine in a nappy.

In short, my posts were removed simply on the basis of a difference in taste in matters humourous. Fair enough.

Regards,
Nigel McCullough

10. Fleabytes

Comment #136384 by NMcC on March 1, 2008 at 4:06 am

RICHARD DAWKINS

Thanks for the explanation. I was under the impression that Josh was the moderator here and that you wouldn't, and probably couldn't, intervene to have posts removed (as, rather embarrassingly, I had boasted to Robertson in my most recent reply to him). So, it appears that I have been unfair to Josh. My apologies to you Josh.

In regard to what you say in your post, Richard, my respect for your brain power notwithstanding, I think either you are confused as to the point at issue here, or I am. As far as I can see, you have decided to remove my posts, not because you believe I was threatening anyone, but because, according to your own lights and judgements of such things, they were in bad taste and unfunny.

It seems to me that my posts (and, presumably, everyone else's), then, are judged in the light of whether they are:

1 Meant to be taken seriously
2 In good or bad taste
3 Humourous or not humourous

In regard to 1, nobody, not you, me, Robertson nor scottishgeologist took what I posted seriously in anyway whatsoever. That, of course, is because, as I've already said now about six times, you'd have to be mentally retarded or unconscionably dishonest to do so.

This leaves 2 and 3. Well, this is where I might be confused. You see, I was under the impression that this is exactly the grounds on which the religious loons demanded that The Satanic Verses, The Danish Cartoons, the Birmingham Play and Jerry Springer, The Opera should be 'removed'. To my knowledge, the protests against these were almost entirely based on the claim that they were offensive, not because they incited hatred or violence, but because they were 'in bad taste' and therefore upset the hyper-sensitivities of the 'reality challenged' among us.

Some complainants even had the gall to suggest that The Danish cartoons and Jerry Springer, The Opera should be banned on the grounds that they simply weren't funny. I'm one of the people who was decidedly untickled by them, though the thought that they should be banned or removed because they didn't measure up to my idea of 'funny' or 'good taste' never occurred to me.

Perhaps you'd enlighten me as to how this concept now works on your own website?

Anyway, regardless of everything, I think 99.9% of your work - books, programmes and, especially, interviews and debates - is superb and congratulations on it.

Though my admiration is decidedly not of the same sort as robotoholic above, who appears to be astonished that you're a real man, heart-broken that you've had to condescend to do something as unworthy as take part in a thread on your own website, but who, thankfully, sends you his hugs and kisses by way of recompense. He's probably mystified as to how a religion can get started around someone like Jesus or Joseph Smith, into the bargain!

Regards,
Nigel McCullough

11. Fleabytes

Comment #136270 by NMcC on February 29, 2008 at 4:09 pm

NOTE TO JOSH

If possible, please leave on my comment number 136267 (2293 this thread) just for the record.

Thanks

12. Fleabytes

Comment #136267 by NMcC on February 29, 2008 at 3:57 pm

STEVE ZARA

Last Post (so to speak)

Yes, I was expecting something like that from you. That's right, ONE of the posts is the one you whined about. It's also the one that you APOLOGISED for whining about. Since it was late on a Saturday night, I at first put your silly attitude down to your being, shall we say, 'tired and emotional', especially since you'd had to apologise to someone else that night as well.

Now, I see that you've apologised at least SIX TIMES since then to others!!

No, I don't suspect you have 'any regrets' since your real problem is that you're still smarting over my comment that I couldn't take orders from a grown man who's, self-confessedly, "the biggest Buffy fan on the planet".

Go on, admit it, you'll feel better.

13. Fleabytes

Comment #136256 by NMcC on February 29, 2008 at 3:19 pm

JOSH

I see you have given in to that whining fraud Robertson and removed my posts 669, 674, and 676.

Since I do not wish to be associated in any way with a site that stiffles free speech and dictates (and at the behest of a despicable Christian liar, to boot) what should or should not be considered 'humourous', please do me the honour of removing the rest of my posts.

I would appreciate it if this post alone was left as a mark of protest.

As far as I'm concerned, your surrender to the likes of religious fruitcakes like Robertson is pathetic.

In leaving this site for good, I'd simply like to state that, like others, I've learnt a lot and appreciate very much the education I've recieved.

14. Fleabytes

Comment #136215 by NMcC on February 29, 2008 at 2:26 pm

epeeist

Why don't you read the bible? That requires no mental effort and you'll be asleep in no time.

15. Fleabytes

Comment #136211 by NMcC on February 29, 2008 at 2:22 pm

scottishgeologist

No, there was no mention of it here, in the local press, that is, that I noticed.

I think it was Wee Flea himself who said that there were 400 that turned up at a room that only held 300. Of course, self praise is no recommendation.

It's a pity they couldn't find a way to utilise the space between their ears, they could have accommodated another 400!

16. Fleabytes

Comment #136197 by NMcC on February 29, 2008 at 2:09 pm

scottishgeologist

"Gee whizz - go away for a few hours, come back and it takes ages to try to catch up again... man, the server hosting this site must be about to go into meltdown.

How many posts over the past 24 hours? Hundreds? More?

Wheres David Robertson BTW?

Doesnt he have some questions to answer?"

Yeah, I know what you mean. I posted a lengthy response to Robertson earlier on, came back a wee while later thinking there'd be 10 or 12 posts (some of which commenting on how brilliantly clever and witty I was) and what did I find? About 200 posts and not a single one saying anything in regard to my post.

It's not on. I've a good mind to become a Christian, or, what amounts to the same thing, hold my breath until my face goes blue and I die.

17. Fleabytes

Comment #135549 by NMcC on February 29, 2008 at 4:48 am

ROBERTSON
"I actually regard death threats in any context as inappropriate."

Give over, you fraud. I don't accept, even for a nanosecond, that you genuinely, seriously believe that there is even the slightest hint of any such nonsense as a 'death threat' against you. You are well aware that the whole thing was simply part of a 'humourous' exchange between scottishgeologist and me. It was, as scottishgeologist aptly put it, probably a 'scots-Irish thing' (you are Scottish, of course, but then, you are also an imposter in so many ways that feigning not to perceive the humour in something is well within your compass). Given that part of our exchange - on a public forum - was this:

"PPS - Don't tell anyone about this conversation"

I'll repeat what I said previously, 'you'd have to be mentally retarded or unconscionably dishonest to take it seriously.' Well, I'm sure you don't consider yourself mentally retarded…so…? You are simply pretending to be outraged and concerned because it enables you to play the martyr, something that you are well practiced at. Thankfully, it also reveals what a duplicitous toad you are. For only such a toad could simultaneously admit that he recognizes something as a joke and then, literally within seconds, speak as if he believed it to be real. Mind you, didn't another poster suggest that you may actually be schizophrenic? Hmmm….interesting.

For the record, here's another part of the conversation between scottishgeologist and me:

"We'd better stop this subversive talk. If only for the reason that Robertson will be able to go about claiming that the atheists are out to murder him. And boy would he love that!"

Now, my question in relation to the above quote, Mr Robertson, is this: How come you are not worshipping me as a Prophet? After all, you are madly in love with Jesus and have regularly intimated that, in the unlikely event of his return, you'd stamp on the heads of babies to get kissing his behind, yet, in the prophesy stakes at least, his record obviously doesn't hold a candle to mine!

ROBERTSON
"In this rather surreal world of atheist fundamentalism where words seem to have no meaning I can accept that for you it is not a problem."

It's in the 'atheist' world where words have no meaning, is it? Well, you could have fooled me! I was under the distinct impression that this trait belonged almost exclusively to the whacky world of religion. And I would invite any reader to go through Robertson's posts on this thread alone and count the number of times he uses words that are either meaningless, self-contradictory or simply egregious lies. Next, pay a visit to The God Channel, where you'll find such a concentrated collection of charlatans, crooks, freaks, snake oil salesmen and saleswomen, imbeciles and wordy shysters that five minutes listening to their meaningless babble is long enough for your ears to melt and drop off. Finally, if you haven't already, for relief, stuck your head under the grill or up an elephant's bottom, read the bible, wherein you'll discover some of the most disgustingly perverse double-think and outright mental and verbal filth that's ever been committed to paper - ok, parchment!

ROBERTSON
"For me it is - especially when posted in the midst of such emotive hatred and names the place where I am going to be, invokes the Real IRA and says I am a catholic hater."


As I've had occasion to retort in the past to you, don't flatter yourself, matey. In order to feel any kind of hatred (is it possible for hatred to be anything other than 'emotive'?), you have to care. Believe me, I don't!

Aye, now that you've mentioned the IRA, you never did answer my previous question: what was it that you were, self-confessedly, 'involved in' that made the IRA ignore the likes of Paisley to issue a death threat against your very important person? As I said previously, 'go on, tell us. Give us a laugh"

ROBERTSON
"This may be your idea of 'witty' banter but to my mind it is sick."

Come again? You mean an obvious piece of meaningless humour between two consenting adults is 'sick', whilst believing variously (and what follows is only by way of example) that:

we are all, babies and children included, 'polluted' with sin

a man, who supposedly lived 2,000 years ago and about whom we know almost nothing definite, was, our almost total ignorance of him notwithstanding, Superman incarnate

although this all-loving, supernatural being had the power to cure all known disease, including the cancers that afflict children, and even though, despicably, he confined himself to doing the kind of pathetic party tricks that wouldn't even have impressed the lovely Debbie McGee enough to marry him, yet you believe that the entire universe was created for his benefit and spend your life worshipping his memory whilst all the time telling us how 'unworthy' we humans are

he died, and then came back to life again, before shooting off into the sky, (where, to this day, 2,000 years later, he sits on the right hand of God, who can't have a right hand as he's omnipresent) on no more substantial grounds than that some of his credulous, superstitious, ignorant and loopy followers said that he did

he was the 'son' of a very specific God and was born of a virgin (even though she somehow subsequently forgot that he was the virgin-born, God-sent saviour of the world and thought he was simply a nutcase) specifically to play the lead part in a blood sacrifice type ritual because his 'father', the ineffable creator of the entire universe, lacked imagination enough to decree that stealing a paperclip from the office requires this son of his to be nailed to tree by way of 'atonement'

whilst still in a state of joyous, open-minded and vulnerable innocence, all children should be taken, usually against their will, and have this preposterous, disgusting pile of utter garbage, both forcibly and forcefully, drilled into their minds even though you are well aware that it is nothing more than vile propaganda and that if these kids were old enough to argue back, and/or reasonably well enough informed about religion in general, they'd laugh the so called 'educators' who purvey this tripe out of the room

And YOU have the gall to throw epithets like 'sick' in the direction of others. Shame on you!

ROBERTSON
"The fact that RD let it stay on, and that the only dissenter was soon compelled to repent and apologise for daring to suggest it should be removed is highly significant."

RD is not the moderator of the site and, to my knowledge, doesn't (and, even if he wanted to, probably couldn't) dictate what goes or stays. And, anyway, 'You'd have to be mentally retarded or unconscionably dishonest to take seriously…etc…etc'.

The 'dissenter' was not compelled to do anything of the sort. Sitting at home using the internet to communicate, and not following any pre-ordained script, he was perfectly free to react in any way he chose. You are the one whose actions are governed by some silly, bronze age balderdash written in a ridiculous, thoroughly discredited 'Self-help' (or should that be 'Self- destruct'?) book. Don't try and tar others with your own fundamentalist brush.

ROBERTSON;
"Can you imagine if this had happened on a Christian website? The headlines the next day would have been "Fundie death threat to Dawkins'".

Bollocks! 'You'd have to be mentally retarded…..yawn, yawn'.

And, finally, just for you David, I'll declare here and now, and for all and sundry to see, far from threatening you, if I ever have the misfortune to meet you in person, I'll give you a big watery kiss right on the lips (you know, like Jesus did with Mary Magdalene, the frisky old goat!). But, no tongues mind. And, when it comes to that old Christian codswalop, don't you try to seduce me, Mr Robertson!

18. Fleabytes

Comment #134670 by NMcC on February 28, 2008 at 4:58 am

Yes, and don't forget how long your hellish torture will last.

As a friend of mine once heard from a loving Catholic priest:

"Imagine a mountain the size of Mount Everest. And imagine that a dove visits that mountain only once every billion years. Now imagine further that on each visit the dove strokes the mountain only once with it's wing. Well, the length of time it takes for that mountain to be completely worn away as a consequence of the strokes of the dove's wing, only represents a single second in hell"

And, strangely enough, the above was said with a hint of relish in his voice!

19. Fleabytes

Comment #134612 by NMcC on February 28, 2008 at 3:36 am

I don't think this separation from God thing rather than fire and brimstone as a description of hell is just a 'Liberal' stance.

As I understand it, the likes of apologist William Lane Craig, who couldn't be described as anything other than a fundamentalist, holds that hell is just a place where those condemned to go there feel an 'abscence of God'.

Even the fruitcake apologist Robert Turkel (he uses the nom de plume JP Holding because he once worked in a prison library and feels that past inmates might be out to get him!!) who runs the Tektonics website argues that hell isn't necessarily a place of firey torture where devils stick red hot pokers up your bum forevermore.

If hell is just an abscence of God, it sounds quite attractive - like Sweden with warmer weather.

Though I think the most important question in regard to whether a God who, by definition, is everywhere, can be 'abscent' is: is Jesus still sitting on His right hand?

20. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #134309 by NMcC on February 27, 2008 at 3:09 pm

Comment #134265 by Epinephrine on February 27, 2008 at 1:58 pm

"I didn't find the woman who objected to being talked over that offensive;"

I certainly found her offensive; what she was trying to say in a totally unjustifiably arrogant way was: here's a book that refutes everything you say. Yet, she couldn't say what the qualifications of Lee Strobel were, she said herself that it was a while since she read the book and she was too stupid even to know that the book in question, The Case for Christ, has next to no bearing on anything in TGD and that it has been torn to shreads by skeptical reviewers for the unfounded, preposterous, dishonest claptrap that it is.

For those of you who don't know, Lee Strobel is a ridiculous christian apologist. He trumpets the fact that he is a former 'investigative' journalist who was also formerly 'an atheist' (weren't they all!) who became a Christian after bringing his 'investigative' skills to bear on the claims of the Christian religion and finding these claims sound. In fact, he became a Christian as a response to his wife becoming one and if his investigative journalistic skills were anything like those displayed in his farcial books the world of investigative journalism has lost nothing and doesn't need to go into mourning.

To cut a long story short, here's Strobel's idea of hard-nosed, investigative journalism as displayed in his dopey books:

Strobel: "Isn't it the case that the Christian religion makes total sense, is founded on absolute truth and is exactly what everyone is looking for?"

Some other Christian apologist: "Yes, it certainly is".

Strobel: "Well, there you have it reader, the facts speak for themselves".

How does Strobel deal with the views of the skeptics he interviews? He doesn't. Interview any, that is!

I've simplified the above, of course, but only just.

So for this arrogant half-wit to berate Dawkins with '..have you read this book..?' is offensive in the extreme.

21. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #134284 by NMcC on February 27, 2008 at 2:31 pm

AtheistJon -

"The Irishman however, pulls his fly out and begins beating it against the bar while shouting, "Give it back, give it back!!"

Allowing for the percieved national characteristics, should this not have been the Scotsman's role?

22. Fleabytes

Comment #134212 by NMcC on February 27, 2008 at 12:16 pm

al-rawandi -

That could be quite a good comedy sketch:

After the enormous black man stood up, flexed his muscles and said, "Yes, I do. Why? What a ***king bout it?

Your friend could have said; "Er...nothing. It wasn't me who was asking...it was him!"

23. Fleabytes

Comment #134201 by NMcC on February 27, 2008 at 11:49 am

al-rawandi -

"...but Shaykh Salik once accosted a black man drinking a beer and ordered his student to translate: "Do you enjoy living like a dog?"

Now I'm confused....what was all that talk about dogs acting like dogs, donkeys acting like donkeys, and so on, because that's their nature and all they know.

Does this mean there is a black dog somewhere chilling out drinking beer? Help!!

24. Fleabytes

Comment #134187 by NMcC on February 27, 2008 at 11:18 am

scottishgeologist

"Taking Occams razor to the throat of this BS leaves anyone with any common sense with the inescapable notion that perhaps God simply doesn't exist?"

Or, as that American commedian, whose name I can never remember, says: "...maybe he just doesn't give a s**t".

Indeed, perhaps he's away "whoring after" more Godlier Gods than himself, and couldn't care less about us or anything else.

25. Fleabytes

Comment #134156 by NMcC on February 27, 2008 at 10:35 am

al-rawandi

"How interesting. I sat down with a famous Islamic scholar named Shaykh Hamza Yusuf. He suggested to a young man considering conversion that he "Jump in with both feet".

Here is a parachute, don't test it, just jump out of the plane. Trust me, you will understand everything in free fall."

Yes, and it's exactly the same mentality that enables people to fly aircraft into buildings.

Apropo debating McGrath: just so everyone knows, Da Sousa (is that the correct spelling? Probably not.) in the course of patting himself on the back, has claimed on his website that Hitchens destroyed McGrath when they debated.

26. Fleabytes

Comment #134139 by NMcC on February 27, 2008 at 10:12 am

Scottishgeologist

Yeah, I know, these apologists take me to the fair.

Craig has also said that he would advise anyone to become a Christian first and then investigate the reasons why they have become a Christian. Have you ever heard such a ridiculous proposition in your life? Why not become a Muslim and then investigate the claims of Islam, for goodness sake?

But the thing is, these people, just like Robertson, are not interested in what is true; they are simply shysters who have their minds made up, and, since they just 'know' their religion is the 'true' religion and they know that they're going to heaven, nothing else matters.

And Craig is supposed to be one of their more accomplished advocates. Not when he came up against Eddie Tabash though, who destroyed him!!

27. Fleabytes

Comment #134102 by NMcC on February 27, 2008 at 8:48 am

epeeist

Funny you should ask, having read Day's book, I had composed a lengthy post for that thread without following the very good advice of saving the text in a Word Doc. Needless-to-say, I felt like a right prat when it promptly disappeared rather than posting.

Yeah, I take your point about Vox Day, it's a bit dangerous though to presume that every 'stranger in town' is a spy, so to speak.

28. Fleabytes

Comment #134090 by NMcC on February 27, 2008 at 8:26 am

epeeist

"Welcome PMurdock - I see you just joined today. Did you join to make that particular comment? All by yourself, or did someone ask you to do it?"

Blimey, is that not a wee tadge paranoid? I think that tendency has to be guarded against.

29. Fleabytes

Comment #134085 by NMcC on February 27, 2008 at 8:21 am

BillySands (we will never forget you!)

"Did I also mention I have a friend who was told she will go to hell if she ever married a protestant?"

So she should! Especially if he's a Free Presbyterian.

30. Fleabytes

Comment #134073 by NMcC on February 27, 2008 at 7:39 am

LorienRyan

Thanks for the link. Very funny. Poor Judas, he always gets the flak. Never quite understood why he's so reviled!!

Don't let the Wee Flea see this clip though, he'll think it's a documentary!

31. Fleabytes

Comment #134057 by NMcC on February 27, 2008 at 7:17 am

Steve Zara

Did you know that William Lane Craig has apparently said that even if he was transported back 2,000 years so that he was able to sit outside the tomb of Jesus and witness the fact that no one came out alive over the requisite period, he'd still believe that Jesus was resurrected on the grounds that he'd simply assume the devil was playing a trick on him?

See what you're up against, folks?

32. Fleabytes

Comment #134009 by NMcC on February 27, 2008 at 6:17 am

QUETZALCOAT1

No problem. Don't worry about it, I've forgotten it already.

Regards.

33. Fleabytes

Comment #133991 by NMcC on February 27, 2008 at 5:53 am

932. Comment #132610 by Quetzalcoatl on February 25, 2008 at 3:30 am

"Because of an inappropriate comment? Would you consider it reasonable for us to make a similar claim about the "religious cause" if, for instance, a Christian called for all Muslims to be killed?Of course not.

And no self-policing? The poster was criticised by others on the thread."

Yes, that's a good idea, encourage Robertson in his persecution complex.

Firstly, there was nothing 'inappropriate' about it. You would have to be either mentally retarded or simply unconscionably dishonest to take seriously the joke between me and scottishgeologist.

Well, we know about Robertson. What about you?

Secondly, 'the poster' was not 'criticised by others on the thread'. Steve Zara (alone) at first objected, then thought better off it, and, eventually, apologized to me personally for having 'no sense of humour'. Steve then commented on another thread that he had made himself look foolish, to which I replied that he hadn't done anything of the sort, that it was just a bit of banter between him and me and not to worry about it.

It's tedious enough reading Robertson's distortions and lies (of which he provides a goodly number in relation to this issue alone in his recent posts) without having to read them from the atheist side.

ROBERTSON

I'm dying to know….for what did the IRA ignore the likes of Ian Paisley to issue a death threat against your august person? What was it you were 'involved in'? Gun running for fundamentalist Christian protestant murderers in Northern Ireland? Go on, tell us, give us a laugh!

34. Fleabytes

Comment #132101 by NMcC on February 24, 2008 at 7:19 am

How about:

'Tales of a Teenage Angst-Ridden Atheist or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Jesus'

35. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131977 by NMcC on February 23, 2008 at 6:02 pm

Steve Zara

You didn't make yourself look foolish on the Fleabytes thread at all.

Don't worry about it. It was just a bit of banter and give and take. You're entitled to say what you feel. Good luck to you.

36. Fleabytes

Comment #131973 by NMcC on February 23, 2008 at 5:48 pm

scottishgeologist

***king hell, I'm impressed! Did you actually type Tiocfaidh ar la off the top of your head?

That's more than Gerry Adams can do, and his day has already come - and gone!

37. Fleabytes

Comment #131965 by NMcC on February 23, 2008 at 5:29 pm

scottishgeologist

Has that anniversary not passed? I thought it was 1987 when that freak show was played out...maybe I'm wrong.

Yes, take your pick from the horror show that was the good old 'Troubles'.

That's what happens when you combine the twin evils of patriotism and religion - it's a lethal concoction alright.

38. Fleabytes

Comment #131952 by NMcC on February 23, 2008 at 5:02 pm

Bonzai

Sorry, I should have realised.....ignore my previous post.

scottishgeologist

I remember drinking in a club on the Shankill Road(makes me shudder at the thought of it now) when a cartoon of a Hunger Striker's Football Team was being passed around. I can't remember all the details, but for some strange reason they had a Muslim playing left back and his name was Omar Bellie.

39. Fleabytes

Comment #131945 by NMcC on February 23, 2008 at 4:52 pm

Blimey, either it's the time of the morning or I've wandered into the Twilight Zone.

For goodness sake, Steve Zara and Bonzai, get a grip!! I think you've both lost the plot somewhat.

There's a WOT going on, is there? Wot's a Wot? Is this the same as the little man who looks over the wall that says 'Wot, no weapons of mass destruction?"

Don't you mean The War Against Terror? Oh, no, wait, you're right, because that would be TWAT, wouldn't it?

Mind you, seems appropriate in every sense.

40. Fleabytes

Comment #131933 by NMcC on February 23, 2008 at 4:17 pm

scottishgeologist

That's a disgrace you making fun of a man who was so genuinely serious and sincere about his right to murder us all that he actually starved himself to death for it. Is there nothing sacred? Some things are beyond humour - so I've been informed tonight anyway.

Well now, you and Billy Sands think you had it bad do you? I come from the Shankill Road - how bad do you want it!

And besides that, our family of 10 were so poor that we lived in a coal bunker and had to share a toilet with an entire street.

It wouldn't have been too bad, mind you, except my father was a mormon - so it was really bad when his other 6 wives moved in. In fact, it was a blessed relief when the IRA blew up the fish shop around the corner, as the council had to re-house us after that.

Yes, you're right Steve Zara, some things are just not funny and religion poisons everything.

41. Fleabytes

Comment #131922 by NMcC on February 23, 2008 at 3:50 pm

Steve Zara writes:

"I am not happy with being associated with a site in which posts are considered acceptable. I would be interested in the views of others."

Well, my view is that none of us are telepathic, smoke signals are too cumbersome and using snail mail kind of defeats the purpose.

So, I think we're probably stuck with posts.

42. Fleabytes

Comment #131918 by NMcC on February 23, 2008 at 3:44 pm

Steve Zara

I see you took your own advice and used the delete button on your previous post. Well done, you did the right thing.

Has someone died and made you the arbiter of what's humourous and what isn't?

I hope not! I'm not sure I could take orders from a grown man who's 'the biggest buffy fan on the planet'. Somehow I find that offensive. Though, being a democrat, I tend to say 'each to his own'.

scottishgeologist

We'd better stop this subversive talk...if only for the reason that the Wee Flea might start claiming that the atheists are out to murder him...and boy would he love that!!

BTW, is there not a hyphen missing from the title of the Wee Flea's talk that you gave above...
'God where is the evidence'? Indeed, where is the evidence!

43. Fleabytes

Comment #131909 by NMcC on February 23, 2008 at 3:21 pm

Comment removed by the moderator

44. Fleabytes

Comment #131905 by NMcC on February 23, 2008 at 3:09 pm

Comment removed by the moderator

45. Fleabytes

Comment #131894 by NMcC on February 23, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Comment removed by the moderator.

46. Fleabytes

Comment #131785 by NMcC on February 23, 2008 at 9:53 am

Dogzilla

Of course, there is any amount of that type of thing in the bible.

I never argue on the basis of contradictions or absurdities in the NT these days.

When it comes to Christianity, Judaism or Islam, I can't even get out of the starting blocks. I simply ask how a supernatural being that has perfect knowledge of past, present and, especially, future, can be so naive as to create Adam and Eve in the belief that it might turn out well whilst knowing already that it will turn out bad.

To my knowledge, no 'theologian' has ever been able to square this circle whereas 'rationalisations' for all the other nonsense are two a penny.

47. Fleabytes

Comment #131775 by NMcC on February 23, 2008 at 9:04 am

kaiserkriss

...argh!!! Why did you edit it, it read better the first time...!! :-)

48. Fleabytes

Comment #131773 by NMcC on February 23, 2008 at 8:40 am

kaiserkriss

Yes, you hit that nail on the head alright; all the christians and muslims I know as well are 'fiends' :-)

49. Fleabytes

Comment #131683 by NMcC on February 23, 2008 at 2:30 am

I'm astounded that Robertson is still being taken seriously and has been given all this publicity.

Is there really any point in pursuing Robertson's nonsense? The man has got nothing to say for goodness sake! He 'believes' that his version of that pile of crap known as the christian religion is 'true' and anyone with a few brain cells, some common sense, a bit of logic and some regard for the concept of believable evidence knows that it's really just a pile of crap.

And when you compound Robertson's empty bluster with is disreputable cynicism, it all just makes for an unpleasant waste of time.

Look at his attempt at creating some kind of 'conspiracy' between Richard's office and Paula for example. Who here even thought of such a thing until Robertson mentioned it? The man's a toad, for goodness sake!

And what of all this talk about giving Richard space in Robertson's little rag. Who, exactly, will that benefit? What's that about something looking better on your CV than on mine?

Richard, please go back to ignoring Robertson, it really is the best policy.

Don't forget the old adage: Never wrestle with a pig, the pig likes it and you only end up covered in muck.

50. The New Atheist Movement

Comment #123249 by NMcC on February 6, 2008 at 5:20 pm

I'm totally confused....who is Mr Dopey the 'theologian' on the plane speaking about...some 'first year professor of philosophy' who was 'a Graduate assistant' to a mysterious, unnamed 'atheist author'?

What on earth was the point of this nonsense? Did I hear this thing right? ...The Graduate assistant asked the theologian had he read a specific book. The theologian had to admit that he hadn't read that particular book '..but had read many other atheist books' (naturally). The Graduate assistant then approached the theologian and confessed that he hadn't read any books on 'Christian philosophy' and that he was ashamed of himself for this. And all of this put over as if it was the mysterious 'atheist author' who knew nothing about 'Christian philosophy'. What the ***k!!

Totally hilarious!! As far as their 'responses' are concerned, they're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now.