51. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #185521 by alan baylis on May 28, 2008 at 2:32 am

Comment #185504 by clearmind

This is the tradition of this web page. Somebody tried to say that he would vote to bomb Romania because of me.

52. What is science for?

Comment #184950 by alan baylis on May 26, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Comment #184788 by blake121666

Character assassination

53. What is science for?

Comment #184518 by alan baylis on May 25, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Comment #184419 by ASMarques [edit] (who leads to believe that he is on holiday in acapulco) on May 25, 2008 at 5:13 am *

Ended with this,

Gotta go. My lemonade is getting warm. See you in a few weeks.

54. What is science for?

Comment #184422 by alan baylis on May 25, 2008 at 6:12 am

Comment #184409 by keith

I disagree with you on this one. For me, Blake's claim has a ring of authenticity to it. I'm more than prepared to believe that he really doesn't know what 'blood libel' is.

55. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #184400 by alan baylis on May 25, 2008 at 1:59 am

Comment #183910 by al-rawandi

Al, did you notice how quickly the cowardly hypocrite dropped the subject of Islam once you and the others told him some home truths about it? This is not the first time wooter has done this. As when it was pointed out to him that claiming to have proven evolution wrong by his own "LOGIC" was just hubris or pride, and by what he believes, one of the seven deadly sins.

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2498,Is-religion-a-threat-to-rationality-and-science,Dan-Dennett-Lord-Winston,page17#174818

This seemed to stop that particular bit of drivel.

Although it gives us a laugh, wooter loves all the mocking and cursing we give him. I believe this is because like many religious nutters he has a strong masochistic streak.

Using his own religious beliefs against him seems to take the wind out of his sails IMO and would probably reduce the number of his posts.

Having said all that, I do think wooters' brand of nuttiness and peoples' replies do bring a note of hilarity to the proceedings.

Regards,
Alan.

56. What is science for?

Comment #184385 by alan baylis on May 25, 2008 at 12:13 am

Comment #184048 by blake121666

Does anyone believe this?

I'm no member of CODOH or any racist or nazi ... not even technically a holocaust denier

I don't know what "Blood Libel" means and I'm not interested in looking it up

57. What is science for?

Comment #183387 by alan baylis on May 22, 2008 at 2:53 am

Perhaps they could share an alternative thread. There they could rant, ramble, and wibble to each other to their hearts content.;)

58. What is science for?

Comment #183348 by alan baylis on May 21, 2008 at 11:51 pm

Comment #183209 by Teratornis

An excellent post.

Regards,
Alan.

59. What is science for?

Comment #182989 by alan baylis on May 21, 2008 at 7:37 am

Comment #182944 by Peacebeuponme

PBUM,

my point there was a general one and not aimed at anyone in particular,

regards,
alan.

60. What is science for?

Comment #182930 by alan baylis on May 21, 2008 at 6:11 am

I'm with styrer on this.

Look up "David Irving, libel trial" to get a quick understanding of the characters and motives of these people. Their motives are plain and simple;- anti-Semitism and nazi apologetics.



Comment #182853 by uncle tungsten

I'm just curious aabout the actual evidence base for this piece of highly emotive modern folk-lore.

61. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #182439 by alan baylis on May 20, 2008 at 6:06 am

Comment #182394 by epeeist

But you can't hang out with a wheel and an axle, a pulley or a screw and consider some measurable nuance that occurs at that level into the kind of mechanics that occur in motor bikes or aeroplanes.

The ToE works for fruitflies, add a bit more complexity and does it still work, add a bit more...

62. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #181772 by alan baylis on May 18, 2008 at 7:51 am

ASS Marques

181334. I said [edit]

This is because those other douche-bags in the expelled camp are trying to propagate the myth that Darwinism led to the holocaust!

I assure you they're every bit as credulous as you yourself are.

63. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #181334 by alan baylis on May 17, 2008 at 12:56 am

ASS Marques,

The written history of the events known as the holocaust is vast.

The documentary evidence that converges to show that the holocaust happened is also vast.

The eyewitness accounts from various sides are legion. (Yes, some victims survived. Even the Nazis couldn't kill them all).

The sheer size of this historical resource lends itself to being selectively trawled for perceived mistakes and inconsistencies that could be used to support any number of lies and conspiracy theories. This is how holocaust deniers operate.

You don't seem to be having much success in prothletizing your lies and delusions here.

I get the strong impression that most posters are ignoring you out of sheer contempt, whilst others say you should be just ignored as the troll you are. I am a bit wary of this strategy. This is because those other douche-bags in the expelled camp are trying to propagate the myth that Darwinism led to the holocaust! Although I think it is right to challenge your lies anyway, I have wondered what twisted propaganda they may have attempted if a holocaust denier had been allowed to post on rd/net unchallenged.

However, I think most people here understand very well what the convergence of evidence shows. They are just not buying the rubbish you post. They would also, I imagine, realize full well what motivates holocaust deniers. It is the same age old anti Semitism (which brought so much misery) coupled with the attempted rehabilitation of Nazism. A particularly toxic delusion by any standard!

Speaking of religion, wouldn't you do better by trolling your garbage around the theist wingnut sites? After all, there are plenty of them and the folks there are already conditioned to believe in various loads of old rubbish. Although, I doubt the crap you have been spouting here would take even them in.

64. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #178508 by alan baylis on May 11, 2008 at 2:12 pm

178019 by clearmind
3. If Lord Winston says there is no evolution two years now, then what? Is he the criteria or any standing point that you can stand on it? Evolution is a delusion and not only one dozen of lord Winston will not change it. Seeker of truth has got many scientists as well to prove otherwise, so what? Truth is still there.

65. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #178380 by alan baylis on May 11, 2008 at 10:17 am

How weird the world of the deluded is.

One the one side we have the expelled lot saying Darwinism caused the holocaust.
On the other we have the deniers posting here saying that the holocaust never happened.
And now, in the middle is a clown in a cassock saying that reason led to Hitler and Stalin.

66. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #177909 by alan baylis on May 10, 2008 at 12:11 am

Wooter,
Stop behaving like a spineless hypocrite and answer the questions here:


848. Comment #174818 by alan baylis
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2498,Is-religion-a-threat-to-rationality-and-science,Dan-Dennett-Lord-Winston,page17#174818

67. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176946 by alan baylis on May 8, 2008 at 11:24 am

Wooter, answers to my questions please.

Here:

848. Comment #174818 by alan baylis
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2498,Is-religion-a-threat-to-rationality-and-science,Dan-Dennett-Lord-Winston,page17#174818

68. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176892 by alan baylis on May 8, 2008 at 9:18 am

176809 phillip

I'll get an answer, even if I have to hunt the cowardly hypocrite through cyber space:-):-)

69. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #176862 by alan baylis on May 8, 2008 at 7:29 am

ASS Marques,
I was looking through your earlier posts, when I had a classic coffee-keyboard moment. You actually described David Irving as an honest man! Anyway, when I stopped laughing I remembered that way back in the mid-seventies good old PRIVATE EYE was already on his case. This stemmed from his habit of giving talks to far right and neo-nazi groups in Britain and Europe. In answer to this he whined that he did not know who they were when they booked him!
From then on, the EYE renamed him "Berlin Irving" in recognition of his nazi sympathies.

Anyone who would like to know more about Irving could do worse than googling "David Irving libel trail". This will give an idea of what these people are about and of their characters. (Keep in mind that Irving was the silly bugger who was sueing)!
Note what the judge said of him in his summing up: From wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving

Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist, and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.

I am sure this would serve equally well as a description of ASS Marques.

Skid, we do agree on one thing. Making holocaust denial an offence is a mistake. It grants it more importance than it deserves. You and your ilk already have outsized martyr complexes. The world is short of timber. If you lot would get off your many crosses we could save a good-sized forest.

70. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #176755 by alan baylis on May 8, 2008 at 12:49 am

Comment #176659 by Star Spangled Eagle

Good on you mate!

These holocaust deniers are deeply unpleasant people with a sinister agenda, (and, I don't mean wacky handed)!

Skid marques on the underpants of humanity is an apt description, I think!

71. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176748 by alan baylis on May 8, 2008 at 12:04 am

Clearmind aka wooter

In my comment 174818 I asked you some clearly defined questions.

Answers please!

848. Comment #174818 by alan baylis
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2498,Is-religion-a-threat-to-rationality-and-science,Dan-Dennett-Lord-Winston,page17#174818

72. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #176294 by alan baylis on May 7, 2008 at 6:17 am

It cannot be only me who is struck by the overwhelming similarity of the arguments for holocaust denial and those for id/creationism. Just try substituting "evolution" for "holocaust" and it's plain to see.

I was going to give a long list of these similarities. However, regular posters and viewers of this website will have heard it from IDiot/cretinists so many times before, that I felt it would be like teaching my granny how to suck eggs.

There is though, one resemblance that especially tickles me. Cretinists like to claim that evolution is just another religion that needs faith in miracles to be believed. Now where have we been hearing that lately?

For an example of the similar modus operandi of both camps, have a look at the current discussion at
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2498,Is-religion-a-threat-to-rationality-and-science,Dan-Dennett-Lord-Winston,page19#comments

This features someone calling himself seeker of truth who is debating the age of the universe etc. and various dating techniques. (Be warned though, that seeker is almost as long-winded and as thick as ASMarques)!

Seeker has obviously read up on the subject but judging from the links he supplies, it seems this has been mostly from creationist sources. He bangs on and on quoting carefully selected pieces of information to support his ideas whilst rejecting the mountains of evidence put to him showing that he is wrong. Also, he will simply not accept that proper peer reviewed data is the only thing that will back up his arguments.

Oddly, in all of this, at least as I far as I can see, seeker seems to be claiming that he is not a creationist, nor even particularly religious. Of course no one believes him, just as they don't believe ASMarques when he claims not to be a bigoted anti-Semite and an admirer of the Nazis.

Of course what both camps don't get or choose to ignore is that it is actually the "convergence" of masses of evidence from a wide range of disciplines and sources that ultimately proves their delusions wrong.

Against the case of holocaust denial of course, can be added the vast numbers of eyewitness accounts of survivors, perpetrators, onlookers and relieving armed forces personnel.

It seems that a good summary of each of their cases would be as follows:

IDiot /creationists believe that goddidit.

Holocaust deniers believe that the Jews made it all up just to get compensation.

I'm now waiting for a long rebuttal garnered mainly from the holocaust deniers' own websites. Jeesh, ASMarques, you are a dreary windbag!

73. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175568 by alan baylis on May 5, 2008 at 3:54 pm

Comment #175548 by ASMarques


Looked up John Cobden and surprise, surprise, he's another holocaust denier associated with the journal of historical review et al.

74. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175541 by alan baylis on May 5, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Isn't it customary for some one to pronounce time, and cause of death, in these circumstances?;);)

Cheers,
Alan.

75. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #175022 by alan baylis on May 4, 2008 at 7:24 am

As a life-long atheist (at least a no. seven) I am all for using argument and debate to reduce the number of theists. However, I am expecting it to be a long hard struggle.

In the mean time, another battle has opened up with these sinister loonies who are blatantly trying to highjack science education. Evolution is their main target but as other disciplines shed more light where they don't want it, they won't stop there. At present they seem to be having some success.

In view of this, I believe any theist of that persuasion we can push over to, lets say, the Ken Miller wing, is one less supporter for the nutters. Probably easier said than done, but perhaps easier than trying to completely de-convert them.

76. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174818 by alan baylis on May 3, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Clearmind, aka as wooter,


Wooter,
Judging from the content of every one of your posts, it would seem that you hold in contempt those many millions of your co-religionists who accept what the convergence of scientific facts teaches us. This would definitely include Lord Winston, the person in this debate who is defending religious belief.

Lord Winston is a renowned surgeon and fertility expert. Also, he has made many science-based documentaries for the BBC, including one about human evolution. Look him up on wiki. Despite his religious beliefs, he has the same high regard for scientific knowledge and truth as RD and most of the posters on this site.

So Wooter, in light of this, tell us what you think of Lord Winston? Also what do you imagine Lord Winston would think of you?

I have pointed out to you in earlier posts some of the scientists who support evolution; yet still retain their religious faith. For a long list of others, see here.

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/evolution/christian_evolutionists.html#christian_evolutionists.

Also, that most conservative of institutions, the Catholic church now accepts evolution, albeit reluctantly. In catholic schools they teach evolution in the science class.


From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

*Catholic schools and evolution
Catholic schools teach evolution, not theistic evolution, as part of their science curriculum. They teach the fact of evolution and the theory of its mechanisms. This is the same evolution curriculum that secular schools teach.*

Of course there are many other denominations and individuals that fall into this "intelligent theist" category, not to mention the many non-Christian " intelligent theists".

Doesn't all this show very clearly that it is not just atheists who accept the scientific ToE.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/faith/index.html


In many of your posts you stupidly crow that you have disproved evolution by the power of your own "logic". Wooter, this is just hubris, -pride; the deadliest of the seven deadly ones!
Also, much of what you claim is so daft, you can only be lying when you state it, (unless you are mentally ill). Bad as this is, it is even worse when it is taught to the young, as you say you do. How do you square all this with your Christian beliefs? Please tell us.
All a bit more serious than some of my fellow atheists swearing at you in frustration, one would think!


So Wooter, tell us your view on all these millions of intelligent theists.
What is it that makes you so right and all of them so wrong?

To all of you id/creationists :- just do as catholic schools do; teach evolution in the science class where it belongs and id/creationism in the religious class where it belongs!

77. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174748 by alan baylis on May 3, 2008 at 12:05 pm

6094. Comment #174698 by Dr Benway

*eagles12: Not one scientific fact supports evolution... *



Dr Benway *You cannot have examined every "scientific fact." You are, therefore, lying.*

-------
Ah, but be fair Dr. Benway, s/he is lying for Jesus;)

78. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170100 by alan baylis on April 27, 2008 at 11:28 am

31. Comment #170076 by Lela Nasreddin
(Wow, major props to Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy for saying this kind of thing in Pakistan!)


My thoughts exactly.


I think this is a very good little essay, and witty too.


Alan.

79. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168679 by alan baylis on April 25, 2008 at 9:29 am

Not much of an advert for religiousity was he?


Alan.

80. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168557 by alan baylis on April 25, 2008 at 7:50 am

For the sake of the hard of understanding,at least in internet matters;
if we troll them, do we have to do it once,or to all of their posts?

Regards,
Alan.

81. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168410 by alan baylis on April 25, 2008 at 6:07 am

Does anyone else get the impression that remnant has a team working on these posts with him?
It matters not one jot if he has, it's his privilege and good luck to him.
Just wondering.

He'll probably reply he doesn't need a team to out-debate us lot!

But this will be just wishful thinking by him, to match that which characterizes every post he's made here so far.

Regards,
Alan.

82. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168394 by alan baylis on April 25, 2008 at 5:37 am

4026. Comment #168357 by Remnant
Is this your "known fact". So when did you realize that you were omniscient?



Obviously, they wouldn't be known facts to closed minds such as yours.

You seem like a professional preacher. Are you?

Regards,
Alan.

83. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168350 by alan baylis on April 25, 2008 at 4:30 am

3892. Comment #168118 by Remnant
you, "So did you let her read things like "The pebble in my pocket: A history of our Earth" by Meredith Hooper, "The human body: How we evolved" by Joanna Cole, "Sophie's World" by Jostein Gaarder or any of the "Harry Potter" books?"

I do not restrict my children reading list nor do I force them to read my suggestions. My children have literary freedom.

3902. Comment #168133 by Remnant
Thank you. I encourage my children to explore all sides of any issue be it scientific, political, historical, or faith related and come to their own conclusion. In debates with them, I encourage them to not take my, or anyone else's, word or beliefs as true. I encourage them to search for the truth and come to their own decision. I truly believe that this is one of the best ways for them to be able to develop their reasoning and critical thinking skills.

We debate issues frequently when we go for walks and it is a blessing to watch them grow in the ability to reason, think critically, and defend their beliefs and positions based on research
they have done.
----------------------



I'm sorry, but what you are claiming here does not ring true to me.

I t does not fit with your constant hectoring and warnings of eternal damnation to non-believers. Not to mention the constant stream of biblical quotations you give at every possible opportunity as if there was nothing more important in life.

There is also your attitude towards the teaching of proper evolutionary science, the underlying principles of which are now known facts; this also militates against what you claim in these two posts.

As one who only received a bare minimum of it when young, the education of children means a lot me, including teaching about religions.

I am not happy for having to doubt you veracity on these matters but I am forced to by the strong impression you have given off in you many comments here.


Regards,
Alan.

84. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #168304 by alan baylis on April 25, 2008 at 1:27 am

1205. Comment #168228 by Quine

Quine,

On reading this comment a chill ran down my spine. It occurred to me that what you are describing is exactly the same process that was used to propagate anti-Semitism down the ages.

In the excellent article that you linked, Paul Abrams reiterates that the standard of science teaching in the USA is falling. In this increasingly competitive world this cannot be good.

If I can borrow from Jon Stewart in addressing Stein, TTID, remnant, et al;

Guys, stop hurting America.


Regards,
Alan.

85. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #164386 by alan baylis on April 20, 2008 at 7:11 am

It is easy to see why ASMarques is trying to belittle Shermer. Michael Shermer wrote an excellent book titled "Why people believe weird things". There is a long section in this debunking holocaust denial.

Regards.
Alan.

86. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164280 by alan baylis on April 20, 2008 at 1:09 am

Logged in this morning and found these gems from remnant.


*(wait till you face the truth face to face. There's no turning back then. The high priests of your religion won't be able to help either

Jesus, Mat 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

I shared the Gospel with you, now your blood is on your own hands.)*



I think I much prefer Wooter aka Clearmind. He makes as much sense as remnant and I can't remember him ranting about us being punished for eternity.

The most he wished on us was a place in his imaginary home for incurable realists.:-)

Regards,
Alan.

87. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164127 by alan baylis on April 19, 2008 at 3:21 pm

164119 quetzacoatl

good one.

But IMHO the first one (164080)looks dumber AND Defeated. :-)

regards
Alan.

88. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164112 by alan baylis on April 19, 2008 at 2:51 pm

164104 Quetzacoatl

closer

regards,
Alan.

89. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164102 by alan baylis on April 19, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Quetzacoatl 164099




perhaps something a tad more neo-nazi,

regards,
Alan.

90. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164098 by alan baylis on April 19, 2008 at 2:08 pm

164086 Quetzacoatl

you'll feel wooters wrath if you do!
you know just how biting his satyrical wit can be! :-)

now sort out something suitable for ASMarques.

regards,
Alan.

91. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164072 by alan baylis on April 19, 2008 at 1:33 pm

2662. Comment #164048 by Remnant



*That being said, why are you now arguing against something that would be beneficial under natural selection? *

Not necessarily.

Regards,
Alan,

92. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163916 by alan baylis on April 19, 2008 at 9:23 am

2546. Comment #163825 by Remnant
Remnant,
Speaking about the emperors new clothes, have a read of this.
Composed by P.Z. Myers.

call it the Courtier's Reply. It refers to the aftermath of a fable.
I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed â€" how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry â€" but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.

Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.
------------------------


With the emperor being religion and ID/creationism, RD seems destined to spend half his life doing this.

Regards,
Alan.


PS, they aren't the only ones who can cut and paste!

93. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163261 by alan baylis on April 18, 2008 at 5:35 am

2256. Comment #163140 by irate_atheist

*But, to be fair, sustained delusions can lead to serious mental illness. (wooter?)*




and if you add racial hatred into the mix you get ASMarques et al.

Regards,
Alan.

94. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161992 by alan baylis on April 16, 2008 at 1:34 am

It seems what is taking place here, is probably an organized troll by the expelled camp.
Their level of everyday scientific knowledge and their ability to argue for it is dismally low.
This is nowhere more apparent than in their strange idea that, we who accept the ToE, should, by implication, also advocate running society on Darwinian principles.

Firstly, evolution by a process of natural selection is a scientific fact, in exactly the same way as H2 O.

ToE describes the way this process of nature actually works. In doing this, it is absolutely pitiless. More aptly, it is completely indifferent; it is just a mindless algorithmic process.
(There are many learned people here who can fill in the details.)

Only a complete madman would ever think of running human society on the principles of Darwinism! No one who understands the implications of the theory properly would ever do so.

Regards,
Alan.

95. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161512 by alan baylis on April 15, 2008 at 11:02 am

Strength,

We have been having this slimy holocaust denier posting on another thread.
Here;

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2443,Richard-Dawkins-on-The-Big-Questions,BBC .

You should have joined in and given him, what you are attempting to give the people here.

But never mind, the people here, have handed him his @ss on a plate anyway!

96. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160852 by alan baylis on April 14, 2008 at 1:30 pm

As a layman who has a passion for natural history and a deep curiosity about how things came to be the way they are, I have been drawn to this site.

Observing the debate on this thread I have been amazed by the lack of knowledge displayed by many of the theists that are commenting here.

For goodness sake! Read more! In this age there is more access to information, knowledge and education than our forebears could ever have dreamed of!

The bible is NOT a biology book. Or even a very good treatise on ethics, from what I can tell.

Regards,
Alan.

97. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160769 by alan baylis on April 14, 2008 at 11:28 am

1371. Comment #160614 by Quetzalcoatl

*Has anyone noticed that we've been getting a lot of trolls on the site recently? I wonder what the cause is.*




It's this article; particularly the title. The truth contained in it is hurting them.

98. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160023 by alan baylis on April 13, 2008 at 2:27 pm

1138. Comment #159959 by Kardashovel




I often look in on "Atheism sucks" because there are some quite brilliant atheist debaters doing valiant service there.

The trouble is the theists there are often so long winded! They never use one word when six will do. Consequently, I find my eyes glazing over and skipping half of what they post! Of cause, I admit to strong atheist bias in this.

Also, what they say is often somewhat same old same old, IMO. Although in general they are very polite and seem to welcome any honest debaters.


Regards,
Alan.

99. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159876 by alan baylis on April 13, 2008 at 10:00 am

As an outsider who has read many of his posts, this Robertson character seems to me like some strange antithesis of what St. Francis was supposed be like. I wonder if he actually does imagine that he is fighting the devil here? Or does it just get up his nose that there are so many here he could never hope to intellectually dominate.

This site is an attractive place for people like this because of the thousands they know who are looking in. They should be aware though that this is very much a two-edged sword.
On another thread a very creepy holocaust denier has been posting, obviously trying to take advantage of the same large audience to disseminate his poison. The people here are giving him short shrift as well!

Rev. Robertson, I would not try to make too much of the spat between Jon and Styrer. This often happens between strong-minded and passionate people.

Regards,
Alan.

100. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159817 by alan baylis on April 13, 2008 at 7:45 am

there you are!

Speak of the devil and he is sure to appear.

My old mum was right,then.