51. CFI-UN Hamid Karzai Letter

Comment #202027 by Styrer- on June 30, 2008 at 4:08 pm

Comment #201914 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 30, 2008 at 12:04 pm

Usually I find myself in agreement with your necessarily forthright condemnation of Islam, but your above comment seems to go against your excellent '7 point plan' outlined on the McEwan thread, wherein you explicitly dismissed the 'military warfare' you are now defending and proposing here.

Genuinely thought out and properly re-considered, or simply a (thoroughly understandable) outraged reaction to this thread's topic?

Best,
Styrer

52. Dawkins on Darwin

Comment #202017 by Styrer- on June 30, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Comment #201983 by decius on June 30, 2008 at 2:23 pm

Hear, hear.

Relaxed, confident, professional and probing enough to elicit some fascinating insights from Richard. Both your and Richard's enthusiasm and erudition make for genuinely infectious viewing.

Very well done indeed and thank you!

Best,
Styrer

53. CFI-UN Hamid Karzai Letter

Comment #201919 by Styrer- on June 30, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Maulavi Muhammad Asif, a senior cleric, stated, "This decision is for disrespecting the holy Qu'ran and the government should enforce the decision before it [comes] under more pressure from foreigners."

If the sentencing to death of this freethinking young man is not bad enough, how contemptible also it is to read the above. The dribbling, slavering, inhumanly ugly desperation the words convey only re-inforces the 'death wish' yearning of the despicable cult of Islam and its hate-filled adherents. 'Kill him! Now! Quickly! Before we're told by foreigners to stop!'

Cowardly cunts.

Styrer

54. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #201906 by Styrer- on June 30, 2008 at 11:57 am

Steve

Yes, I remember something about Richard and the former Bishop of Oxford Harries doing some work together to fight the introduction into schools of creationism, which is not exactly the same thing as 'promoting science teaching in the UK'. Perhaps I am unaware of some other work they did together, though. I can begin to see the short-term benefit of getting together with the seemingly extremely liberal Harries to give creationism a good kicking (though long-term, I still fear that the ultimate crushing of supernatural thinking is not being properly carried out by doing so), but I think Richard may have his work cut out to find similar common ground with the new and apparently more evangelical Bishop Pritchard.

If we're still talking about collaboration between atheists and theists in promoting the understanding of science, I really do not see who the winners could possibly be. Surely one or other view - and I do see them as fundamentally irreconcilable views, as you must know from my banging on! - is necessarily going to lose out, if you grant even a little nod towards my contention that the wider war between reason and superstitious supernaturalism is weakened every time the notion of NOMA is given time (however well-intentioned the reasons behind it).

Best,
Styrer

55. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #199548 by Styrer- on June 26, 2008 at 12:49 am

Comment #199539 by acarrionwasp on June 26, 2008 at 12:00 am

Now please do not post such uncouth trash EVER on this site. It is disrespectful and immature.

I hereby uncouthly, disrespectfully and immaturely ask you if you received a certificate of approval along with the notification that your appointment to High Chief Moderator of this site went through. Do take care of it, if so.

Congratulations, in any case. It's a thankless task. Particularly in this case.

By the by - any thoughts on the dynamics of the interview? Do you agree with my assessment? Disagree? What did you think of the interviewer? Incisive? Self-serving? Generously expansive?

Trusting you're not so gravely ill that you can't piece together at least one thought more worthy than the self-righteous shit you've already failed to dress up as interesting comment.

Best of luck, fuckwit.

Styrer

56. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #199536 by Styrer- on June 25, 2008 at 11:32 pm

Comment #199532 by ghost9 on June 25, 2008 at 11:08 pm

Ok, Ghost.

What do you think of the interview?

I note you omit your opinion on it while you venture to criticize some unspecified members for not staying on topic and for straying off into other areas.

Care to drag yourself back long enough from your off-topic criticism to talk about the topic at hand?

Looking forward to your re-focused thoughts.

Styrer

57. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #199528 by Styrer- on June 25, 2008 at 10:50 pm

Comment #199525 by b0ltzm0n on June 25, 2008 at 10:28 pm

So, my ridiculous little respondent, you are holding still to the idea that Richard Dawkins - who holds that the whole god question is a scientific proposition - should consider some notion of 'co-authorship' with the theist Ken Miller?

So we are back to where we started?

Ok. Let me spell it out for you. Ken Miller, with his theistic hat on, looks at Dawkins and KNOWS - not suspects, not wishes, not regrets, not relishes the fact but KNOWS - that his colleague is going, by dint of his lack of belief in his chosen deity, to spend the REST OF TIME in burning, torturous, unending, fire-laden hell, in the absence of that very same deity Miller will, with a huge grin, we suppose, be snuggled up to.

And you want Dawkins, with this knowledge of Miller's shitheaded thoughts about his so-called friend and colleague, to accept some form of 'working partnership' between the two of them?

Well, maybe Richard can work like that. Maybe your suggestion is, in fact, eminently sensible.

But I recoil, I denounce and I vomit over such a disgusting proposition as that. That you are unable to see that the disgusting tenets of religion are not to be given even the first time of day - not the slightest fucking nod towards acceptance in any form whatsoever - makes me question your knowledge, experience and thinking.

Check out the archives here and grant yourself a free education.

I hope you will reconsider.

If not, I suggest you PM Richard direct and tell him of your wonderful suggestion. Who knows? I could be totally fucking wrong.

Styrer

58. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #199524 by Styrer- on June 25, 2008 at 10:18 pm

Comment #199522 by b0ltzm0n on June 25, 2008 at 10:10 pm

Comment #199520 by Styrer

Because I'm not like you. I'd rather have a chance at convincing people rather than polarizing them.

But please, let's not fight here. We're on the same side, but just have differing opinions on how the fight should be waged. I'm of the opinion it will take all kinds, as there are all kinds of "faithful". Cheers!

Quit with your cheerful 'Cheers!' and we may begin to make a start. Smart arse.

I think you and I will continue to disagree, and I am now at the point where I am utterly divorced from trying to find supporters of my ideas. Never was good at or interested in politics.

But this one is a biggie. I tire of little piss-ants like yourself simply licking the sticker.

Perhaps I am wrong about you.

I'll step back and watch.

Styrer

59. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #199520 by Styrer- on June 25, 2008 at 10:03 pm

Comment #199512 by b0ltzm0n on June 25, 2008 at 9:48 pm

People react with visceral disgust in this town if I say I'm an "atheist". If I talk to them in terms they can understand they tend to be more receptive to the ideas. Cheers!

Then why don't you simply lie down now and let them run the fuck over you?

Onwards you go.

So brave of you.

www.ayaanhirsiali.org

Styrer

60. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #199507 by Styrer- on June 25, 2008 at 9:32 pm

Comment #199501 by b0ltzm0n on June 25, 2008 at 9:15 pm

I trust and know that Richard is not so fucking stupid.

What the hell are you suggesting?

You are not only pandering to Christians, but to every single individual who holds even slightly to a notion of superstitious supernaturalism. Ken Miller, despite the approbation wrong-headedly held for the bloke here for his denunciation of Creationism, is a theist. He quietly, intellectually, politely and in well-dressed manner subscribes to the idea that all of us ARE GOING TO FUCKING HELL TO BURN FOREVER IN THE ABSENCE OF HIS DEITY.

No fucking chance do I want ANY truck with fuckers like this. Call me politically naive, unrealistic, idealistic as much as you want. I refuse to submit to such intellectual dishonesty and I hold, at the same time that you might wish to berate me, the flag of such honesty HIGH.

I am looking very long-term - beyond my and my grandchildren's and their own grandchildren's lives, probably - to a point when superstitious supernaturalism is finally, with intellectual rigour, and without any appeasement, and certainly no NOMA propitiation, knelled its final death.

Just my own 2 pennies, inspired by a desire not to fuck this up forever.

Best,
Styrer

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

Comment #199500 by Styrer- on June 25, 2008 at 9:08 pm

Comment #199498 by Shrommer on June 25, 2008 at 9:01 pm

Hello again Shrommer

Got any evidence for that deity of yours yet?

Looking forward to it all in your next post.

Thanks so much.

Best,
Styrer

62. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #199494 by Styrer- on June 25, 2008 at 8:45 pm

Comment #199489 by fotomatt on June 25, 2008 at 8:32 pm

Yes, there are some errors in transcription. The one you cite is pretty obvious (after the bad grammar of the title, it was the next error I noted). Another one you might have mentioned is in ' I might dissemble somewhat in what I said, but would not do so in when writing a newspaper article'.

But while the bad grammar of the title says something about the skills of the interviewer - which might be of interest - I don't see what difference the other mistakes here make of the communication in evidence here.

Do you?

Unless they are to re-inforce the arguable incompetence of the interviewer, which I will happily endorse.

Best,
Styrer

63. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #199488 by Styrer- on June 25, 2008 at 8:29 pm

Comment #199484 by Brian English on June 25, 2008 at 8:23 pm

Fucking perfectly fucking expressed, my good fucker.

Fucking right.

Best,
Styrer

(AAAHHH that felt good. Depleted now for at least one post. Must re-group.)

64. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #199481 by Styrer- on June 25, 2008 at 8:19 pm

Comment #199474 by MaxD on June 25, 2008 at 8:11 pm

MaxD, you're a fucking disgrace, you twat, in not realising that god exists because 'the sun got up, and christianity is exactly like the sun, 'cos it got up too, and BY THE FUCKING SUN, you can SEE EVERYTHING ELSE.'

You're a fucking disgrace (which thread is this?)

Wake up and see the fucking light.

And my fucking 'fuckings' are metaphorical too, so fuck off.

Best,
Styrer

65. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #199471 by Styrer- on June 25, 2008 at 8:04 pm

Comment #199459 by Diacanu on June 25, 2008 at 7:41 pm

Hopkins did, I think, give a magnanimity and a universality to the part which undermined, welcomely, the fuckwit whose real-life part he was playing.

Trusting you were touched PRECISELY because of the dewy-eyed sentiment which is real in this world and can never be a nod to a non-existent 'here-after'. THAT kind of feeling is real, to be hankered after, to be longed for.

But living AGAIN after death? Without my head, my dick, my legs, my BODY? Don't want it.

So what is it supposed to be, this 'afterlife'? Bunches of disembodied 'bits' bumping around?

How the hell do I give my mum a hug?

Fuck that.

Take the metaphorical, poetic, wish-thinking beauty away from notions of death and you're left with the real, poetic, fulfilling beauty that LIFE gives you.

Want more life? Eat more bran. Beyond that, let's stop being so unbelievably fucking ungrateful as to demand more, and more which is not even based on WHAT MAKES US HUMAN NOW.

Fuckwits everywhere.

Rant on, Diacanu. You're right, and a fucking tonic.

Best,
Styrer

66. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #199453 by Styrer- on June 25, 2008 at 7:29 pm

But don't you think Hopkins was wonderful in portraying such a deluded character?

My favourite actor.

Ah well.

Best,
Styrer

67. God hates Mars

Comment #199450 by Styrer- on June 25, 2008 at 7:19 pm

Comment #199426 by Cartomancer on June 25, 2008 at 6:39 pm

Am I the only one who has noticed that this guy called Cartomancer takes articles such as these and extracts from them a meaning and a richness never before revealed, before yielding, on metaphorical horseback, such findings to us poor and lowly lot for consideration?

Or is he in fact returning, silently and heroically, horse silenced, to those very articles themselves all of the very rich ideas that we poor betrodden should have been able to come the fuck up with by ourselves...?

That bloody Sheriff just got right up my arse!

Anyway - Carto - you should write for a living, you ingenious bugger. I'll be first in line to buy.

Best,
Styrer

68. God hates Mars

Comment #199421 by Styrer- on June 25, 2008 at 6:25 pm

Nice to read.

Makes me wonder what wonders of literary excellence Richard might reach if he negotiated his way linguistically through a particularly tricky bit of evolutionary theory only to gift us a 'sorry, dude', before giving us the real deal.

I for one would buy any book containing such, and encourage all my colleagues thereafter to grab as soon as possible one containing a '(heh)' before Lalla's informing such an adventurous author that he was bringing her into disrepute and that book pulping must follow...

What a book that might have been...

Ah well.

Best,
Styrer

69. The Flea Delusion

Comment #199390 by Styrer- on June 25, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Comment #199380 by Podaar on June 25, 2008 at 4:11 pm

I still feel a great empathy for you Richard, even though I know I shouldn't and many here will rightly take me to task for it.

Not at all, Podaar. I continue to feel a touch of affection for the RM I thought I knew before I discovered he had been a despicable cunt to Annabanana, before he had invented his risible sockpuppet, and, of course, before he reverted to theism (which I now think he had never really left).

Though I think I've been taken for a ride by the fucker, following some PMs from him I once considered sincere, I also think that he perceives his sickening condescension, his faux-pally facade and his pseudo-rational explication of conversion to be of even slight interest to us.

I have neither time nor sentiment left for this duplicitous, mean-spirited and deluded man who now presents his desperate face here in such unwelcome fashion time and again.

Fuck him.

'I can detest RM because he first detested us'.

Twat.

Styrer

70. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #199379 by Styrer- on June 25, 2008 at 4:05 pm

What a bizarre little interview.

Newman's unlettered 'Richard Dawkins is the well known advocate of atheism and rationalism and for his criticism of religion' was not an auspicious start, and his verbose questioning, either matching or exceeding the length of Richard's answers, remained equal to such a pisspoor beginning.

I can only think that the self-promoting Newman's charm must be greater than any intellectual rigour he showed for Richard to entertain such an interview as this.

But what do I know? I thought 'Dick to the Dawk to the PhD' was an absolute hoot.

:)

Best,
Styrer

71. Teen's death blamed on faith healing

Comment #196361 by Styrer- on June 19, 2008 at 7:05 pm

Comment #196359 by Saerain on June 19, 2008 at 7:01 pm

I recommend you have a little natter with irate_atheist.

You'll be back on track in no time.

Best,
Styrer

72. Teen's death blamed on faith healing

Comment #196357 by Styrer- on June 19, 2008 at 7:01 pm

Hitchens said of religion that it has 'that secret death wish. The secret yearning for all of this to be gone, to move to the next level.'

As callous as I may sound, I welcome published stories like this. Such despicable events are no doubt as frequent as they are unreported. At some point in such raising consciousness to the happening of such acts, some theistic parents may turn round and say 'hey, you know? I want our little Janie to live'.

Having said this, the above case is a clear case of manslaughter. Prison should follow. It's about time for some punishment not in hell, but in the fucking here and tangible now.

Best,
Styrer

73. It Doesn't Take an Einstein

Comment #196347 by Styrer- on June 19, 2008 at 6:34 pm

Comment #196193 by Teratornis on June 19, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Aside from the interesting vocabulary refresher (which would have been easier with links on all the obscure jargon terms), the article contained this one insight that was actually new to me:



And, as an analytic philosopher of my acquaintance points out, if Gould's rule rang true, then it would entail that, as a scientist, he had no authority to advance that value-laden dichotomy in the first place.



I wonder if Gould realized that before he died?

Your comment implies that you endorse this 'new insight'.

Why?

I find it rhetorical, and without substance. I disagree with Gould's proposition, but this criticism of it is specious and hence vacuous.

Best,
Styrer

74. The Mother, The Child, The School Board And The Psychic

Comment #196337 by Styrer- on June 19, 2008 at 5:34 pm

Comment #196280 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 3:22 pm

Quite. Impossible to have 'a quick listen' to YES.

One of my favourite bands. Steve, you go up in my estimation!

Ever checked out Jon's 'Change We Must'? Magic.

The real driving force has always been Jon and Wakeman. Some just don't get it.

Anyway. As you were.

Best,
Styrer

75. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!

Comment #196321 by Styrer- on June 19, 2008 at 4:27 pm

Comment #196176 by Barry Pearson on June 19, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Styrer said: NOMA has been the most ridiculous and dangerous waste of time, endorsed happily by Eugenie Scott, who is at the forefront of all of this. NOMA, in its insistence that we can scientifically keep God and science separate, is breeding a new fucking type of propitiatory thinking. I'm fucking sick to death of seeing this come about. It was all too predictable. Even Richard, who is anti-NOMA, did not properly make of it an intellectual nullity. His proper condemnation of it could have at least made some of the shit we're reading now preventable. But no. We're left clapping our fucking hands at the latest outpourings of Miller.


Where is your evidence for any of that? Your statement doesn't resemble what I've seen from Eugenie Scott, who has to play with the cards available.

What would YOUR approach have been in (say) Dover? What evidence could you have supplied that your approach would have won at Dover? Or that an anti-religious approach would even have got as far as the court, given that the court case against the school board was brought by religious parents, and decided in front of a religious judge?

Would this current case in Louisiana be easier or harder to fight had the Dover case been lost instead of won? What I see is that each court case narrows the options available to the Creationist/ID people. They can no longer ban the teaching of evolution. They can no longer force the teaching of Creation Science. Dover rules out the ID, at least there, but effectively elsewhere too. I don't know where "teach the controversy" has got to, but now it is down to "strengths and weaknesses". Given that the "bad guys" try to hide that religion is involved, what would be the point of fighting against religious views directly?

Barry

I am well aware of the implications of my 'zero-tolerance' approach. I am going to add to your disapprobation of my approach by saying I think that it was worth risking losing Dover for the sake of intellectual honesty and of forging ahead with a wider condemnation of superstitious supernaturalism.

The remit of Eugenie Scott et. al. is anti-creationism/ID and, while her diligence and sense of purpose are to be lauded, her NOMA approach is making it very hard to fight with intellectual integrity the wider war, as I see it, which is the root cause of the growth of the very creationist notions she is seeking to combat.

It has been suggested that the anti-ID movement, with its reliance on theists as well as atheists to support it, is but a tactic, which we should accept, and that such an approach is a positive contribution to the larger war against unreason. I disagree, and think that the 'skirmishes' or 'battles' which are being waged are an active force against that very larger war.

You will find on this site (I think this is where I saw it) a clip of Eugenie Scott speaking to a packed auditorium of university students, informing them that their god, if they are religious, is utterly untouched by the findings of science she subsequently introduces.

This is simple madness: she is thwarting her own ambition of encouraging people - here, young and impressionable people - to view the world through the lens of reason, a world where the proposition of a deity's existence is of huge scientific import. Shooting and feet come to find.

Richard's refusal to accept NOMA is to be commended ('a universe with a god is scientifically very different from one without a god') but the force of this idea has yet to find its way through to the appeasing forces of the anti-ID'ers.

Trusting this clarifies my view.

Best,
Styrer

76. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195897 by Styrer- on June 19, 2008 at 2:15 am

Quetz

David Robertson (clearthinker) has shown through his posts here that he lacks the compassion, empathy, goodwill, generosity of spirit and integrity which his religion is propagated as instilling in its adherents. Robertson should by now have firmly made characteristic all, or at least some, of these in his engagement with all whom he encounters.

Instead, we find a man so wracked by the tortuous efforts he must daily expend on making his beliefs fit with his desire to be liked that he becomes really most unpleasant and unengaging company.

I would certainly not take seriously or trustworthy any criticism such a man may choose to unkindly make about your debating skills. I suspect he knows, in fact, that yours are superior to his own, and that this is a cause of upset for him.

I do wonder sometimes what it would be like to meet Robertson and have a pint with him. I like to think that he would be quite entertaining company, and I would also like it if he found my banter at least not boring. But I am reminded every time he posts here of the really wicked, cruel, slavish and unreasonable positions this man holds.

As such, and in his viewing of me, you and all atheists as sinners destined to spend the rest of time in agony, I find I must close my heart to his own often self-vaunted humanity.

Even if there were a god, who in any small way resembled the one Robertson would have us all follow, then Robertson would continue to make her/him/it utterly inaccessible to me precisely by the way he has conducted himself here.

Of course, his most human qualities - glibness, slyness and unreasonableness unfortunately the most notable - make perfect sense when we realise that no deity has ordained his and our existence. He is precisely as we would expect him to be without faith, but for the terrible afflictions which really make these characteristics of his shine for us all to see. He carries a burden he has no need to carry, but which he will insist on carrying for the rest of life, thinking that he has the lighter load than one without.

I hold no sympathy for Robertson - his plight is self-inflicted, after all - and in fact hold only contempt for him as he proceeds to convince children, too young to know otherwise, to convince the needy and the vulnerable and the lonely, that his way is the right way.

His faith has made of him a very poor man.

So Quetz - don't sweat the fucker.

Styrer

77. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #195880 by Styrer- on June 19, 2008 at 1:02 am

Comment #195877 by clearmind on June 19, 2008 at 12:45 am

(I can't understand a lot of the atheist's points on this though. (But I'm trying.)

Nobody can. Evolins (coming from evoltion) cannot think more primary school student can think.


Second, atheists always think that they got earned that one dollar as if they were the owner.
We were created out of nothing. We even did not exist. But the atheists think that their life is dropped down by chemical rains by chance and luck. It is hard/impossible for them to think that our lives and our perfect body structure did not exist out out of the rain coming from the imaginary planets by Chance and Luck.

Blindwatchmaker is always out there that is blinded by chances and luck thah makes atheists blind so they became atheists.

Hi

Could you do me a favour?

Could you tell me if you have changed your mind about ANYTHING since you came here many months ago?

I am not really interested in your choice of pants or toothpaste - but could you say that anyone here, since you have been here, has made you change your mind?

I think this would be a very interesting matter for your students, too.

Please answer my question.

Best,
Styrer

78. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195878 by Styrer- on June 19, 2008 at 12:52 am

Actually, I would like to hear Oystein's opinion of Robertson.

I wonder if, as a former theist, he may wish to shed some light and meaning on the words Robertson has inelegantly used here?

Oystein - would you care to perform this service for us (by way of initiation, if you like!)

Zeus knows that Robertson's facility with English is not exactly exemplary.

Thanks.

Best,
Styrer

79. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!

Comment #195876 by Styrer- on June 19, 2008 at 12:31 am

Comment #195872 by keith on June 19, 2008 at 12:18 am

Good questions.

NOMA has been the most ridiculous and dangerous waste of time, endorsed happily by Eugenie Scott, who is at the forefront of all of this.

NOMA, in its insistence that we can scientifically keep God and science separate, is breeding a new fucking type of propitiatory thinking.

I'm fucking sick to death of seeing this come about. It was all too predictable. Even Richard, who is anti-NOMA, did not properly make of it an intellectual nullity. His proper condemnation of it could have at least made some of the shit we're reading now preventable.

But no. We're left clapping our fucking hands at the latest outpourings of Miller. A fucking theist.

This was all far too predictable. Fucking appeasement gets you here.

Styrer

80. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!

Comment #195873 by Styrer- on June 19, 2008 at 12:19 am

I am on record here voicing doubts as to the influence on governmental decisions a fairly well-known Oxford scientist may have.

Here is an opportunity for Richard to put his formidable penmanship to work.

I trust that Richard is being as vocal as his British citizenship permits him to be in this matter.

Trusting that the Hitch and Harris are kicking up a greater stink than we collectively can even dream of.

Here we go again.

Styrer

81. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195865 by Styrer- on June 18, 2008 at 11:55 pm

Comment #195863 by Teratornis on June 18, 2008 at 11:51 pm

Ok, Teratornis.

By now, I've got the message and I am as concerned as you would wish me to be.

What the fuck do you want me to do now?

Best,
Styrer

82. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195858 by Styrer- on June 18, 2008 at 11:34 pm

Irate

PM for you.

Best,
Styrer

83. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195851 by Styrer- on June 18, 2008 at 10:58 pm

It's wonderful that the full import of my posts can rise above any puerile notions of bodily functions.

Despite coming over all funny, it's why I determine to hang around.

Best,
Styrer

84. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195850 by Styrer- on June 18, 2008 at 10:48 pm

Comment #195794 by Quine on June 18, 2008 at 8:16 pm

Quine - as House MD said to his black underling on his erudition on the topic of guns recently - 'it's just so cool that you know that'.

Fascinating. Thank you.

Best,
Styrer

85. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195839 by Styrer- on June 18, 2008 at 10:32 pm

Comment #195834 by irate_atheist on June 18, 2008 at 10:25 pm

Fuck it, I'll let it stand...!

Robertson really rubs me up the wrong way...

Oh shut up.

Best,
Styrer

86. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195831 by Styrer- on June 18, 2008 at 10:21 pm

Comment #195814 by irate_atheist on June 18, 2008 at 9:33 pm

Magnificent irateness.

As it should be.

The most telling post from our resident twatting faithoholic Robertson some months ago presented the only argument this twisted fella has ever made in favour of his delusion - he simply hates the idea of a world and a universe where he is not going to live forever but succumb, as we all will, to death.

Robertson cannot accept death.

Strange, don't you think, when his whole life revolves around the death of another bloke?

Robertson really is the greatest wanker I've ever encountered. And boy, I've come across a few...

Best,
Styrer

87. Darwinists for Jesus

Comment #195817 by Styrer- on June 18, 2008 at 9:40 pm

[Dowd] "God-glorifying, Christ-edifying, Scripture-honoring way of thinking about evolution"

"What's his message?" Ham asks. "Who is God? Is the universe God? What is our purpose and meaning? What is good and evil? Who determines our future? The Bible gives us very specific answers." Ham says that what Dowd is telling his audience is "no different from what an evolutionary atheist would preach" with some of Dowd's merely subjective feelings "mixed in."

What an utter load of shite.

Why cannot this shit be determined in a ring? Why can we not all agree that gobshites like Dowd and Ham will NEVER receive public attention if they have refused to agree to be set in a ring to fight out their supernatural doctrines by themselves, without having any fucking wider effect on the rest of us?

Actually, while the real problem is of course nutjobs, an equal problem is the hard-nosed financiers putting up 750,000 grand because nutjob books sell to, er, millions of other nutjobs.

Fuck 'em. Still want to see the fuckers in the ring, a la Frankie.

Styrer

88. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195791 by Styrer- on June 18, 2008 at 8:01 pm

May I belatedly add my warm welcome to Oystein here.

His would be an informed voice to add to the many already here, and I hope that, if he thinks we are not up to his obviously high intellectual standard, then he will not cut and run but be someone by whose bootstraps we may attempt an exciting climb.

As for Cartomancer's description - I laughed my fucking socks of at it, and not at Oystein himself. Big difference, I am sure we all realise. Crack on, Carto.

Hope you will stick around, Oystein.

Best,
Styrer

89. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195780 by Styrer- on June 18, 2008 at 7:26 pm

8185. Comment #195756 by asfalios on June 18, 2008 at 6:46 pm

Hi all,

correct me if I am wrong but in 6:14 to 6:26 of this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsAtc0ezpdc

does the professor suggest that there is possible evidence of design?
Your opinions?
thanks

Asfalios

No, Richard Dawkins did not suggest that there is 'possible evidence of design' by a supernatural hand. Richard has explained very clearly that he was playing the game of 'who could be a creator', in order to play along with interviewers who, as I understand it, were rather lacklustre in both intellect, conversation and in questioning.

You would do well to note this - if Richard Dawkins had genuinely said and meant what was proposed and creatively presented in the clip, with cuts galore, from this creationist film, then Richard would have, in one dubious little interview, been negating, gainsaying, opposing and taking to task those very same ideas on which the man has made his claims to the world in print and on air for over a quarter of a century.

Now. Asfalios - what do you think is more likely? That Richard Dawkins, by the sheer force and pressure of a team of undercover creationists, was forced to relinquish his scientific and atheistic take on the world and admit that he has been wrong all these years, as the film tries to intimate. Or - that some duplicitous, desperate editing has taken place here, in an attempt to rip Dawkins away from his most publicly and widely held views and cast him instead as a supporter of the narrow, small-minded, untenable views whose holders are - none other - than the gobshites who orchestrated this 'film' in the first place?

Trusting you won't make a twat of yourself, I leave this, sir, to your good judgement.

Best,
Styrer

90. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195758 by Styrer- on June 18, 2008 at 6:50 pm

Comment #195755 by Brian English on June 18, 2008 at 6:44 pm

I suppose we did get him to the point where he tried to justify his belief in a deity, instead of just thinking that by debunking evolution, he automatically one. That's something, however small...

Yes, perhaps.

I wonder, though, if this fucker has not simply run off, ever deeper to delve into his easy anti-rational thinking. Back to the comfort zone.

Ah well. Little fuckers everywhere.

Keep on bashing, Brian.

Best,
Styrer

91. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195751 by Styrer- on June 18, 2008 at 6:38 pm

Comment #195742 by fizhburn on June 18, 2008 at 6:19 pm

With respect, Fizhburn, for both your patience and for your elucidation, you are wasting your fucking time by simply re-framing what has been the numero uno challenge to gobshite RtG from the beginning.

Why is it that we must feel obliged to re-frame, repeat, explicate, elucidate and enhance a fucking easy (and already much repeated) question from the outset?

Come on, folks. No more. The fucker will answer or he should be ignored.

Best,
Styrer

92. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195739 by Styrer- on June 18, 2008 at 6:15 pm

Comment #195728 by ReceivedTheGift on June 18, 2008 at 6:03 pm

To All

Before I leave, do any of you have any prayer requests? My group is praying for your repentance and salvation.

God Bless

Ah, that's your parting shot.

Actually, I do have a request.

Kindly take yourself, your prayers, your prayer-group, your wicked and immoral precepts of original sin, your disgusting adherence to the idea of vicarious redemption by human sacrifice, your evil rantings of eternal suffering and damnation and shove them, as hard as you can, up your fucking arse.

Be careful not to fart until they're settled.

And forever keep all the above precisely where they should be, you vacuous, despicable cunt of a human being.

Styrer

93. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195725 by Styrer- on June 18, 2008 at 5:59 pm

8159. Comment #195718 by ReceivedTheGift on June 18, 2008 at 5:48 pm

Styrer

I have put up. Sorry if it is not good enough for you.

When it comes to design, I never said that I did not belive in mutation. The process of life is very complicated and it is logical that mutations and deformaties exist. What does that have to do with design?

You know, RtG, you move from the rational (of which, theism aside, you are not an altogether unacceptable exponent) to the irrational and superstitious supernaturalism so often that I am beginning to wonder if you are not some bored and lonely atheistic wind-up merchant.

Wonderings aside - no, you have not put up, and what you have offered is nowhere near good enough.

I request again - wherefore your notion of design; and answer Brian's question, lest you show you're not worth the dwindling entertainment value you've granted us all here.

Last chance with at least me.

Styrer

94. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195715 by Styrer- on June 18, 2008 at 5:44 pm

Comment #195703 by ReceivedTheGift on June 18, 2008 at 5:27 pm

I observe design in many places; in the complexity of life, the fine tuning of our solor system, in addition to many others. These observances are support for a logical reason that there was a designer of life.

At what point, RtG, does your 'observing design' kick in? When you see the scurrying ant which you accidentally crush underfoot? When you see an antelope being crushed to pieces by a lion's mouth? When you see a newborn human baby being born without eyes and without legs?

Or is your verdict of design made on the basis of the pretty things which appear to your eye, ignoring the nasty stuff?

Or is it not really the case that your 'design' notion is first and foremost in your mind, and that you are determined to twist all of the natural world's both splendid and horrific manifestations to fit with it?

I submit that it is.

Yet still you cling to the notion of design. You have been asked repeatedly to provide evidence that there is design whatsoever, and then to provide evidence of the designer. Both of these requests you have spectacularly and discourteously ignored.

Time's up, pal. Time to either put up or shut up.

Styrer

95. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195702 by Styrer- on June 18, 2008 at 5:26 pm

Comment #195698 by Apathy personified on June 18, 2008 at 5:22 pm

Look's like it.

Best,
Styrer

96. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195691 by Styrer- on June 18, 2008 at 5:17 pm

Comment #195677 by ReceivedTheGift on June 18, 2008 at 4:59 pm

RtG

Come on, out with it. Why do you really believe that there is a supernatural entity monitoring everything you do?

Scared of death? Well, you're still going to die, whether you believe or not, so get over it.

Worried about morals? Plenty of us do good stuff without thought of reward in heaven or punishment in hell.

Need guidance in life? Open your eyes, look around and listen to yourself. Others and yourself - you'll get all the guidance you need.

Feel small? Without a god, you're bigger, mate. Think of it as Douglas Adams did - how big of you to make it to where you are now from the beginnings of the 'primordial soup'! You should be fucking proud!

So if none of the above, RtG - what is it? Wherein lies this fervour to have something more, and with which you are prepared to visit this pro-reason site and bash us relentlessly, alongside your unreasonable thoughts?

I'd like an answer. But please answer Brian's oft repeated question first, lest I think you are not only unreasonable and irrational but fucking rude too.

Styrer

97. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195668 by Styrer- on June 18, 2008 at 4:51 pm

Comment #195657 by ReceivedTheGift on June 18, 2008 at 4:38 pm

What is 'sad', RtG, is that you think you are right without the slightest smidgen of an iota of a speck of a jot of evidence to back you up.

What is evil is your insistence that others submit to first your and then to your god's will in accepting and living their lives according to your immoral, inhuman, life-sapping, unevidenced supernatural doctrines of anti-reason.

What a stinking piece of shit you really are.

You should be ashamed to get out of bed in the morning.

Styrer

98. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195649 by Styrer- on June 18, 2008 at 4:29 pm

Comment #195643 by ReceivedTheGift on June 18, 2008 at 4:22 pm

To All

That you actually believe each others deception

Thank you, Apathy, for opening the door.

RtG, you should have written 'each other's'.

Careful with your punctuation there, vicar. Someone told me you're on show here.

Best,
Styrer

99. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195642 by Styrer- on June 18, 2008 at 4:20 pm

Brian

I hope you don't mind my saying that your 'let's take evolution as a bag of shite' idea is wrongly being proposed here by many as a new and different way of thinking about the way we can deal with gobshites such as RtG.

For me, your approach is nothing of the sort. It is simply a magnificent and enlightening way in dealing with such gobshites on the old, tried and tested basis of reason.

I applaud you far more for this than for the creation of a dubious 'BE' tactic, as you represent properly what the point of this site is all about.

Nice one.

Best,
Styrer

100. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195620 by Styrer- on June 18, 2008 at 4:04 pm

Comment #195608 by mordacious1 on June 18, 2008 at 3:44 pm

Would it be too cynical of me to suggest that he not be banned, on the basis that his determination to badger us here with his vacuous nonsense takes up time he simply cannot expend on abusing a child with his filthy, unsubstantiated and destructive doctrines?

Or should I simply stick with saying he shouldn't be banned because it's just such great fun to see the clever members here knocking the shit out of him on a regular basis? :)

Best,
Styrer