951. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12111 by Yorker on December 10, 2006 at 4:03 pm

5. Comment #12107 by Jack Rawlinson

Jack,

A couple of years ago, I returned home after living and working in the US, after only a few weeks I had the same thoughts, what the hell has happened to my country?

At least a part of it is so-called 'diversity', politicians will pander to any group who can be conned into voting for them, including fanatical religites. That's why they tout diversity, but we now have diversity gone mad. I see almost nothing that's improved in the UK; out of control greed, badly educated undisciplined young people, 85% of TV programs designed to insult people's intelligence, a leader that allows himself to be bullied by an internationally dangerous idiot...the list goes on.

We are in a bad way my friend.

952. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12079 by Yorker on December 10, 2006 at 8:16 am

Log-in Timeout

Has anyone else noticed that if you log-in and don't post for a time, when you do post, the comment gets dumped and you're auto logged-out?

Perhaps this is an intentionally programmed characteristic of course.

953. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12076 by Yorker on December 10, 2006 at 8:02 am

39. Comment #12064 by ei muista

>>I know people who are christian and 1) whose conception of god is not a dude on a cloud and 2) who know the bible is just an old book.<<

So do I, but they are the minority, certainly in the USA.

A colleague and I, once carried out our own personal survey in a large South Florida mall. We asked passers-by two questions:

1. Are you a Christian?
2. Why do you believe in God?

We spent an entire Saturday asking 167 people these questions, I know that figure isn't large enough to be statistically significant, but is nonetheless instructive; we found the following:

91% Professed Christianity.
51% of Christians believed because of the Bible.
39% of Christians believed because of upbringing.
10% of Christians believed because of thought.

The most common replies we heard were "Read your Bible man, it's all in there" and, "I was raised that way". The small percentage of thinkers gave reasons like; the beauty and diversity of nature, the Sun, Moon and stars, influence of religious intellectuals.

The unspoken body language and looks we received were very revealing, many looked at us as if we were slightly nuts, a look that said: "Why would you NOT believe in God or the Bible?"

954. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12069 by Yorker on December 10, 2006 at 7:04 am

Well, the last few posts have certainly been made by people who read first, and I commend you on it. Not only that, but the amount of forethought applied has shown a sharp and welcome increase.

I'm still not in favour of a special 'no idiots allowed thread', but if site management agrees, then those who want it may get their wish. Evidently some additional password control would be needed to prevent 'undesirables' disrupting the special thread which of course, would be like a magnet to them.

Has anyone approached Josh or RD about this? As I said before, I await the outcome with interest.

955. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12048 by Yorker on December 9, 2006 at 3:46 pm

33. Comment #12041 by Heatnzl

>>A Gullibility Test would be good. Fail it and your posts are marked with a symbol to indicate you are an idiot and are to be ignored.

Nothing elitist about that.<<


Hmm...are you sure??

956. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12047 by Yorker on December 9, 2006 at 3:42 pm

32. Comment #12038 by BillySands

Billy,

That was my point about reading before posting, if people did that they would see how theists are non-rational. If you look at past threads you'll see I've had some input in the Robertson fracas, but I try to be economical, I hate to parrot the writings of others. In addition, I'm under no illusion that I or anyone else here can say anything that will change his mind, he is TFG (Too Far Gone) or BER (Beyond Economical Repair), like any theist who comes here to challenge; he is impervious to reason.

If our aim is persuasion of the unsure, the job is already done, all the main arguments have tabled and discussed to the point of boredom; we could all stop posting right now and it would not in any way be detrimental to an unsure visitor. If the aim is to piss theists off, then carrying on in the current vein though boring, will work; however, I think the number of converts will be zero.

As a matter of interest, when this site started, I made a comment defending Jonathon Miller against a statement made about him. We got our wrists slapped by Josh for not staying in-thread, well, look at the place now, completely out of control! This site seems to have 2 forums, the original and this one which has become the free-for-all forum! What will Josh do, delete all these posts and ban everyone, or just delete this one and yours for being out of thread? I think not, at least not without being forced in the interest of fairness, to delete many others, no; he'll let it slide.

957. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12031 by Yorker on December 9, 2006 at 12:32 pm

28. Comment #12015 by Logicel

>>If there are any budding-to-be deconverted posters and readers, then the lure of an advanced discussion thread could be the motivation for such posters to tow the rational discussion line enough to qualify for this special thread<<

My fellow non-believer, I cannot agree with you on this point. It would look elitist to many, but worse yet, it would be divisive, and the last thing we need is division. If rationality is to eventually defeat the forces of ignorance and superstition, then we must unite. We see the sheep-like characteristic of the religious as a weakness and I think it is, but it is perhaps also the main reason for their continued presence; there is always strength in numbers, even when the numerous are wrong.

However, perhaps there are some here who would partake in such a thread but I would not, I see no need for 'advanced discussion', the issue is simple. Any would-be atheist or even just an inquisitive person, can read the material here and make up their own mind, they should not require lengthy coaching. The advice I would give them is to read before posting, that's the biggest problem here. It will be interesting to see how your idea turns out; perhaps you might call for a poll or something.

I await the outcome with interest.

958. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #11999 by Yorker on December 9, 2006 at 5:23 am

21. Comment #11996 by Aussie

Hi Aussie,

I understand your reasons and on principle, I like your suggestion. It would mean however, that someone would have to do the 'selecting' which would raise justifiable cries of 'elitism' from many. I think the best we can hope for is that the example of some may convince others that circular discussion is of little value.

There are clearly a few people coming here who are driven by understandable youthful impetuosity. It's understandable because they have probably felt downtrodden by the boots of religion for a long time. This site; created and fronted by a distinguished professor who is likely a hero to many, has given them a place to unite and a measure of freedom.

We need to encourage them; remind them that our position is the strongest and does not require anger as a support, we have the trump card. All of us — including fundies — live our day to day lives based on evidence, those who didn't, would live short lives. The simple fact that those making claims must provide evidence is all we need. Claiming the existence of an all-powerful god is as Sagan said, an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence; so far, none has been provided. If it ever were, atheism amongst intelligent people would be replaced by a million questions as to why God's ways are not mysterious, just absolutely insane.

959. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #11998 by Yorker on December 9, 2006 at 4:18 am

19. Comment #11989 by goddogit

Yes, I've been 'preaching' DNA (Do Not Address) crazed godites on this site for some time. It's pointless; debate not based upon the willingness of parties to accept that they may be wrong, is not debate, it's a waste of disk space and effort. I won't debate a fundie unless they agree up front the possibility that their belief is erroneous, I accept such a condition, but they never do, so I don't directly address them.

I see nothing wrong in talking about them of course, open discussion of their psyche, could lead do a better understanding of how they are able to discard their brain when discussing religion.

The Time Magazine debate between Dawkins and Collins is a good example of how even good scientists like Francis Collins, resort to using the silly 'God is outside space and time' cop-out. Something weird goes on in the mind of such individuals.

960. A man who believes in Darwin as fervently as he hates God

Comment #11936 by Yorker on December 8, 2006 at 9:52 am

To all who are against Faith Schools.

The Liddle/Vardy program reminded me never to buy a car from any Vardy dealership. I suggest that you all consider boycotting Vardy, every little thing we do to show our displeasure, helps.

H'mm, I just thought...how about a car bumper sticker that reads: "A Vardy car? No way!"

961. A man who believes in Darwin as fervently as he hates God

Comment #11935 by Yorker on December 8, 2006 at 9:39 am

32. Comment #11927 by beebhack

I saw that Vardy documentary, it started off well but Liddle's 'attack' went somewhat limp, especially aginst the so-called director of science, I think his name is McQuoid -- the guy who said he had no problem with a 6 Kyr old Earth. I wouldn't let this person direct the education of a slug, nevermind a human being.

I found the classroom scene most distasteful; each pupil isolated in a little bible-dominated cubicle that prevented even eye-contact with the other kids. Luckily my children are grown up, but I feel sorry for parents who have to send their's to such a place because there's no alternative. I couldn't tolerate that, I'd be compelled to make an example of myself by breaking the law and keeping my kids at home.

It seemed like Liddle chickened out, it could've been a much more powerful and entertaining (good TV) program; I actually wanted to jump in, cast Liddle aside, and tackle the fundies myself.

962. Ministers to ban creationist teaching aids in science lessons

Comment #11895 by Yorker on December 8, 2006 at 4:14 am

2. Comment #11788 by aoratos philos

>>I wonder what the governments position would be if this country was full of Christian Fundie's?<<

They would pander to them, as politicians always do.

That's why getting god-deluded young people registered to vote, is uppermost in the minds of American fundie leaders like Roberston and Falwell.

963. Ministers to ban creationist teaching aids in science lessons

Comment #11892 by Yorker on December 8, 2006 at 3:59 am

10. Comment #11823 by Jared

Jared, we are a mirror image, you're an American living in the UK, I'm British and lived in the USA!

What we have here is a political situation similar to the USA, basically a non-democratic, one-party system where the GOP and Dems, like Labour and Cons, are just two factions of the same big-business driven outfit. Indeed, New Labour could be more appropriately called, Old Conservatives!

You experience here may be short, but you have a good handle on things. The Lib Dems still have a long way to go unfortunately.

964. A man who believes in Darwin as fervently as he hates God

Comment #11889 by Yorker on December 8, 2006 at 3:42 am

25. Comment #11886 by CreatedAnAthiestByGod

>>I sincerely hope that the Channel 4 programme's editor does a lot better.<<

I wouldn't bet on it. In previous TV shows, Liddle has come across as an airy-fairy, woo-woo character who's clearly impressed by mysticism. This crappy review is no surprise to me.

965. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11712 by Yorker on December 6, 2006 at 7:06 pm

Good links Derwent.

I see he got banned from the IIDB board for attempting to possess people's souls using authority he received directly from God! The other links show his propensity for slavering the same stuff over and over with predictable feedback results; he doesn't seem to see that all people are treating him the way we treat him here! A normal person would by this stage, at least be considering the possibility that the error is his, and not the legions that are against him.

I feel a little sorry for him, but must stick to my original diagnosis — some kind of mental illness, I see someone else has mentioned "men in white coats" to him.

I've long been amazed that some intelligent people seem able to compartmentalize their brains so that nonsense can be accommodated, like Dawkins, I don't really understand it. Cases like Francis Collins or Kurt Wise the geologist mentioned in TGD, seem incredible to me; if we could get a sound handle on what goes on in such a brain, it may lead to good things. Until then, it just goes to show that intelligence is no guarantee against being wrong.

Now, I wonder if FSW will have the magnanimity to offer an apology for his ill-chosen first post.

966. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11703 by Yorker on December 6, 2006 at 4:26 pm

103. Comment #11702 by Jared

Funnily enough Jared, I took you at your word and have just returned from Googling, I agree that this is almost certainly the same guy. There seems to be a nest of humanity-hating, christian-hating, atheist-hating godites in Florida. I lived in that state for ten years and came across a few of them. Remarkably, the phrases he trots out are identical to that used by Shirley Roper, the mouthpiece of Westboro Baptist Church.

For those who don't know, these evil bastards are the ones who picketed the funerals of dead American soldiers waving placards that read: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers", "God Hates America", "God Is Your Enemy" and other unspeakable garbage.

Perhaps Mathews is trying to start a branch in Pinellas Park.

If he did start a forum, we would recognise it; this is one leopard who can't change his spots.

967. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11694 by Yorker on December 6, 2006 at 3:10 pm

Aha, I see sense and some self-control beginning to raise its noble head, keep it up my fellows.

By all means lets discuss amongst ourselves the problems of the misanthrope, we may be able to arrive at a diagnosis that will enable us to better understand this breed and perhaps even help them. If ignored, this particular creature must eventually be forced to the realisation of his folly.

Perhaps he will start his own forum, where he is moderator-in-chief. He could invent a whole army of non-existent fake posters who reply with shining-eyed rapture to the pronouncements of Divine David, The Chosen One.

968. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11669 by Yorker on December 6, 2006 at 12:41 pm

For FSW

I forgot to mention. Mathews isn't the only theist here, others show up from time to time but in every single case I've seen so far, not one has been prepared to admit that they just might be wrong. One can't debate dogmatic people who have no argument other than just "knowing" they're right.

969. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11665 by Yorker on December 6, 2006 at 12:20 pm

83. Comment #11663 by FSW

You seem to be one of the majority who talk without reading, Mathews has a history that you're either unaware of, or are wilfully ignoring. Either way, you've set off on the wrong foot.

There's a reason I talk about him rather than to him, I'm one of the few who realise the futility of addressing a person unwilling to engage in, or who is ignorant of, the principles of reasoned debate. Personally, I can't think why a newcomer would make a controversial first post without doing some prior homework.

970. The delusion of Christianity: Fairy tales that changed the world

Comment #11662 by Yorker on December 6, 2006 at 11:45 am

82. Comment #11655 by NoLongerBelieve

Glad you liked "The Wholly Babble", unfortunately I can't claim originality, I saw it a few years ago but can't remember where, it's a nice one to use now and again though.

971. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11659 by Yorker on December 6, 2006 at 11:22 am

62. Comment #11615 by StephenH

Don't you dare suggest our Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist! Good God man! You'll be telling us next that the loch is less than 12K years old and pleisasaurs died out millions of years ago!

How are we canny Scots going to continue fleecing tourists if you put notions like that in their heads?

972. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11651 by Yorker on December 6, 2006 at 9:43 am

In one of his blethers, Mathews bleats about parental rights over children.

In the USA, a child can be legally killed by its parents, all they have to do is invoke their "Gawd", and they're off the hook.

The state of Ohio has a law that says the religious beliefs of parents exempts them from criminal charges if a child dies of an illness because no medical help was sought. A total of forty states have laws exempting religious delusionists from prosecution.

Over a hundred years ago, a fanatic named Mary Baker Eddy, invented a religion she called Christian Science, its main tenet is that illness doesn't exist, it's merely an illusion easily corrected by being moral and praying to God.

Over the past thirty years many children have died at the hands of their parents who refused them medical attention. In the 90's, studies showed that the sick children of CS followers were 70 times more likely to die than sick kids of normal people. Many doctors have testified that the lives of children suffering from easily treatable conditions would have been saved, had treatment been sought in time. In one harrowing case, neighbours reported hearing a child screaming in agony for more than 24 hours before one of them called the police, by the time the child reached hospital, it was too late. The praying parents and a bunch of their evil brethren who were "helping" them, escaped prosecution.

Keep in mind this is not Afghanistan; it is modern day America, and not an isolated incident.

The crazed CS delusionist creatures are a perfect example of the evil and utter stupidity of religious fanatics who deny the existence of disease. It would surprise me not a bit if Mathews was a CS member, he certainly talks like one.

Amazingly, these murderers think they're better than us sane people! Does anyone know of an atheist parent who allowed their child to die for want of (scientifically derived) medical treatment?

973. Intelligent Design: The Clincher. A butterfly explodes the theory

Comment #11645 by Yorker on December 6, 2006 at 7:51 am

18. Comment #11550 by Martha

That was a lot of writing for zero feedback Martha, I hope you just copied and pasted it. I found it humorous so you didn't waste your time. More talkers than listeners frequent this place, I think.

974. Intelligent Design: The Clincher. A butterfly explodes the theory

Comment #11643 by Yorker on December 6, 2006 at 7:30 am

25. Comment #11619 by PrimoTurbo

>>Also doesn't DNA & RNA pretty much conclude that ID doesn't exist. Why is there a need to argue or prove anything, there is already an enormous amount of evidence.<<

Indeed so. I'm reminded of a short talk given by Jim Watson a few years ago, where he stated that evolution could now be seen at DNA level because of fossil genes. However, there are still some people with apparent biological knowledge who think the silly ID idea needs combatting. I hope they're not doing it just for the sake of it.

975. Intelligent Design: The Clincher. A butterfly explodes the theory

Comment #11639 by Yorker on December 6, 2006 at 7:21 am

26. Comment #11621 by Hyrax

Thanks Hyrax,

You evidently know more biology than I do, that's why I said it was "only a nail" in the first post on this topic.

But tell me, are you a rock hyrax or an opera one?

976. The delusion of Christianity: Fairy tales that changed the world

Comment #11637 by Yorker on December 6, 2006 at 7:10 am

39. Comment #11346 by Anonymous Former Poster

>>Aw, boy. Everyone's favorite troll, the incomparable David Mathews, is back...And yet, we all (myself included) continue to feed him. Well, no more for me.<<

Not true, soon after his appearance I saw what he was and have not fed him since -- and never will.

977. The delusion of Christianity: Fairy tales that changed the world

Comment #11601 by Yorker on December 5, 2006 at 10:32 pm

Thanks to all of you for my daily laugh. This place is becoming funnier than that religious guide book, what's its name...ah yes:

The Wholly Babble

978. Intelligent Design: The Clincher. A butterfly explodes the theory

Comment #11598 by Yorker on December 5, 2006 at 10:14 pm

20. Comment #11569 by adlards

Ha,Ha!

Yes, a pathetic English performance, they should've had me playing for them...well at least the "me" of 30 years ago!

979. Intelligent Design: The Clincher. A butterfly explodes the theory

Comment #11460 by Yorker on December 4, 2006 at 7:53 pm

I'm Scottish, but England's collapse in the second test is keeping me awake. Completely off-topic I know, but I just want to offer my sympathy to English cricket supporters here.

980. Intelligent Design: The Clincher. A butterfly explodes the theory

Comment #11457 by Yorker on December 4, 2006 at 7:50 pm

A good article and very interesting even for a non-biologist like myself.

Another nail in the ID coffin, but I fear a few more will be needed before burial or cremation can commence.

981. The delusion of Christianity: Fairy tales that changed the world

Comment #11443 by Yorker on December 4, 2006 at 4:11 pm

57. Comment #11441 by Jared

Nice one Jared.

...or my favourite:

"God always answers prayers, but sometimes the answer is No"

982. The delusion of Christianity: Fairy tales that changed the world

Comment #11439 by Yorker on December 4, 2006 at 3:54 pm

54. Comment #11437 by Derwent

>>Has anyone seen any attempted counterarguments to the "God won't heal amputees" position? I'd be interested to see how creative the apologists are in their responses...<<

I haven't seen any Derwent, but I'd bet a few howlers might pop up.

983. The delusion of Christianity: Fairy tales that changed the world

Comment #11438 by Yorker on December 4, 2006 at 3:50 pm

52. Comment #11431 by Ri chard Dawkins

Another bilious baby getting some Jesus-induced mastubatory fantasy by pretending to be RD. I have added you to my DNA (Do Not Address) list, I may talk about you, but never to you.

984. The delusion of Christianity: Fairy tales that changed the world

Comment #11436 by Yorker on December 4, 2006 at 3:37 pm

44. Comment #11352 by John Daigle

Hello John,

I'm glad to see you adopted the technique we agreed upon during our last meesting with Matthews the Misanthrope.

To the rest of you,

We decided talking about trolls is OK but not to them, especially this one, he is a one-way drivel-spouter, able to talk but unable to listen to reason. His sole pathetic purpose is puerile goading of those foolish enough to engage him, he's apparently a severe case of Viritis Godus, talking to him just inflames his condition, best to let him spew forth at no-one in particular.

985. Richard Dawkins: You Ask The Questions Special

Comment #11340 by Yorker on December 4, 2006 at 8:15 am

25. Comment #11337 by Anonymous

I guess you're really mdowe.

Yes, I suspected you were joking but since you mention it still, I would amiably disagree again. Such a device would probably set an internet precedent and would certainly appear elitist, adding fuel to the arguments of those against us.

986. Richard Dawkins: You Ask The Questions Special

Comment #11339 by Yorker on December 4, 2006 at 8:06 am

19. Comment #11310 by Nobody

The idea of an atheism FAQ is something I mentioned on another thread a short while ago. Perhaps a title like "New Visitors Read This" prominently displayed would beneficial.

Of course, it should be RD who makes this decision and determines the document's content, so, what do you say Richard, worthwhile?

987. Richard Dawkins: You Ask The Questions Special

Comment #11330 by Yorker on December 4, 2006 at 7:40 am

21. Comment #11317 by mdowe

I disagree mdowe, people who are simply ignorant should not be excluded, they may also be inquisitive.

988. The godless guru

Comment #11167 by Yorker on December 3, 2006 at 12:58 pm

9. Comment #11153 by miso horny

>>They misspelled "the".<<

So dey thid! May phasblemers and spismellers of teh Inglish langwage hurn in bell for all enertity! Let us sake mure we mon't dake the mame sistake ourselfs when caking momments hear!

Awomen.

989. Atheists Agonistes

Comment #11031 by Yorker on December 2, 2006 at 7:50 pm

159. Comment #11000 by Alec

Well Alec, you have every right to speak your mind, but encouraging a misanthropic troll is not good netiquette. In addition, the practice of commenting without reading what has went before, inevitably results in repetition - sensible people have a tendency to think alike.

990. Atheists Agonistes

Comment #11029 by Yorker on December 2, 2006 at 7:36 pm

158. Comment #10991 by Anonymous

>>One could argue that the belief that the universe is the result of a explosion and a series of chance events undermines the possibility of science.<<

Yes, but since science is clearly by far the best tool humankind has developed for understanding the world, the universe and our place in it, such an argument would at best, be wrong.

>>You have to concede surely that the notion that if Newton had existed today he would have been an atheist is purely hypothetical.<<

The notion is yours not mine! I made no such ridiculous claim.

991. Justices to Decide if Citizens May Challenge White House's Religion-Based Initiative

Comment #11013 by Yorker on December 2, 2006 at 4:12 pm

The quicker American citizens dump Bush, the better for us all, but it would be a mistake to think that anyone else will be a big improvement.

Ten years of living in the USA convinced me that it's basically a one-party system, Republicans and Democrats are just different factions of that party, big business drives everything, including politics.

I became aware that America worships two gods; the one in the sky and the green one in your wallet. The green one is the greater.

992. Spectator: Books of the Year

Comment #11012 by Yorker on December 2, 2006 at 4:00 pm

The most positive -- and shortest -- review of TGD I've seen so far!

993. Atheists Agonistes

Comment #10987 by Yorker on December 2, 2006 at 11:12 am

155. Comment #10978 by Anonymous

What you say about Newton, Maxwell et al is true, but *you* fail to mention that in the time of these men, almost everyone was theistic. Religion had such a grip on society that to be otherwise, was not conducive to good health!

Thankfully, we have moved on since then and will continue the struggle to free ouselves of the last vestiges of religious restriction.

994. Justices to Decide if Citizens May Challenge White House's Religion-Based Initiative

Comment #10985 by Yorker on December 2, 2006 at 11:01 am

5. Comment #10981 by J.C. Samuelson

Yes, I know the U.S.A. was founded on polyarchic principles. My point was simply that U.S. and U.K. citizens *think* they live in democracies.

Obviously, even in a true democracy the public couldn't be consulted on every single governmental decision, but on matters of major importance, real democracy might hold a referendum *before" major decisions were passed into legislation.

However, I was glad to see the challenge was allowed in this case although it won't make much difference in the long term.

995. Atheists Agonistes

Comment #10976 by Yorker on December 2, 2006 at 7:08 am

150. Comment #10953 by Alec

Alec, are you one of those people who comment without reading? Some of us here are trying to avoid directly addressing this dolt, why are you trying to encourage the misanthrope? Do you think your words of wisdom will have the effect that many prior comments didn't?

996. Atheists Agonistes

Comment #10975 by Yorker on December 2, 2006 at 6:50 am

152. Comment #10969 by Russ

>>Science is not philosophically opposed to supernatural explanations, it's just that none have ever worked. If someone could demonstrate that supernaturalism has explanatory powers above and beyond those of naturalism, they would, no doubt, be Nobel Prize material.<<

I don't think so Russ, AFAIK, there has never been a Nobel prize for magic!

997. Justices to Decide if Citizens May Challenge White House's Religion-Based Initiative

Comment #10974 by Yorker on December 2, 2006 at 6:41 am

>>As a general matter, people do not have standing, based solely on their status as taxpayers, to challenge the expenditure of federal money.<<

A good example of how the USA (like the UK) is not democratic. In a true democracy, the people would have the ultimate authority. We've been conned into thinking our countries are democratic, sadly, most of us believe it.

998. Atheists Agonistes

Comment #10916 by Yorker on December 1, 2006 at 12:53 pm

148. Comment #10913 by morgan lamberth

I tend to agree with you, I don't know Miller too well, but your assessment of Ayala seems accurate. I wouldn't rate Matthews in the same league as these two though.

999. Atheists Agonistes

Comment #10880 by Yorker on November 29, 2006 at 3:18 pm

145. Comment #10840 by John Daigle

Yes, I would imagine a guy like him would be of necessity, a loner, I mean...with an attitude like his, how could he possibly have a meaningful relationship with another member of the evil humanity he hates so much. I suppose it's possible there's a mother who loves him, but a wife, children, even just a friend...difficult to imagine unless of course he lies to them.

As you say, a normal person who lives in a house, wears clothes, eats food, uses technology and depends for their very existence upon that given to them by science, would see the stupidity of decrying it so vehemently. It's certainly amazing that some people who evidently have some intelligence, are driven by the god-virus to throw it all away when attempting conversation with healthy persons free of that illness.

1000. Atheists Agonistes

Comment #10804 by Yorker on November 29, 2006 at 9:00 am

141. Comment #10767 by Larry Wineland

>>I understand what you are saying about the Troll feeding, and obviously there is no real value in talking to him here as he comprehends little of what we are saying. However, it is rather entertaining to watch him squirm.<<

I don't seem him squirming. Only a person who has some self esteem can be made to squirm, he has none, he holds humanity in zero regard and has respect for no-one; he is, in a word, a misanthrope. Indeed, one of the worst examples I've ever seen. Like many of his breed, he occasionally makes truthful statements but then screws it all up because he is unable to resist or control the misanthropic devil that drives him and causes him to spout matching drivel. Notice his use of words, many of which like "evil", have religious roots; it seems this person has at some stage in life been traumatised by someone who held the fear of God over him and forced the virus into his mind. The rational side of him is unconsciously rebelling against it but it's too strong, so science gets used as his conscious whipping boy.

Many people here are clearly unable to resist his puerile attempts at goading them, so I suggest the following. Rather than address him directly, let's talk about him amongst ourselves; let's analyse his failings and possible causes; let's see if some positive good arises that he may take to heart and benefit from. He will be unable to resist reading comments about himself – that's his life-blood – so if he spouts we'll know we're having the desired effect.

All it requires is that you MUST avoid him directly, let him talk to himself; if we all play the game and address each other as I address you now, some good fun might be forthcoming! Failure may well encourage him to follow every single thread.