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

Comments by Peacebeuponme


1101. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #99985 by Peacebeuponme on December 18, 2007 at 2:48 am

How insulting to those who mean every word of it?
Diacanu: And insulting?? Grow up.
Yes, I once went to a West Ham game even though I'm a Cardiff City supporter and sang "I'm forever blowing bubbles" and "There's only one Dean Ashton". How insulting that was to the real hammers fans.

1102. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99765 by Peacebeuponme on December 17, 2007 at 1:56 pm

It's like a breath of fresh air having an open-minded believer like you on board!
Would just like to agree with that. I was fairly stunned, but really pleased with
Well, that is fair enough. I am happy to say that I am not sure what is going on. I'll have to keep reading.
That's pretty much where I an. Indeed where we all are, to different degrees, on the workings the universe.

1103. Dawkins: I'm a cultural Christian

Comment #99759 by Peacebeuponme on December 17, 2007 at 1:47 pm

This was covered brilliantly by Stephen Fry on QI on Friday. Converservatives have in in their head that Christmas is under attack from woolly liberal multi-culturalism (the oft cited "Winterval" is a complete over-blowing of a small marketing campaign in Birmingham 9 years ago) when nothing of the sort is happening.

But the Sun and the Daily Mail need their hysterical headlines.

I've got no problem putting a bit of Cliff Richard on and singing along with the family at christmas(though maybe I should for entirely aural reasons).

1104. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99673 by Peacebeuponme on December 17, 2007 at 9:39 am

Being the big softy that I am, I am not sure that 'deluging' is quite the right approach
Probably a little childish. However, it does get boring when I can't remember many theists who have come over here with even a hint of a cogent argument or something that hasn't been dealt with many times before. Then you go to their site and they say "strawman, strawman" when you point out their irrationality and "Dawkins is lightweight", without actually presenting a clear position, or examples of "heavyweight" theists who can refute Dawkins (All the "fleas" have been middlebrow at best).

1105. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #99670 by Peacebeuponme on December 17, 2007 at 9:33 am

The land-rights issue was political, not religious. And anyway, the situation is different in the north.
Yes, because the UN-controlled zone has brought some relief and dignity to my people. Plus they are arranging for constructive dialogue between community leaders and of course there are more jos in the north.

Ban-Ki Moon may point there to defend his strategy, but sadly, its a different story elsewhere

1106. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #99644 by Peacebeuponme on December 17, 2007 at 8:41 am

Wel, that certainly explains the source of your misconceptions. We at the Church of God's Light are not fooled by such incorrect interpretations.
I think I could therefore hazard a guess at your views of the land-rights of those of my brothers who were denied the green fields gifted to them from our Lord during the 1963-70 "War of Light". The occupation cannot go on.

However, I would hope in the sprit of unity we could come together to overcome the bigger evil - the prevalance of ungodly a-lightists, which are among us even as we speak.

Better to believe in some Light religion, than not believe.

1107. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #99633 by Peacebeuponme on December 17, 2007 at 8:20 am

Indeed, by using car headlamps to light our way at night we are both demonstrating our lack of faith as well as blaspheming against the Almighty
It is undoubtedly true that the Godless blaspheme in the face of the Almighty when they have no faith to be guided by our Lord. "The fool shall seek the false comfort of the headlamp", said St Matthew. Would that his words be heeded now. I would maintain though, that the blasphemy comes from the unwillingness to be guided rather than the creation of heretical light.

I thank you, Sir for your concern that I "repent" and save my eternal soul from the fires, but I'm afraid here at the New Church of Light and God, we must find the Lord through the True Path. We will hold no counsel with Light-Deniers who would move us from this path and away from God's will.

1108. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #99618 by Peacebeuponme on December 17, 2007 at 7:40 am

Irate-Atheist

Are you familiar with Paul Tillich's work on the subject? He presents a convincing argument that it was never God's intention to ban all artificial light – indeed, by creating light in the first place he was guiding man towards his own invention (man being created in God's image).

Earlier scholars have often mis-read or mis-translated certain passages such as:

"The light that guides you comes only through I";
"That [artificial] torch illuminates thy sinfulness"; or indeed
"Thou shall not preach by plasmascreen" (some have interpreted this wrongly as referring to all "light-boxes", but recent work by Michael Drosnin suggests a coded message specifically for plasma screens),

as confirming God's hatred of man-made light.

Tillich maintains that God's commands are intended to avert use of light of a certain strength or clarity. God knew that such light would show us too clearly and highlight our sins, from which we would come further corrupted into ever more sin.

Sadly, generations of electricians and lantern-makers were persecuted by fundamentalists backed-up by bad scholarship.

1109. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #99584 by Peacebeuponme on December 17, 2007 at 5:46 am

irate-atheist. I'm afraid you are reading a bad translation. Once again God has shown His prescience in the actual line:

"Thou shall not preach on the plasmascreen, which is sharp of picture."

1110. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99582 by Peacebeuponme on December 17, 2007 at 5:42 am

Steve99 and Briancoughlanworldcitizen

Just went over to the site and saw a few of your posts. Great stuff chaps. It would be good you could organise a time and a chosen theist site, so that a bunch of us could go over there and deluge it for a bit. Even though most of the fun would be winding the theists up, there may be a few who get something positive out of a bit of rationality.

Actually, I'd like to see Josh link a few sites here. That way whenever someone has a bit of time they could visit and get involved. May it could be the "Muddy-thinking stagnant pool" corner?

1111. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #99578 by Peacebeuponme on December 17, 2007 at 5:19 am

OK God, I'll see your Leviticus and raise you two Criminal Justice Bills and a US Patriot Act.
I've just had a revelation. Turns out God's laws include:

(1) Earning money out of a war is a sin
(2) Televangelism is a sin
(3) Imperialism is a sin
(4) Homophobia and sexism are sins
(5) All people have equal rights to palestine
(6) I am to be appointed supreme ruler of the earth with absolute power to promote and police God's laws. I am also personelly exempt from any Law.

I think I'm now holding the best cards.

1112. Creation college seeks state's OK to train teachers

Comment #99568 by Peacebeuponme on December 17, 2007 at 4:38 am

It doesn't help when Evolution gets mischaracterised with shit like this:

evolution – the theory that humans and other species evolved from lower forms of life
Not lower forms of life, other forms of life.

If in the future people with only 3 fingers and one thumb were naturally selected such that all humans were a finger down on us, would they still be able to refer to themselves as "higher beings" notwithstanding any other modifications? I know that's a simplistic example, but hopefully makes the point. What seems to bother creationists most about evolution is the thought that they came from a "lower" being.

1113. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99561 by Peacebeuponme on December 17, 2007 at 3:54 am

The point about there not being a theme park on Holocaust Denial - or perhaps one on the merits of slavery - is because people would NOT stand for it.
Agreed. We wouldn't allow a combat 18 themepark which had a great deal of educational and recreational value, but which also sought to push racism on to children. Creationists teach preposterous stories and are virtually all homophobes, and therefore need to be stopped.

1114. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99550 by Peacebeuponme on December 17, 2007 at 3:28 am

'It will be a halfway house for youngsters,' Jones said. 'Today all they do is binge drink. We will be able to offer them an alternative.'
Comments like this really annoy me. They are so blinkered. If you consider the Sun and the Dail Mail as gospel, then you might think that every under-16 in the country was skipping school and roaming the streets with bottles of cider in hand, but its simply not true. Most children go about their business of growing up without too much fuss and gain some good qualifications along the way.

To suggest that Britain offers no alternative to binge drinking other than Christianity is frankly offensive.

1115. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #99548 by Peacebeuponme on December 17, 2007 at 3:17 am

Wooter

Though it looks for all the world as though you have approached your keyboard in much the same was as Jackson Pollack approaches a canvass, I think I get the sentiment of your post.

I don't think I need to answer, as it has been answered many times before. May I direct you to the "debate points" section of this website, where the specific claims about Mao, Stalin etc are answered, as well as a lot about religious moderates and morality

You may also wish to read God is Not Great for plenty of reasons why we specifically blame religion for many of society's problems.

1116. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98785 by Peacebeuponme on December 14, 2007 at 10:10 am

I can bet you that if he debates an Islamist next, he'll be apologizing for saying he agreed with Ayaan in part. I would be willing to put money down on it. The reason Ayaan kicked his ass was because she couldn't find his balls to kick first - the guy doesn't have any.
Um, well he did actually call Mohammed an illeterate paedophile in the debate, so I'm not sure I entirely agree with that. It would be interesting too see what the next islamist he encounters says about that.

Half the problem with debating with Ayaan is that, once she has given her short life-history at the start, it kind of pulls the rug from under you. I think TGA did ok, and sounded like a fairly sensible guy, though I didn't agree with everything he had to say.

1117. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #97466 by Peacebeuponme on December 12, 2007 at 6:27 am

Dr Benway

A published explanation of atheism with its own Library of Congress number could serve as a useful prop. Imagine: each time we're challenged with "Atheism leads to X" or "Atheists are nihilists," or "Hitler-Stalin-Mao," we can whip out the book, ruffle through the pages, and say, "Nope. I'm not finding what you're saying here."
Ok, you got me chuckling again, and this was the point we've made earlier on. The one problem is that when theists are challenged, they somehow manage to point to their books and do exactly the same: "Jihad is the inner struggle", "There is no Koranic justification for FGM", "Jesus said love your neighbor as yourself". Given the extreme interpretive licence they take, how should we respond to them?

1118. Believe it or not

Comment #97453 by Peacebeuponme on December 12, 2007 at 5:39 am

He has a point about the branding - atheist is a negative definition
No, its not negative. Antitheist is negative.

I gather a large portion of Americans see it as negative, but it isn't a negative definition.

1119. Christopher Hitchens appears on the Hugh Hewitt Radio Show

Comment #97447 by Peacebeuponme on December 12, 2007 at 5:18 am

Always been a bit uneasy with Hitchen's stance on Virginia Tech. He considers it a non-story because it "has no significance beyond itself". On the other hand, September 11 is supposed to be the pinnacle of importance and something to be mourned by all. Apart from sheer numbers of dead, I don't see the difference in how we should deal with them. We look at the causes, whether religion, gun laws or society in general and try to take action to stop recurrences.

As for newsworthiness, I think most Amercians would be glad that such shootings are still rare enough that they are reported.

1120. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96945 by Peacebeuponme on December 11, 2007 at 6:22 am

dbuezas

Actually I'm very happy that I'm circumcised
I'm glad to hear that. It is however, irrelevant to the argument.

From the way you wrote your post, I'm assuming you made the choice to be circumcised (possibly for physiological reasons). No-one is arguing against that.

I'll keep saying it: surgical procedures on infants without the ability to make a free choice, unless out of necessity, are abuse.

1121. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96916 by Peacebeuponme on December 11, 2007 at 5:03 am

naba

Can anyone help me, and think of an example of how one could perform an action 'in the name of atheism?'
This is what I posted before on the debates points page "Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!"
Please, put me out of my misery. Once again. If the Chinese authorities suppress Budddist monks or I get so angry at the stupity of religion that I snap and punch the local vicar in the face, why aren't these atheistic crimes?
Surely they are crimes linked to their religion and your intolerance of their religion and not to an "atheistic worldview"

Atheism says "There is probably no God" and nothing else. If you say "There is probably no God and I should physically assault the local vicar" that is going beyond atheism.

The difference with religious crimes is that the religious books specifically mandate certain outrages - you are not going beyond theism when you carry them out.
As Nighttripper says, there are no examples.

1122. This deadly religious resistance to vaccinations

Comment #96911 by Peacebeuponme on December 11, 2007 at 4:56 am

Once again Johann Hari writes sensibly on an important topic. I always enjoy his articles in the Indie.

1123. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96840 by Peacebeuponme on December 11, 2007 at 2:07 am

I got as far as

atheistic ideology
As lots of you have said, there is no such thing. No need to waste time on the rest of it if that is level of his thinking.

1124. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96275 by Peacebeuponme on December 10, 2007 at 9:14 am

pyota

I just don't understand why you are being so precious. If you don't want to debate, don't bother, but if you put an argument up on a website, people will respond. I put my side and am interested to hear others. The great thing is the amount of learning that can sometimes result.

Its disappointing that you cannot carry on the debate in a sensible fashion. I mean

whatever. as you can see, the use of the internet as a communication tool has been utterly lost here
what do you mean by that? That people disagree with you? Because if you did not like Theocrapy's mode of argument, you can always sidestep it and respond to others.

You haven't even attempted an argument in your last three posts, you've just complained, which leads me to believe you care a bit more than you make out. I guess the proof will be your lack of response to this.

Ultimately it looks like you've run out of arguments, but if there are good ones that oppose mine or lobdog's points, I would be genuinely interested in hearing them.

1125. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96257 by Peacebeuponme on December 10, 2007 at 8:42 am

pyota

Nothing like a poster bowing out of the argument with a nice bit of ad hominem and trying to take the higher ground. What is it with the internet and folk getting as rattled as you have (while obviously trying to sound like you are above all this chat)?

Your example of someone who suffers from any one of your list of afflictions (and obviously I wouldn't go up and "try telling that" to them, in the same way that I wouldn't go up to someone with no legs and say "well most people can walk you know") does nothing to invalidate my argument. Statistics please. I would suggest that the unfortunates are in the extreme minority. They have my sympathy, but I don't wish to give them my child's foreskin.

1126. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96251 by Peacebeuponme on December 10, 2007 at 8:30 am

Lobdog - exactly.

1127. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96248 by Peacebeuponme on December 10, 2007 at 8:27 am

so by your logic, any medical treatment of infants is abuse because it cannot choose. please, give us all a break.
Its abuse if done without good reason (in which case I wouldn't call it "medical"). The millions and millions of men who life heathly lives with foreskins are testament that there is no good reason for a circumcision. Not having a one does not have serious medical cosequences in the way that say, a necessary heart operation has. So even if there are medical benefits, we should wait until the child is able to make the decision himself - we should not hack away unless we really need to.

Your cavity analogy does not work because they are not part of your body, but a defect that arises from your interaction with the environment. You would remove a boil or, more seriously a tumor, in the same way.

1128. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96243 by Peacebeuponme on December 10, 2007 at 8:17 am

What about all the christian signs proclaiming that we are lost unless we find jesus? Are they attacking me as an atheist?

Fucking double standards from these blockheads.

1129. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96240 by Peacebeuponme on December 10, 2007 at 8:13 am

pyota

why .. because i'm the only one here not proclaiming how much i love my foreskin?
What a facetious thing to say. How much do you love your earlobe, or your septum? Should we allow a knife to be taken to those?

It's not the point whether or not it really matters whether you have a foreskin or not, just whether or not you are able to decide what happens to your body.

1130. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96238 by Peacebeuponme on December 10, 2007 at 8:06 am

pyota

male circumcision is a health operation with about as much 'trauma' as getting a tooth cavity filled. the health benefits are well attested to by the medical community. the fact that jews practice it as a religious ritual has nothing to do with its practice in the secular world.
As Jack Rawlinson says, red herring. If there are health benefits and you make an informed choice to have it done, then fine. Peforming the procedure on an infant who cannot choose is abuse.

The analogy with the tooth cavity is false, because without the procedure the child would lose teeth. I mean, if it was a choice of get it cut or it will drop off before you get to 5, then we would all get it done with our kids, but any upside is clearly nothing like that extreme.

1131. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96147 by Peacebeuponme on December 10, 2007 at 4:10 am

TskidC

I find it amusing that discussion of the penis has created such a huge response compared to some of the other topics on this site.
This is only the 52nd post. Other topics have run into the thousands. I don't think its that unusual to have a flurry of posts when an article is first put up.

You think there would be a lower response rate if we were talking about a finger, or an ear?

1132. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96139 by Peacebeuponme on December 10, 2007 at 3:50 am

Spinoza

I probably won't circumcise my kid(s)...
I really hope you reconsider the word probably. Surgical procedures on infants too young to decide for themselves should be on the basis of necessity.

Diacanu
Well, I'm snipped, and I gotta deal with the cards I was dealt.
*Shrug*
Of course. In adult life it shouldn't be a big deal either way. I don't think anyone should be suggesting that circumsised males should be treated differently, or indeed that there are any significant lasting psychological or physical effects (in the absence of evidence to the contrary). That's not the point. It's all about the right to choose for yourself. If I had a kid and decided I didn't like its earlobes, I doubt I would be able to find a surgeon willing to remove them for me.

1133. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96136 by Peacebeuponme on December 10, 2007 at 3:36 am

Considering the sheer size of the universe, that could be incredibly small and still occur frequently. We normally aren't used to dealing with probabilities of billions or trillions to 1, but even those would mean that complex intelligent life occurred many, many times in the universe.
Yes, indeed. And the thrust of Dawkins argument about the "ultimate 747" is that God must necessarily be more improbable than anything he has created. I was just surprised he (Dawkins, not God) chose to say 1%, unless he thought his audience was mentally incapable of imagining lower probabilities.

1134. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96097 by Peacebeuponme on December 10, 2007 at 1:44 am

Am I hearing right? Did I just hear Professor Dawkins estimate the probability of the existence of God as "Very, very low. Say 1% or something. Or something less than 1%."?

Maybe it was just a slip of the tongue, but 1% seems a massive figure to choose.

1135. Springer opera court fight fails

Comment #94658 by Peacebeuponme on December 6, 2007 at 7:16 am

he described as a "carte blanche to blaspheme".
That's the point you stupid cunt. Its called freedom of speech.

It just makes me rage that people can think like that.

Very happy to see that we have some sensible laws overriding the archaic blasphemy laws.

1136. Bad Faith Awards: Vote for the winner now

Comment #94655 by Peacebeuponme on December 6, 2007 at 7:08 am

d'Souza should get it, because he is supposedly coming from the moderate, thinking side. The Virginia Tech statement was awful and a great example of theist thinking.

I wish people would stop talking about the Phelps crowd. They are just crazy and not the people we need to be counter-acting. They don't need more publicity. It's lazy, sensationalist journalism, sticking them on the box to point at, incredulous and outraged, which is why Fox get them on from time to time.

1137. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #91292 by Peacebeuponme on November 28, 2007 at 1:35 am

Keith

Actually you have made me think over the issue and make sure I have it clear in my mind.

For me there is a big difference between an atheist bricking a church because he "don't like them facking Chistians" and a Christian bricking the house of a doctor who performs abortions because "God fashioned us in the womb (Job 31:15)".

There is nothing the atheist can point to to justify his actions (atheism has no authoritative texts), and the church vicar cannot go to the National Secular Society or AAI and complain that their teachings are causing violence (atheism does not teach anything). On the other hand the doctor is able to clearly point the finger at Christianity as the cause of his window breaking.

I think you and Dr Benway have basically said all that in posts 143 and 144, and probably in a better way than I. The best summary for me is Dr Benway's repeated mantra from a while back:

"The shit in the books has got to go."

1138. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #91131 by Peacebeuponme on November 27, 2007 at 11:28 am

Dianelos

You are right in a lot of what you say above, of course. You are a theist and I am not, but we are both good people. I suspect we both do things to make a difference, but don't help as far as we think we should.

I'm not sure I agree with your view of "new atheism" though, whatever that is. I believe that being good means that we should make a stand against religious intolerance and violence. I don't think its right to caricature that as "islamaphobia" or singling out a group of people as evil-doers as you have suggested.

1139. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #91111 by Peacebeuponme on November 27, 2007 at 9:03 am

Keith
The football analogy is good. Actually, I wonder what it would say in your Handbook? How long it is customary to wait before starting to call the referee a "wanker". That its always polite to stand up to the reciting of "stand up, if you hate Man U".

So if a religious person punches me, not because of anything he believes about his religion, but simply because I don't belong to his religious group, this wouldn't be a religious crime, right? This would just be the same as a Manchester United fan punching a Liverpool fan.


Your Manchester Utd fan may wear a cross, but in this instance his violence is not religious. When he moves on to throw stones at the house of a doctor who performs an abortion, his violence is religious. Crucially, the second violent act could never be performed by an atheist.

1140. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #91100 by Peacebeuponme on November 27, 2007 at 8:05 am

Dianelos

None of what you have said above is relevant. It neither makes religious claims any less incredible nor excuses any crime done in the name of religion.

Atheists are not the ones sending death threats to Hirsi Ali.

Atheists are not the ones setencing a gang-rape victim to 200 lashes.

1141. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #91099 by Peacebeuponme on November 27, 2007 at 7:54 am

Please, put me out of my misery. Once again. If the Chinese authorities suppress Budddist monks or I get so angry at the stupity of religion that I snap and punch the local vicar in the face, why aren't these atheistic crimes?
Surely they are crimes linked to their religion and your intolerance of their religion and not to an "atheistic worldview"

Atheism says "There is probably no God" and nothing else. If you say "There is probably no God and I should physically assault the local vicar" that is going beyond atheism.

The difference with religious crimes is that the religious books specifically mandate certain outrages - you are not going beyond theism when you carry them out.

1142. 'Muhammad' teddy teacher arrested

Comment #91025 by Peacebeuponme on November 27, 2007 at 2:30 am

I'm amazed the teacher didn't realise the name wouldn't go over well when attached to a bear.
Exactly.

We know the laws in these Islamic states are unbelievable, and I applaude anybody who's trying to get them changed. I don't however have a great deal of sympathy with the woman. She should have done her research a little better before taking a job over there.

1143. Religion is not incompatible with Science: 'Non-Overlapping Magisteria'

Comment #90696 by Peacebeuponme on November 26, 2007 at 6:56 am

I mean that science is a still flowing river of interpretations and revolutions. The scientist should - e.g. from popperian point of view - falsify scientific theories and replace them by better ones.
Yes, to a point. But we have to be careful here. We stand by currently accepted theories due to their explanatory power. We do not say, like the creationists, that evolution is "just a theory".

1144. Religion is not incompatible with Science: 'Non-Overlapping Magisteria'

Comment #90671 by Peacebeuponme on November 26, 2007 at 5:03 am

Neither religion nor science should be taken literally and dogmatically
Actually, I think literally is pretty much the only way you can take science.

1145. Sunday School for Atheists

Comment #90670 by Peacebeuponme on November 26, 2007 at 5:00 am

"He's a child of atheist parents, and he's not the only one in the world."
Dawkins will be pleased...

1146. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #90668 by Peacebeuponme on November 26, 2007 at 4:56 am

I think we need to return to 18th century
I'd rather take my chances in this century, thanks!
enlightenment debate about freedom, toleration, human rights, art and culture. Any blind ideology without common sense is dangerous and leads to Inquisition, Oswiecim, Gulag...
Couldn't agree more. Its a pity there are many theists around the world who do not see it that way.

Religion is the very opposite of common sense and deserves to be mocked at every turn.

1147. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #90581 by Peacebeuponme on November 25, 2007 at 4:13 pm

his pathetic little quips at the beginning of his speeches obviously appeal to the audience.
D'souza is a poisonous maggot. Unfortunately, and to his credit, he worked out why Hitchens didn't just beat people, but smashed them into the ground, pissed on their head and placed lilies at their grave - a bit of wit goes a long way to getting the audience on your side. On average, most people are morons and he worked that out and got the better of Hitchens.

All thats important though is that D'Souza is miles away from right.

1148. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90538 by Peacebeuponme on November 25, 2007 at 1:03 pm

This has been debated ad naseum on this forum on a hundred different topics. I'll waste no time on it any longer.
Hear hear on that. There's too many ill informed comments about Iraq on a site thats supposed to be about reason and science. It seems to be the one issue that really divides those here and causes long running, pointless battles.
If you want to join the apologetics for whatever atrocities your government happens to commit, that's your choice.
Matt7895 wrote a considered post making some reasonable points and you call him an "apologetic". I think that's a little unfair. You would be better off arguing specifics if you want to discuss the issue - if you don't agree with what Matt7895 thinks were the governments aims, then fine. Just saying "apologetic" is a little juvenile.

1149. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90504 by Peacebeuponme on November 25, 2007 at 11:09 am

So, what are you saying? The west picked up where Saddam left off?
No, of course not. I just don't think its as black and white as your post made it out to be. Its impossible to compare the number of dead now and the political situation now with what it would have been if the war hadn't happened.

Personally, I'm glad a tyrant has been removed, sad with the way things have turned out and also deeply dubious of the government's real intentions for going in.

Its complex and I don't feel like I have enough info be be strongly pro or anti, and I think comments like the one you made above are overly-simplistic.

1150. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90489 by Peacebeuponme on November 25, 2007 at 9:57 am

What does this mean? Ultimate Goodness MOTHER? Where is this from?
Tibor is not very careful with spelling. Its "ultimate goodness meter" being referred to, a phrase introduced by Steve99 and by which he's demonstrating Tibor's circular reasoning, though Tibor does not seem to understand.

More Pages: Previous | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 | Next