Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by Dr Benway


651. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #137992 by Dr Benway on March 3, 2008 at 6:03 pm

Yeah, wot Saerain said! You could visit yer pal Dennett, too.

Plus you'd find out what Dr Benway is really like.

652. Fleas on the Horizon: In Defense of God

Comment #137985 by Dr Benway on March 3, 2008 at 5:45 pm

Q: How is a publisher like a divorce lawyer?

Hachette published Hitchens's God Is Not Great through its Twelve imprint, which led FaithWords, another Hachette house, to want to respond.
Conflict pays, baby.

653. Fleabytes

Comment #137973 by Dr Benway on March 3, 2008 at 5:03 pm

Well spotted Quine. No doubt Erik the fish was swimming in the meme stew behind that last post.

654. Fleabytes

Comment #137906 by Dr Benway on March 3, 2008 at 3:09 pm

Theist: Dawkins is in there, isn't he.
Reason: Yep.
Theist: Ask him to come out to debate me.
Reason: I'm sure he'd prefer for you to meet him inside.
Theist: Great! (steps toward door)
Reason: Hang on, where's your ticket?
Theist: I've got it.
Reason: Let me see it.
Theist: That's what the debate is for. I'll prove I have a ticket.
Reason: I'm not letting you in without a ticket.
Theist: Oh alright. Give me a second.... (pulls out a slip of paper) There you go.
Reason: This isn't a ticket.
Theist: Of course it is.
Reason: It says, "teeket."
Theist: Your point?
Reason: That's not a proper spelling.
Theist: (chuckles) Goodness, my young lad. Have you never been in love?
Reason: Eh?
Theist: Have you never felt an ocean breeze against your skin?
Reason: (lifts an eyebrow)
Theist: This thing you call "spelling" cannot contain the laughter of a child.
Reason: Oh, will you quit this wanking.
Theist: Look I gave you my ticket; let me in!
Reason: You made this using a crayon.
Theist: Philistine!

655. Fleabytes

Comment #137767 by Dr Benway on March 3, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Reason stands at the door to the movie saying, "ticket please."

The theist has tried to sneak past reason many times before. Reason knows the chap has no ticket. And the theist knows that reason knows. Still, the game continues.

Theist: Oh, give me a minute and I'll show you my ticket.
Reason: OK, I'll wait...
Theist: Say, how 'bout the Redsox this year? inches toward door
Reason: Hang on, I didn't see your ticket.
Theist: I showed it to you. In fact, I showed you several times.
Reason: Show me again then.
Theist: You just don't want to see it.
Reason: I'd love to see your ticket.
Theist: Ha! You called me a 'wanker' last time. You don't 'love' anything, hater!
Reason: Ticket please.
Theist: You are so repetitive and boring. My life is filled with joy. Don't you want joy?
Reason: No getting in without a ticket.
Theist: That's not true! Loads of people in there now didn't show you their ticket.
Reason: I haven't seen your ticket.
Theist: And I haven't seen your ticket. Show me yours first.
Reason: That's not how things work.
Theist: Things have to be your way, do they? Know what you are? You're a bigot! You're a fundamentalist!
Reason: Look, you wouldn't want Lord Xenu getting in without his ticket. The rules are the same for everyone.
Theist: There's more to life than your precious "rules." Take, for example, this apple I just finished. And look at this puppy. How can you resist such a cute puppy?
Reason: Nice puppy. Ticket, please.
Theist: Oh, so you like the puppy! That means that deep down, you know I'm right.

656. Fleabytes

Comment #137735 by Dr Benway on March 3, 2008 at 12:16 pm

After the debate over whether or not there is evidence for an interventionist, creator-God, we can have a debate over the most recent patent applications for perpetual motion machines.

Then we can debate homeopathy.

Then the fairies in the garden.

It's one thing to "debate" in order to raise consciousness and pimp a book. But at some point everyone needs to come clean. The theists have no evidence. Zilch, nada, none.

The pretense to evidence is a joke. Look at Artful_Dodger, who might get back to us next Tuesday... "but is this the right thread for it?"

How many dozens of these jokers do we politely tolerate before we simply say enough is enough?

Were it not for large groups of people reinforcing these notions about crucifiction, atonement, virgin birth, A-bombs in volcanoes, Easter bunnies, and honor killings, no one could possibly swallow any of it.

Seriously theists, you will laugh when you finally wake up and put the bullshit behind you.

657. Fleabytes

Comment #137653 by Dr Benway on March 3, 2008 at 9:55 am

Artful_Dodger:

Thought as much. Par for the course! It's just going to be a face-to-face extension of the richarddawkins.net hate-fest.
Here's the secret to winning friends and influencing people at RD.net: answer the question someone has asked.

You were asked this: How do you tell which parts of the Bible are to be taken metaphorically and which literally?

Pretending you've answered is cheating. We've a duty to poop on cheaters, though it pains us to do so.

658. Fleabytes

Comment #137561 by Dr Benway on March 3, 2008 at 6:46 am

Paula:

The Free Church is a particularly judgemental, condemnatory church, which seems to delight in pointing out people's shortcomings and finding fault at every opportunity.
It's a wonder anyone would attend such a shitty party. Where's the appeal in hanging with the pinched-face and the humorless?

It's likely warmer inside the group than outside. Humans can't stop themselves from dividing the world into "us" and "them."

A-shift can't believe the lazy slackers on C-shift. B-shift hates the rigid cunts on A-shift. The food servers think the prep crew too much a clique; the waiters feel the cooks are idiots.

And so it goes.

659. Fleabytes

Comment #137551 by Dr Benway on March 3, 2008 at 6:26 am

NMcC #137507, WTF?

For layer upon layer of time wasted on teh Intertubes, go to

http://icanhascheeseburger.com
http://www.lolcatbible.com

Pope

660. Fleabytes

Comment #137548 by Dr Benway on March 3, 2008 at 6:11 am

Paula:

I realise I'm running the risk of becoming boringly over-forensic about all this, but deviousness, distortion and manipulation are particular bugbears of mine, and are guaranteed to anger and disgust me almost more than anything else.
Posts or emails, letter or letters, what's the diff?

In fact, as I said before, it's been small lies in the context of a series of confrontations over inaccuracies that have confirmed for me the diagnosis.

Normal people don't like to lie. Lying causes some anxiety, so most people only lie if somehow cornered.

Normal lying has obvious motives others can appreciate - e.g., blaming the traffic for being late for work. Saying, "I just didn't feel like getting out of bed" is the sort of thing that can get a person fired.

Narcissists seem to enjoy their elastic relationship with reality. They particulary enjoy getting you to believe something that's not entirely true. Makes them feel powerful. So they embellish, even when there's no clear need. They say they just had breakfast with a friend, when really they ate alone.

Many ignore such trivial lies that often can't be corroborated and don't seem particularly self-serving. But those who've had relationships with narcissists in the past will recognize the familiar pattern. It's the little things, always, that reveal NPD.

Here's an idea for a book: an evolutionary explanation for character disorders.

661. Fleabytes

Comment #137403 by Dr Benway on March 2, 2008 at 7:59 pm

So MaxD, you're of the "he who smelt it dealt it" school.

I appreciate this Robinson chap. He's useful for one of my favorite arguments:

Christian: "God is good, blah blah."
Me: That may be. But note how we don't hear from God. Instead, we get these self-appointed religous leaders speaking on His behalf - people like Falwell, and Haggard, and (insert local egotistical pastor like Robertson).

662. Fleabytes

Comment #137381 by Dr Benway on March 2, 2008 at 6:54 pm

Paula:

OK, own up, any of you atheists out there who did this [i.e., went 'nerny nerny nerr-nee, chicken!' to our flea pal].
Not my idea of a good time.

663. Fleabytes

Comment #137287 by Dr Benway on March 2, 2008 at 3:46 pm

scottishgeologist:

But he goes ahead anyway and prepares to write a rubber cheque, knowing he doesnt have the dosh...
Isn't this the episode where Lucy "borrows" money from Ricky's wallet because she thinks she left her purse at Ethel's. But Ethel spent Lucy's money, because she took Lucy's purse to the store by mistake, thinking it was her own. Then Ethel realizes she can't get into her own apartment, because she's only got Lucy's key. So Lucy and Ethel try to break into Ethel's apartment through a window. A beat cop sees them from the street and arrests them for breaking and entering. He's about to haul them off to the station when Lucy suddenly starts crying. She explains that she's supposed to be at the club for an audition. Turns out the officer is a big salsa fan. So he gives the gals a lift to the club. But when Ricky sees them he's furious and he yells, "Lucy... You got some splainin' to do!"

664. Fleabytes

Comment #137224 by Dr Benway on March 2, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Flea, per Billy:

Dawkins was forced to unban me - so now his followers seek to drown out any argument in a morass of abuse, crudity and meaningless waffle (with the occasional worthwhile post).
Flea returned under the name "clearthinker." He describes this as Dawkins being "forced to unban" him. I think he's counting on his flock not being very savvy 'bout the Intertubes.

When a message board account is banned the user can and often does return under another account. As the dust settles, if the new incarnation isn't as offensive as before, it likely won't be banned.

665. Fleabytes

Comment #137194 by Dr Benway on March 2, 2008 at 1:53 pm

SRWB:

Is it just me or did everybody else take the 'throwaway survival machines' too seriously?
SRWB, I've been around the block with several flea-like creatures. Curiously, it always seems to be something small that removes any doubt I might have about their character.

The offense is not so much one seemingly insignificant lie or put down; it's the whole long process, which goes something like this:

Weasly rat: Poop.
You: Hey, you just pooped!
Weasly rat: Dodgy explanation.
You: Sigh. Ok, benefit of the doubt.

Repeat the above 20-30 times. Finally:

You: Today if you make even the most microscopically small poop, that will mean X. And this time X has no dodgy explanation you can use. Sorry, not gonna buy the same-old same-old.
Weasly rat: Poop.
You: Busted, motherfucker!
Weasly rat: Dodgy explanation.
You: Ho ho ho! Just as I predicted! You are so busted, loser! Hahaha!

Naive observer: Uh, I don't know why you're freaking out, dude. I needed a magnifying glass to see that poop.
You: Fuck!

666. Fleabytes

Comment #136794 by Dr Benway on March 1, 2008 at 5:16 pm

I stubbed my toe something awful last week. I prayed for it to get better. And today, know what? It is better! Praise!

667. Fleabytes

Comment #136792 by Dr Benway on March 1, 2008 at 5:10 pm

It is not reasonable to believe in an interventionist God. For any alleged intervention, a reasonable person must demand corroborative evidence of said intervention before accepting it as a fact.

We have an obligation not to be gullible. Gullibility kills.

668. Fleabytes

Comment #136771 by Dr Benway on March 1, 2008 at 4:51 pm

Another argument that leaps from A to C without much B:

the underpants gnomes

669. Fleabytes

Comment #136754 by Dr Benway on March 1, 2008 at 4:30 pm

MPhil, it's a long walk from things like the notion of "omnipotence" to the virgin birth, atonement, transubstantiation, and the 72 virgins.

The theists prefer to fight over metaphysical matters. They enjoy fights over ill defined deism verses metaphysical naturalism. They pretend that the most marginal victory in this realm gets them all the rest, including the crackers.

USA_Limey's approach is best: make 'em put their nonsense on the table in full right up front. Then tear their obvious lies to shreds. Lord Xenu, volcanoes, and A-Bombs indeed!

670. Fleabytes

Comment #136745 by Dr Benway on March 1, 2008 at 4:19 pm

hello:

No, Paula, you have been there. you know what we are talking about. You have made the decision to walk away. You have decided that it did not satisfy your desires, nor fulfill your longings.
My aren't we familiar, for someone posting on this site x 2 days.

Your above misdirection may work on the brain damaged. But in my court room, you'd respond to the simple question regarding your religious beliefs or stand charged of contempt.

671. Fleabytes

Comment #136645 by Dr Benway on March 1, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Comment #136549 by Corylus

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9
I went to the LOLcat Bible for this verse, as I find holy writ easier to comprehend in LOLspeak. Sadly your verse above hadn't been translated. I made a go of it myself:
8. U can haz cookie not cuz u earnded it, but cuz iz preznt frm Ceiling Cat.
9. Kittehs braggin "See teh cookie? Maded it mah selfz!" got to STFU, srsly.
10. Ceiling Cat maded kittehs cuz He want kittehs keepin Him compny an watch Him make cookies nstuf.
11. Membr once U wuz stuck outside Ceiling Cats place.
12. U no haz cheezburger, no haz cookie, no LOLs, an u wuz liek WTF?? Cud mai life sux smores?!!1!
13. But Jebus opended door an sais, "O hai kitty! Wanna come inside?"
14. Jebus maded teh kitteh door sos kittehs cud be inside wid Him when dey wants.
15. At first Ceiling cat wus liek, "WTF, Jebus?!!! Where all deez kittehs com from!!!" But Jebus sai, "Kittehs iz wid me, k?" Den Ceiling Cat wuz liek, "k."
16. Used to be kittehs wuz fraid Ceiling Cat. He wuz always liek, "Hey U, GTF off Mai lawn!!!" an throwded stuf.
17. Den Jebus went out to find kittehs. They wuz hidin in teh bushes, an sum wuz kinda far. Jebus wuz liek, "Here kitteh, kitteh..."
18. An he tooked teh kittehs into Ceiling Cats hous.
19. First kittehs wuz liek, "Oh noes! Halp! Halp!" But Jebus petted teh kittehs an shareded sum his cheezburgers. Then kittehs wuz fraid Ceiling Cats place no mo.
20. Sos new kittehs met old kittehs, an all kittehs wuz gettin nice rubs frum Jebus while Ceiling Cat maded teh cookies. Wuz no fites, just purrs.
21. Srsly, Jebus and kittehs an Ceiling Cat maded happy famly.
22. Den Ceiling Cat marked evrbudy wid His scent. LOLs!

672. Fleabytes

Comment #136551 by Dr Benway on March 1, 2008 at 11:49 am

NMcC:

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.
Of course you were joking. I don't doubt this for a minute.

But recognize the world we live in now. Talk of killing a person even in jest can provoke an investigation.

I know of a woman removed from her position at the post office for saying, "Oh, you make me want to throttle you" to a co-worker. The US Post Office has a "zero tolerance" policy concerning violent threats. "I was kidding" is not an acceptable defense.

Bureaucracies are like people with IQs around 50-65. They are slow to make decisions. They often miss the forest for the trees. Best to avoid provoking their attention.

Some venomous people go out of their way to take offense and make a stink. Flea strikes me as just the type.

673. Fleabytes

Comment #136395 by Dr Benway on March 1, 2008 at 4:51 am

NMcC,

It's unwise to say you might go to a talk and bump off some speaker, even in jest. In many parts of the world including the state where I live such a statement could be considered criminal threatening, which is a misdemeanor.

Other helpful tips for the witty:

1. Never joke about carrying a bomb in your luggage while at a US airport.

2. Never joke about harming George W. Bush. The Secret Service do investigate evidence of threats against the president.

In sum: stick to insults and avoid threats.

674. Fleabytes

Comment #136258 by Dr Benway on February 29, 2008 at 3:22 pm

Comment #136212 by whatthe..?!

"atheism means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God"
-Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Some people define atheism as the belief that there is no god. I prefer to say that God or gods have not been proven to exist. In this way I make it clear that I'm not asserting a positive belief. I concede that I cannot defend such a position.

I await your description of this God you assert exists and your proof of same. If you continue to pretend that you have evidence for this God but you do not provide it, you will be thought a nutter or a con. We will be forced to poop on your head, much as it pains us to do so. Thems the rules.

675. Fleabytes

Comment #136157 by Dr Benway on February 29, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Comment #136072 by whatthe..?!

Atheism is the POSITIVE assertion that there is no god therefore the atheist must provide evidence for that belief.
The atheist says that God is not proven.

If non-belief in God requires justification, you are going to be busy. For there are thousands of gods you do not accept.

As our time is not infinite, we ought to begin now. Let's hear your reason for not believing in:

Zeus
Odin
Gaia
Mars
Jah
the angel Moroni
Baal
Allah

676. Fleabytes

Comment #136056 by Dr Benway on February 29, 2008 at 12:48 pm

hello:

I don't believe in Religions either, any religions.
At the living, spirit-filled, Bible-based church you attend, I imagine a few pamphlets get passed 'round illustrating how to argue with atheists. Thanks to the pamphlets, you can almost remember a few clever one-liners like, "I don't believe in a religion; I believe in a Person."

"Ask the atheists questions" might be another strategy you're trying to follow.

Problem is, the onus remains upon the believer, not the non-believer, to justify the belief. And saying you believe in a person doesn't remove your burden of proof for this person's existence.

Remember, any right you claim for yourself you must extend to others. If you're allowed to assert what God wants on the basis of personal experience, so is Osama Bin Laden.

Allahu Akbar!

677. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136005 by Dr Benway on February 29, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Millions have owned guns without causing problems. Knowing how to handle a gun may be a fading general skill, along with how to fell a tree, ride a horse, milk a cow, make butter or bread from scratch, rebuild a carburator, can fruit, set a broken limb, or plant a vegetable garden. My parents and grandparents were far more competent at self-reliance than I'll ever be.

I once took a gun safety course from the Fish and Game Dept which I very much enjoyed although I don't own a gun and have no plan to buy one. Gun ownership comes with a few responsibilities, such as regular practice at a shooting range, cleaning the thing, storing it, planning how to have it available in an emergency that may never arise, etc. My life is full enough.

678. Fleabytes

Comment #135939 by Dr Benway on February 29, 2008 at 11:12 am

Prankster:

We KNOW he doesn't exist we so...
I cannot say that I know god(s) do not exist. I say that the proposition "god(s) exist" has not yet been proven.

679. Fleabytes

Comment #135908 by Dr Benway on February 29, 2008 at 10:45 am

hello:

Not necessarily. God does not exclude people.
Ah, so you're a universalist. Well, universalists are the atheist's next door neighbor. If we're all saved, we don't need the Bible, the Quran, or any other holy writ. Thus we have no reason to argue.

680. Fleabytes

Comment #135897 by Dr Benway on February 29, 2008 at 10:31 am

hello:

indeed....anymore than you can reliable know anything about me, unless you want to know about me and I choose to inform you. But of course, I'm not going to do that if you have already decided that I don't exist and am not worth bothering with.
Muslims must explain why not everyone is a Muslim. Christians must explain why everyone isn't a Christian. Mormons must explain... and so on. Typical explanations involve some version of the "willful ignorance" accusation - i.e., non-believers don't want to believe and so they pretend not to see the truth.

But think about it: What would be more fascinating than genuine evidence for a creator God?

Believers forget that our choice isn't between "religion" and "no religion." Rather, we are faced with thousands of competing religions all claiming to be the One True Way.

Artful_Dodger, clearthinker, mylearnedfriend, and hello are non-believers just like us. They don't believe in any of the world's religions, save one. Their explanations for unbelief must also apply to themselves.

681. Fleabytes

Comment #135858 by Dr Benway on February 29, 2008 at 9:52 am

hello:

Even we can defy gravity.
If by "defy" you mean, "can accelerate faster than 9.8 meters per second squared" and by "gravity" you mean "gravity of Earth at sea level," that would be correct.

Your point?

682. Fleabytes

Comment #135840 by Dr Benway on February 29, 2008 at 9:41 am

hello:

No, not at all. I believe in God because I have seen the difference He has made in people's lives.
So say a million Scientologists. Still, I find the Lord Xenu story difficult to swallow.

683. Fleabytes

Comment #135827 by Dr Benway on February 29, 2008 at 9:35 am

All I ask of the anti-rational crowd is this: be consistent. Trying to have your cake and eat it too is the mark of a cheater.

In rejecting "positivist" reasoning you must also reject its fruits, such as:

- the computer you're sitting at
- the Internet
- modern medicine

You may continue with:
- wishful fantasy
- masturbation

684. Fleabytes

Comment #135791 by Dr Benway on February 29, 2008 at 9:14 am

hello:

There was a time before religion ever existed
Where is your evidence for such a claim?
No churches in the Precambrian!

685. Fleabytes

Comment #135770 by Dr Benway on February 29, 2008 at 9:04 am

kairos:

Rationality to me means making sense and I can't go along with the narrow positivist attitude so prevalent here - I apologise if that annoys you.
Calling a method "positivist" isn't helpful. We need an example of your superior method for separating fact from fiction.

When the furnace stops working, what method do you use to determine the cause of the problem?

686. Fleabytes

Comment #135745 by Dr Benway on February 29, 2008 at 8:46 am

kairos:

...my understanding of rational is 'makes sense'
"Reason" like "truth" is an English word with more than one definition. In this forum, we generally use "reason" to mean "a method for evaluating the truth of some claim." That method involves four tests:

1. corroboration
2. logic
3. falsification
4. parsimony

"Makes sense" sounds more like a feeling than a method. We know our feelings can be fooled. Ergo, the need for the above tests.

687. Fleabytes

Comment #135717 by Dr Benway on February 29, 2008 at 8:29 am

Artful_Dodger:

Steve, all I was saying with these references is that other posters here have vastly outdone Robertson when it comes to abuse.
Here's the thing: You have a small penis whereas I have one of the longest, thickest, and most beautiful phalluses anyone has ever seen.

No doubt you and I would love to while away the hours in contemplation of the irresistible member between my legs. However others here might find the effort beside the point.

I believe the atheists had said, "God has not been proven." You were about to serve up some proof.

688. Fleabytes

Comment #135686 by Dr Benway on February 29, 2008 at 7:53 am

There may be a couple of theists here who can break free of the spell.

If it happens, dear theist, you'll find yourself laughing. The lies are all so obvious. You couldn't have swallowed them were it not for an entire culture repeatedly reinforcing the nonsense.

There aren't "two world views." We all test facts in the same way. We seek corroboration. We reject self-contradiction. We ask, "How could this hypothesis be falsified? Are there rival hypotheses? Which hypothesis is more parsimonious?"

Propositions which pass our tests of corroboration, logic, falsification, and parsimony are accepted as true. People who argue that some propositions ought to be accepted without passing these tests are simply cheating.

A favorite cheater's trick: "Shakespeare isn't true in the same way as a news report. Some truth is more about feelings that facts."

Our use of the word "truth" in a range of contexts is a mere linguistic accident. Don't let this variable usage fool you into thinking there are different kinds of truth. You wouldn't think that there are different kinds of homosexuals simply because the word "fag" sometimes is used to refer to a cigarette, would you?

689. Fleabytes

Comment #135633 by Dr Benway on February 29, 2008 at 6:57 am

Artful_Dodger:

Fortunately there are people like David around who are able to take on board less literalist interpretations of the book of Genesis.
Who says the theists visiting RD.net produce no evidence? The above statement is fairly obvious evidence in support of the proposition that religion is man-made.

690. Fleabytes

Comment #135613 by Dr Benway on February 29, 2008 at 6:25 am

Anti-splitter: Heretic!
Splitter: Heretic!
Observer: Mean spirited bunch, you lot.
Anti-splitter: But I'm condemning the splitters, which isn't the same as splitting.
Observer: LOL. Good thing burning at the stake's gone out of fashion.

691. Fleabytes

Comment #135600 by Dr Benway on February 29, 2008 at 6:06 am

The over-used phrase "Dawkins' followers" is nasty and unpleasant, Artful_Dodger.

692. Fleabytes

Comment #135592 by Dr Benway on February 29, 2008 at 5:51 am

Christian sockpuppets:

Ad hominem attacks are not clear thinking!
When a person attacks a speaker instead of some proposition on the table for discussion, that's an ad hominem. However, when the proposition on the table is something like, "Can you believe what an amazing fucktard we have here?" further examples, illustrations, comparisons, and analyses of said fucktard are entirely appropriate.

Robertson to Dawkins:
You need to learn a great deal more respect in dealing with those who disagree with you.
Can you say, "restraining order," mylearnedstalker?

693. Fleabytes

Comment #134700 by Dr Benway on February 28, 2008 at 5:54 am

God is unproven, mylearnedfriend.

694. Fleabytes

Comment #134685 by Dr Benway on February 28, 2008 at 5:32 am

A lovely effort, Richard M. But frustrated are the peacemakers in the face of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

How to deal with NPD: "Bag, Tag, 'n Release."

"Bag" represents taking a close look at the person. Feel the pain of the endless games of "I win; you lose." Savor the flavor of the misquotes, the sliding meanings, the slippery, non-stop dishonesty.

"Tag" means call a spade a spade. Use whatever label works for you. Perhaps "NPD" or "narcissist" or "asshole" or "prick" or "vampire" or "shark" or "evil bastard." Deep character traits don't change much. You're not going to fix the problem.

"Release" is a reminder to divest yourself of the relationship. No more attention, emotion, or hope. There are human beings out there capable of empathy and fair play. Give your energies to them.

695. Fleabytes

Comment #134060 by Dr Benway on February 27, 2008 at 7:23 am

Are you David or his mum?
It's his mum. She and I had a thing once...

696. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #134046 by Dr Benway on February 27, 2008 at 7:01 am

I think the idiom is "soothes the wild breast."

So the breast wranglers say, anyway.

697. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #134032 by Dr Benway on February 27, 2008 at 6:45 am

The Reverend Dark: Satire. Mockery. Swearing.
The favored weapons of the non-violent humanitarians among us.

Thanks to ancestors who invented useful phrases like, "STFU, you stupid cunt!" it's now possible to avoid the headache, heartache, and civil liabilities associated with having to actually beat someone over the head with a tire iron.

Funny how believers often misread ridicule as violent intent - e.g., "Why the New Atheism is a Threat to Your Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness." Ridicule is what people do when they don't want to cap your ass.

698. Richard Dawkins on five of his favorite books

Comment #133800 by Dr Benway on February 26, 2008 at 8:21 pm

Cloud Atlas

699. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132963 by Dr Benway on February 25, 2008 at 1:05 pm

wyattroberts: Many of the posters here sound like they are judging these books *without* examining whatever evidence (if any) they claim to present.
As a regular skimmer of this site, I'd say you're the 97th person to make this argument. Standard rebuttal below:

1. Most comments are reactions to the cover and book description, given above. Nothing wrong with that.

2. The "new atheists" claim that God has not been proven. The proper rebuttal to this argument would be some evidence that an interventionist God actually exists. Slandering atheists isn't any response at all.

The pretense to evidence at this point in time is a joke. Right up there with the latest and greatest perpetual motion machine.

700. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130174 by Dr Benway on February 20, 2008 at 6:47 am

The Bishop: Unbelievers are blinded by their modern gods. They cannot see past what satisfies their bodies.
Why, it's the Baby-Eating Bishop of Bath and Wells!

Parsing humankind into "the godly" and "Satan's minions" is not a good idea for many reasons.

In this global nuclear world, we've got to get a grip on our instinctive in-group/out-group habits before we do ourselves in.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 | Next