Comments by captain underpants

Comment #241250 by captain underpants on September 2, 2008 at 3:47 am

There's a TED talk by Will Wright here:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/will_wright_makes_toys_that_make_worlds.html

and a downloadable trial version of Spore here:
http://www.spore.com/trial

2. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78800 by captain underpants on October 15, 2007 at 1:08 am

Addendum
I did a spot of googling and found this rebuttal:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/

3. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78797 by captain underpants on October 15, 2007 at 12:39 am

23. Comment #78789 by marcdesm

Arguing with global warming denialists is just as frustrating as arguing with religionists. In both cases the degree of cognitive dissonance that one comes up against is simply staggering.

Firstly, someone who is unacquainted with the difference between meteorology and climatology is not qualified to make pronouncements on the subject of climate change.

Secondly, the consensus among climatologists is all but unanimous. A small handful of meteorologists say what you want to hear and you think that gives you licence to dismiss a "theory" of which you clearly understand nothing as "baseless"

Thirdly, even if there weren't a clear scientific consensus - and that is most definitely not the case -, surely the mere suspicion that anthropogenic causal factors could be at play ought to be cause for serious concern; that ought to be clear to any halfway sensible person.

Keep driving your SUV while you can, we haven't got much time left.

4. If Muslim doctors are intolerant, let them go

Comment #77798 by captain underpants on October 10, 2007 at 3:26 pm

Vinelectric,

Perhaps I should have made it clearer that I was referring to Koran literalists (incidentally by no means an insignificant minority) as opposed to "cultural muslims" who don't take their religion so seriously. I had assumed that it would be clear that "being extra-nice" referred to the absurd concessions to religious superstition mentioned in the article and in this thread.

In another post you wrote "what can be better than fuelling up public tension?". How is this to be understood? Should we refrain from criticising religious intolerance for fear of fuelling up public tension?

why not just try a Holocuast next

Isn't that a wee bit shrill? Isn't it a wee bit adolescent to scream "fascist!" at people you disagree with?

the moral level at which your policy operates.

I did not say anything about any policy. Neither did you. I would suggest, however, that ceasing to make special concessions to religious beliefs would be a god start.

5. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77750 by captain underpants on October 10, 2007 at 11:42 am

Much as I admire PZ, he really has gone over the top. Whatever one might think of Sam's statements, he didn't criticise any particular individual, and it's saddening to see PZ launch such an acrimonious attack. Couldn't he have carried out his argument with Sam by way of private correspondence? Mindful of the old herding cats cliche, I don't think it's meaningful to speak of an atheist "movement", but we can certainly think of ourselves as a more or less loose alliance, and it's very disconcerting to see two of its cleverest and most eloquent members publicly at each other's throats.

6. If Muslim doctors are intolerant, let them go

Comment #77731 by captain underpants on October 10, 2007 at 10:35 am

42. Comment by Vinelectric

in a country troubled by muslim terrorism what can be better than fuelling up public tension?

Since it's virtually impossible not to offend a muslim, what do you suggest? Should we continue to bend over backwards to accommodate a culture that despises us? Experience has shown that being extra-nice to muslims in the hope that they won't blow us up is not a useful approach.

7. If Muslim doctors are intolerant, let them go

Comment #77573 by captain underpants on October 9, 2007 at 5:52 pm

Muslim medical students who won't have anything to do with patients with alcohol problems or sexually transmitted diseases.

The article doesn't say whether such students are allowed to graduate as doctors. If they are, it's truly scandalous. Why are people in the UK so unable/unwilling to see where this spineless cultural relativism is leading us? To hell with political correctness, if those Muslims despise European culture so much, they should fuck off out of Europe.

8. The Price of Freedom

Comment #77566 by captain underpants on October 9, 2007 at 5:25 pm

I'm with Keith on this. It's counterproductive and downright silly to scream "Iraq!" whenever Hitchens is mentioned. I don't agree with his position on Iraq, I'm a little bemused by Sam's metaphysical leanings, I'm baffled as to what could have possessed Hirsi Ali to work for an ultra-right wing organisation, but surely we ought to be able, as intelligent, rational adults, to live with our differences and concentrate on the counterattack against religious fascism. And isn't the point precisely that atheism is not a homogenous, unified "belief" or "ideology"?

9. Call for major science campaign

Comment #77106 by captain underpants on October 8, 2007 at 1:26 pm

Re declining interest in science, government sponsorship of religion-based schools is not helpful in this regard.

10. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #77059 by captain underpants on October 8, 2007 at 10:26 am

228. Comment by Reverend WeeWee

It seems I misunderstood the article (http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2005/jan05.htm) and must therefore take my remark back. Nonetheless there is much in the article and much about you that is thoroughly objectionable.

And generally our religious leaders had nothing to say.
Religious leaders generally have nothing to say on any issue that matters.

Although I would also say that it is because of such events that I believe in God
That is downright bizarre.

It was only as I considered the question of suffering that I realised that secular materialism not only offered no adequate explanation but also little practical help.
Secular geology provides a very good explanation, and very many kind, compassionate secular humans donated generously.

... using Darwin's old argument ""There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the parasitic wasp with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that the cat should play with mice".
A common and cogent argument against the thesis of divine creation. The counter-argument put forward by you and other religionists is both ludicrous and repugnant.

Now we before we answer this let us consider its implications. If there is no God and no creator then what we are saying is that this is just the way things are. 'Mother Nature' is cruel and vicious.

Not cruel, simply indifferent.

There is no answer - only despair, death and destruction.
A large part of which has been wreaked in the name of a putative supernatural deity.

We are faced with two choices - either the world is as it is because that is the way things are, or things are the way things are because sin came in and corrupted a good and perfect creation.
Would you not agree that the latter implies a causal connection between homosexuality, premarital sex and natural disasters? You also write Of course there is a judgemental aspect

The Bible's worldview and answer is both far more coherent and far more practical than ...

The Bible is an incoherent collection of fairy stories that is riddled with internal contradictions.

The world has been corrupted by sin.
The same disgusting nonsense again.

In dying on the cross Christ bore our sins.
Evidence, please.

In being raised from the dead he is 'declared with power' to be the Son of God who takes away the sin of the world. Death and destruction are defeated by Christ. There will be renewal of the heavens and earth where humans can experience life without tears, pain and destruction. There will be an environment where there is 'no more sea' (aka Revelation 21). All the striving and groaning of the Creation will not be vain because the children of God will be revealed
To an outside observer, this would sound like a drug-induced fantasy.

Atheism is an absolutist doctrine

You evidently believe that a falsehood can become true if it is repeated often enough. Atheism is not a doctrine, or a belief system, or even a worldview. It is nothing more than the refusal to take something as given that is not supported by any evidence.

11. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76919 by captain underpants on October 7, 2007 at 6:38 pm

Devolved,

If you feel unable to answer even the simplest questions without help from the bible, then you are a very sad case indeed.

Someone whose knowledge of science is so limited that he doesn't even know what the Cambrian was is not qualified to comment on any scientific question, in particular such questions as the age of the earth, whether snakes can talk, and whether virgin birth is possible.

I find it objectionable when a semi-educated pig-ignorant prick pontificates on subjects of which he clearly understands nothing.

Please refrain from making further comments on this site until such time as you can cite credible evidence to substantiate your claims.

12. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76530 by captain underpants on October 6, 2007 at 5:35 am

Phasmagigas,

i listened to about 20 minutes live

The remaining 100 minutes aren't worth bothering with. They're just more of the same.

13. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76520 by captain underpants on October 6, 2007 at 3:54 am

Robert Maynard (129),

I re-read the post and it doesn't look like the sort of bad English that someone would write deliberately, so I don't think your idea is entirely implausible.

14. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76509 by captain underpants on October 6, 2007 at 3:11 am

Robert Maynard,

I didn't find anything about Poe's Law in wikipedia, would you mind explaining it?

15. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76503 by captain underpants on October 6, 2007 at 2:34 am

devolved (102), It has long been abundantly clear that rational argument is not your thang. Your preferred response to difficult questions is to run away. I will therefore repeat my request that you provide credible evidence for virgin birth, so that you will run away again and leave us alone for a while.

16. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76497 by captain underpants on October 6, 2007 at 2:15 am

Veronique,

You're welcome :-)

Re Styrer, he hasn't posted again, so it might just have been some twisted practical joke, but the thought occurred to me that it would be interesting to see Devolved or Reverend WeeWee or some other loony arguing here with a Muslim loony.

17. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76489 by captain underpants on October 6, 2007 at 1:50 am

106. Comment by Reverend WeeWee

he also believed that the handicapped should be killed at birth, that genocide was a result of overbreeding and that the only acceptable forms of modern medicine were painkillers and surgery!

You are on record as having stated that you believe natural disasters to be God's punishment for sin. This view is no less disgusting than the one that you cite.

18. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76248 by captain underpants on October 5, 2007 at 8:13 am

Just finished listening to the empeethree. What I found almost more annoying than the gunge that issued forth from John Lennox was the ghastly music at the beginning, like the soundtrack of a bad cowboy film, and the inane babblings of the two commentators at the end. And having endured over 2 hours of aural annoyance, I am now in dire need of tea.

19. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #76177 by captain underpants on October 5, 2007 at 1:33 am

steve99, I too was a teenager in the UK in the 1970s, and I too remember Mary Shitehouse. She was generally perceived to be a ridiculous figure, so much so that the makers of "The Goodies" were highly embarrassed when Ms Shitehouse declared said series to be "wholesome entertainment". They tried, at first unsuccessfully, to make an episode that would offend her, and only succeeded when an episode had Tim Brooke-Taylor dancing in underpants with a carrot motif.

Re. prosecution for blasphemy, I just did a spot of researching in wikipedia, and I assume you're referring to "The Love That Dares to Speak Its Name" by James Kirkup. I confess that I found the poem rather revolting (maybe I'm oversensitive but I find necrophilia objectionable), but it defies credulity that a judge considered the publication thereof to be deserving of a 9-month suspended sentence.

20. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #76167 by captain underpants on October 5, 2007 at 12:33 am

Sorry, Ms Bright, in case you're reading this, but calling oneself a "bright" is a horrible idea. We might be spared the Stalin argument and the you-can't-disprove-God-argument, but then we would be constantly faced with the oh-you-think-you're-so-clever-and-we-decent-God-fearing-folk-are-so-dumb-argument, and I'm not sure whether that would be preferable.

Actually I'm against the idea of using any "alternative" term. Why should we atheists try to think up a good euphemism, simply because the loonies don't like us?

21. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #76121 by captain underpants on October 4, 2007 at 7:17 pm

Eric Blair (130),

From one Orwell fan to another:

Taking such claims seriously is the point. This isn't about studying the Bible as literature; the gentleman in question clearly believes the story about the apple and the talking snake to be literally true and expects it to be taken seriously.

22. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #76028 by captain underpants on October 4, 2007 at 12:21 pm

127. Comment by Simon Packer

Man was prohibited from eating of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The tree was not called the tree of knowledge. God is not against the pursuit of knowledge. Instead of walking in fellowfship with God, man chose moral autonomy.

Why on earth should anybody take these claims seriously?

23. A New Debate

Comment #75668 by captain underpants on October 3, 2007 at 8:50 am

10. Comment by Steve Wrathall

The deep green religion it represents is a greater threat to rationalism than theism.

The phrase "breathtaking inanity" comes to mind. Having religious loonies butting in here is bad enough without having to contend with global warming denialists as well. Please refrain from commenting on climate change issues until such time as you have read and understood this:

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html

24. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75467 by captain underpants on October 2, 2007 at 6:09 pm

86. Comment by Mitchell Gilks

Yes, I know that, you know that, lots of people know that, but the fundamentalists are nonetheless convinced that (a) it is literally the case and (b) those who do not believe it to be literally the case are consigned by our loving God to burn forever in hell.

And in any case, my main reason for putting those questions to devolved was to make him go away.

25. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75454 by captain underpants on October 2, 2007 at 5:36 pm

devolved, not nice to see you again. It seems the only way to get rid of you (if only for a short while) is to repeat the questions that you consistently refuse to answer. I confidently predict that you will not answer these questions, but will scamper away like a spineless little coward. And remember, regurgitating Bible quotes does not constitute an answer.

1) What reliable evidence exists in support of virgin birth?

2) Why should belief in the Abrahamic God be treated with more respect than belief in hobgoblins?

26. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74566 by captain underpants on September 29, 2007 at 2:50 pm

Reverend WeeWee:

However I would suggest to you that this website is not the best advert for atheism

[...]

Anyway I am really tired of all this.

[etc]

Since you dislike this website so much, what the fuck are you doing here?

I'll check back in a week or so

Please don't

27. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74553 by captain underpants on September 29, 2007 at 1:19 pm

great teapot 138,
Forgive me if I've misunderstood you. My objection to "wanktard" is not that it's immature but that it's abusive.

After I started posting here it occurred to me that my chosen pseudonym might seem a little frivolous, but it would be silly to change it now, so I'm afraid you'll have to live it. At least I didn't decide to call myself "wanktard" ;-)

28. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74547 by captain underpants on September 29, 2007 at 12:47 pm

136. Comment by wednesdayguevara

The people who hate us have nuclear bombs and rocket-propelled grenades and they are completely out of their minds.

Thanks for reminding us of what's at stake in this issue.

The more people who get involved in the counterattack against religious fascism, the better, and there is definitely a need to address people to whom Dawkins et al might seem a bit too intellectual and highbrow. As you said, every voice should be welcome. The RRS are doing a good job, and it's a job that needs to be done, and I don't give a toss about how they dress. My only quibble is this: I understand that they're angry, but throwing words like "asshole" and "fucktard" around is not helpful.

29. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74528 by captain underpants on September 29, 2007 at 10:41 am

916. Comment by Philip1978

I thought I would answer your question as to what my atheism means to me

Isn't the question actually rather meaningless? If someone asked you what your disbelief in leprechauns means to you, would you think such a question merited a reasoned reply?

I think my big problem is that I have grown up without an ounce of religion in me

Philip, that's a blessing, not a problem. I grew up entirely free of religion. I had to do RE at school but nobody, including the teachers, seemed to take it seriously, and I realise in retrospect how fortunate I am in that respect. It's only a problem for me inasmuch as I have difficulty comprehending the religious mindset.

30. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74392 by captain underpants on September 28, 2007 at 12:44 pm

Reverend WeeWee is clearly at great pains to appear to be reasonable.

WeeWee: Please excuse my ignorance regarding fairyological questions, my parents neglected to teach me fairyology.

Am I correct in understanding that Jesus is supposed to have been gentle, meek and mild? Would you say that these adjectives accurately describe your behaviour here?

Am I correct in understanding that the fundamental tenets of Christianity are love, compassion, charity, and kindness? Would you say that your behaviour here adequately does justice to these principles?

I don't expect you to answer these question, but you will be seen not to answer them.

31. Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin

Comment #74385 by captain underpants on September 28, 2007 at 11:36 am

The film claims that Christians are being censored, discriminated against etc. Hence the title: "Expelled". This is very reminiscent of similar claims made by neonazis.

One of interviewees is Wolf-Ekkehard Loennig, a geneticist at the Max Planck Institute in Cologne, who is also a proponent of ID. Said gentleman posted ID related writings of his on the Institute's website. These articles were subsequently removed from the server, and rightly so. ID does not belong on the website of a scientific institute. This is the "discrimination" and "censorship" that the religionists are wailing about. Typical fundamentalists. Liars and spineless wankers.

32. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74110 by captain underpants on September 27, 2007 at 8:55 am

revcort,

Don't you see the contradiction? You grovel in your supposed unworthiness, and at same the time you believe that the creator of the universe takes a strong personal interest in you, out of all the 6 billion-odd members of one species out of millions that live on planet revolving around a star which is only one out of hundreds of billions in our galaxy. And I haven't said anything about how insignificant our galaxy is on the scale of the universe.

Why should God, if such an entity exists, have the slightest interest in revealing anything to you (or anyone else)?

The credit for any insights or realisations you might have had is yours and yours alone.

33. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73926 by captain underpants on September 26, 2007 at 3:12 pm

Steveroot,

And dangerous batshit at that. Perhaps our batshit Bible basher would care to comment? revcort, does Christianity in your opinion provide a good basis for morals? Does the unceasing fight against evil godless atheist contraception justify such disgusting lies?

34. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73914 by captain underpants on September 26, 2007 at 2:47 pm

A little off-topic, I know, but I just read this:

Shock at archbishop condom claim

The head of the Catholic Church in Mozambique has told the BBC he believes some European-made condoms are infected with HIV deliberately.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7014335.stm

How would I go about posting that article here?

35. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73605 by captain underpants on September 25, 2007 at 12:54 pm

Billy (647),

He's obviously not going to say, in a sudden flash of insight, "I now realise that I've been deluding myself all these years". But there have been moments where he seemed to show the beginnings of a small smidgeon of uncertainty. And maybe he's realised now that unbelievers are not subhuman monsters who are out to eat his children. FWIW, I didn't stop being a diehard Trotskyist from one day to the next.

36. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73595 by captain underpants on September 25, 2007 at 11:54 am

Billy (642),

Yes, we all know that, but I wanted to elicit a response from revcort himself

37. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73587 by captain underpants on September 25, 2007 at 11:18 am

revcort (630),

You seem to be saying that the claims of the Bible are implausible but you are obliged as a Christian to believe them. You consciously will yourself to believe something that you know is rubbish. How do you manage to do that?

Take heed of Dr Benway's wise words:

But in reality, life without the magical power of "I believe" isn't so bad

38. 1996 Richard Dimbleby Lecture

Comment #73570 by captain underpants on September 25, 2007 at 10:14 am

Perhaps the best thing would not be programmes for atheists but the removal of religious programmes or the inclusion of programmes that take Zeuss, Wotan, scientologist Thetans, unicorns, hobgoblins and Loch Ness monsters equally seriously and treat them with an equal degree of respect.

And since I'm in a ranting mood: Am I the only one who is annoyed by the usage of the word "faith", as if one were referring to something special and worthy? "People of religion" or "religion-based initiative" doesn't have quite the same ring.

39. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #73241 by captain underpants on September 24, 2007 at 2:38 pm

103. Comment #73217 by Roger Stanyard

Devolved is actually Marc Surtees, a PhD in the biolgical sciences who lives in Edinburgh. He's opted out of science altogether.

Just out of curiosity, how did you find that out?

40. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #73207 by captain underpants on September 24, 2007 at 12:56 pm

101. Comment #73194 by devolved

So where's the evidence from real science for increased complexity. I'm still waiting.

So where's the evidence from real science for virgin birth? I'm still waiting.

41. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #73053 by captain underpants on September 24, 2007 at 1:47 am

77. Comment by devolved

May I ask if you are willing to consider the possibility that he does exist?

Show us some convincing evidence and we'll change our minds immediately

42. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #72886 by captain underpants on September 23, 2007 at 10:36 am

devolved,

The article is perfectly adequate. I wonder why you are reluctant to read it?

Why are you reluctant to demonstrate that you have understood it? I have seldom encountered somebody who has so little reason to behave in such an arrogant manner. Are you not capable of formulating your own thoughts in writing? And please answer my question re: supernatural procreation.

43. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #72873 by captain underpants on September 23, 2007 at 9:45 am

It seems I spoke too soon. Devolved, when are you going to understand that posting a link to a web page does not constitute a rebuttal of somebody's argument? We want to hear your arguments in your own words. Why is that so difficult for you? Stop wasting space and answer the questions that are put to you. You can start by explaining to us, in your own words, why we should believe that a man was fathered by a supernatural being without the aid of sexual intercourse and that this man possessed magical abilities. Can you do that? Note that quoting the Bible does not constitute an argument, that much at least ought to be clear to you.

44. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #72862 by captain underpants on September 23, 2007 at 9:13 am

To return to the article that we're actually supposed to be discussing here: I left the UK 20 years ago - I live in Germany - and there have evidently been some disquieting changes in that time. Back then, saying you didn't believe in God was no more contentious than saying you didn't like spinach. Creationists were very few and far between and were generally regarded as annoying eccentrics. The conflicts in Ulster seemed to be more tribal than sectarian, inasmuch as they didn't have much to do with the actual details of the respective doctrines.

In the last few years I've read all manner of bizarre stories, both here and elsewhere. 2 examples:

A stewardess at British Airways demanded that she be allowed to wear a crucifix although there was a general ban on wearing jewellery. She claimed that she was a victim of religious discrimination.

A teaching assistant was sacked for not allowing a pupil to read Harry Potter. She sued her employer on the grounds of religious discrimination.

Typical religionist in both cases: they distort facts and claim to have been victimised.

What I'd like to know is how long has this been going on and how did it come about? Is this a result of Blair's messianic delusions or is there more to it?

45. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #72843 by captain underpants on September 23, 2007 at 8:17 am

Billy,

"To believe this, you really have to shut off reason"

The ability, indeed eagerness, of so many people to shut off reason is worrying, esp. when you consider how many people enthusiastically lap up all the alternative new-age holistic hogwash (although I don't want to go down that road at the moment).

"This is a seriously fucked up way of thinking and I would suggest it is a form om mental illness."

It's interesting to note in this context that the babblings of schizophrenics are often of a religious or quasi-religious nature.

"I think Devolved has buggered off again"

Yep, the "give evidence or fuck off" approach seems to have worked. Devolved has evidently opted for the latter.

46. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #72764 by captain underpants on September 22, 2007 at 8:08 pm

Corylus,

There are some moderate intelligent believers on here that I will happily chat to. I don't think that they are daft or reason in a manner much different from my own. They are perfectly rational in many areas. However, I don't think they are rational in one specific area. They cling to religion for all manner of reasons. E.g. comfort, habit, a love of ritual etc..

Actually I can understand that to a degree. It's only relatively recently that I've been able to accept the idea there is nothing special about homo sapiens, that humans are "just" another animal. It took me a long time to realise that my objection was wishful thinking, i.e. without a rational basis, although I generally consider myself to be a fairly sensible sort of lad. And fear of death is an understandable human frailty. I don't like the idea of there being nothing after death, and sometimes it scares me, but I have to accept that there is no reason to believe that anything else is the case.

I don't really have much of an issue with ordinary everyday believers, who don't make it their life's mission to convert others. What baffles (and angers) me is the bible literalists, the Devolveds of this world. They baffle me because their way of thinking is completely alien to me. Look at Revcort on the leprachology thread (599 posts the last time I looked). People point out that what he says is illogical and not supported by evidence and he responds by throwing bible quotes at them, obviously in the firm belief that this constitutes a proper and persuasive argument. I am utterly at a loss as to what makes such people tick.

And they anger me because they lie and distort. And run away when faced with difficult questions. Spineless wankers. But what angers me more is their contempt for science and reason. Think of all the cack-brained young-earth twaddle and what it implies: Not only evolutionists but also geologists, chemists and particle physicists are consigned to burn forever in hell. Actually if the Devolveds of this world had their way they wouldn't be patient enough to wait for their loving God to send scientists to hell, they'd simply burn them.

Devolved however, is in a class of his own.

No, I don't think he's in a class of his own. Nor do I think he's a conspiracy theorist. He's just a common or garden power maniac who hankers for the good old Middle Ages.

47. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #72729 by captain underpants on September 22, 2007 at 2:08 pm

Northern Bright,

I've never been anything other than an atheist and neither has anyone else in my family as far as I'm aware, and I find it very hard to comprehend the religionist mindset. You're saying that these people think they're collecting points for the Day of Judgement - do they really think like that? That would mean that they don't think they have enough points yet and by implication that they're not entirely confident that they won't go to hell.

For fuck's sake (whoops I swore again), this is the 21st century. We can decode genomes, we can put robots on Mars, we can take photos of the surface of Titan, and at the same time there are people who are absolutely intent on partying like it's 1399.

I'm pretty certain that the best course of action is to ignore them completely.

I'm familiar with this line of argument, but I'm not sure. I'm not saying this to challenge you, I'm genuinely uncertain as to what the best approach is. To my mind the problem with saying "They'll go away eventually if you ignore them" is twofold: (1) they don't go away, and (2) it makes it sound as if we were dealing with a harmless pimple, and that is manifestly not the case. I've said in another thread that the Enlightenment is under threat, and the article that we're actually supposed to be discussing in this thread is a scary example.

Corylus,

Wow Capt - looks like you have two answers for the price of one!
My cup floweth over ;-)

The answer, of course, is to presume that the vast majority are wrong and they themselves have access to a 'truth' that others don't.

This is precisely what I don't get - and I'm replying to both you and Billy here. How can these people believe that they are privy to some kind of "Truth" for which not a shred of evidence exists? I cannot for the life of me understand what goes on in their heads. To me, the need to support an assertion with evidence if one wants it to be taken seriously seems so obvious that it shouldn't need to be explicitly stated. I've always tended to assume that my thought processes don't differ radically from those of anybody else, but I find the Bible basher mentality utterly incomprehensible.

48. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #72702 by captain underpants on September 22, 2007 at 11:11 am

39. Comment #72687 by epeeist

Well, Billy and I are trying to ensure that he is forced to either answer questions that have been put to him before or run for it

He'll run for it and then come back again, and again and again .....

One can't help wondering what Devolved and his Merry Men hope to achieve by posting here. Surely they don't seriously entertain the notion they can convince anyone here with their non-arguments. Maybe they think they're training their debating skills. Maybe they think cut and run is a legitimate debating tactic. Maybe they think their "cause" - bringing back witch-hunts and the Holy Inquisition - is so noble that any means are justified. I recall the Templeton toad who gave a talk at last year's Beyond Belief conference. He insulted virtually everybody present and then had to leave to catch a flight and was thus conveniently unavailable to answer questions (I hope they don't invite any religionists to this year's conference). Yea verily, religion does indeed provide a sound basis for good moral behaviour.

49. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #72680 by captain underpants on September 22, 2007 at 8:51 am

Oh dear. The Return Of The Son Of Devolved Strikes Again Part 27. And we know the plot in advance.

The same cerebral flatulence. The same wilfully mendacious distortions of other people's arguments. The same cut-and-run tactic, not answering questions and then running away only to resurface later in some other thread and repeat the same nauseating process.

There is not the slightest point in trying to engage him in dialogue. I merely wish to repeat my request that he fuck off and take his disgusting ideology with him. He will of course fuck off after a sufficient number of people have asked him to substantiate his claims, as he always does, but I would prefer him to fuck off on a permanent basis, i.e. not come back.

50. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72673 by captain underpants on September 22, 2007 at 7:54 am

Aitchkay's post prompted me to do a spot of anagram-searching. So for the edification and delight of those among us who might like that kind of thing, here's a sample of what I found.

Religious Fundamentalism:

Loud arguments in families
Damnation, furies, glum lies
Insulting our female is mad

Islamic Fundamentalist: I'm a fat, mindless lunatic

Islamic Fundamentalists

Male lunatics and misfits.
Small mind? Fanatics use it!
Lame misfits and lunatics

Islamic fundamentalism:

Inflated Muslim maniacs.
Imams inflamed lunatics.

Religious fanatic: Anti-social figure.
Religious Doctrine: Do it in cruel orgies.

A Religious Fundamentalist: I'm a futile anus: God isn't real.
Christian Fundamentalism: Hardline fascism in mutant.
A Christian Fundamentalist: Iain Duncan-Smith, stale fart.