1. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117622 by Tyaddow on January 29, 2008 at 8:51 am

Jebus, I hate a softball interview as much as the next guy or gal, but did anyone here expect any serious journalistic integrity from WND? C'mon.

Although I have little doubt that Day's flea book will be lacking in persuasive content, I think it's a little premature and arrogant to start the name calling and ridicule. Shouldn't we take the high road and wait for the book to come out so as to exact the criticism upon a most deserving target? We should not be so arrogant to assume that even a pedant like Day could broaden our perspective in some way or another.

2. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109140 by Tyaddow on January 8, 2008 at 12:28 pm

It was a great year for god! Imagine what terrible characters gods would be if they did exist! Great for them that they don't, and that this past year has been one of the greatest in recent times to popularize the reasons by which their existence may be justifiably rejected.

3. Bad Faith Awards: Vote for the winner now

Comment #94721 by Tyaddow on December 6, 2007 at 10:36 am

Louise, Tomcat, ... would you care to elaborate on which comments Dawkins makes which sound "positively deranged"? The good Professor is just as susceptible to scrutiny as anyone else, but I would be curious as to how ranting against false belief and the actions that follow would relegate Dawkins to the trash heap of credulous theologians.

4. Bad Faith Awards: Vote for the winner now

Comment #94649 by Tyaddow on December 6, 2007 at 6:45 am

I think D'Souza is the only answer that makes sense: he's the only one that doesn't fit on the list (I'm going to pretend they didn't even include Prof. Dawkins' name with the rest of those nare-do-wells). D'Souza can be eloquent and intellectual-sounding and he pollutes every public forum with a neck-deep pile of rubbish, in a sort of landfill-scholarly way. Of those on the list he does the most in the way of making Christians think their beliefs are rooted in evidence and reason. He is the most intellectually dangerous of the lot. None of the rest of them mask the inanity quite the way Dinesh does.

5. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93321 by Tyaddow on December 2, 2007 at 5:20 pm

Thanks Pat for helping make this happen. I would like to say I enjoyed the "debate", but count me with those who are rather sick of D'Souza.

I also agree that giving him the stage with people who are actually rational and possess admirable human qualities (like Dennett) only promotes the false idea that he is any of those things.

Those of us who are familiar with Dinesh and his tired rhetoric and belligerence will have no problem seeing through any of it. But I do think it does more harm than good to those who may need to hear some concise discussion of a subject in which they may be searching for real answers. Of course Dennett made more sense to most of us, but how did that come across to people who have less experience with that kind of discussion?

I think we need to give less air to Dinesh's nonsense unless the rules of engagement are more clearly defined. He is routinely given the freedom to spew an immeasurable ocean of vacuous nonsense which even the most brilliant individual could never dream of responding to in just five minutes.

No more Dinesh, please.