101. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190864 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 6:55 pm

Comment #190860 by MaxD on June 9, 2008 at 6:43 pm

Stryer,
No The Zara is simply saying that most believers think they have reasons for their belief that don't require faith. And that faith is, in fact, not terribly sustainable in the long run.

Minds like evidence for expensive notions. Fundies, don't properly understand faith and if they looked squarely at what they say don't value it very much. What they want is proof. Many of them have convinced themselves that they have it. There is a certain amount of faith involved to be sure. But they want proof, this is why they foolishly chase after science and history with their selective eyes.
Faith cannot sustain itself.

MaxD

I understood Steve's point, in the same way I understand your endorsement and explanation of it.

But you are both on extremely dodgy ground.

'Faith' remains at the heart of both the Bible and the Koran as a notion to be revered, to be followed, to submit to, and to encourage in others. Both texts, including the Hadith, revel in unevidenced belief, extolling it and encouraging its propagation.

You and Steve will dismiss this at the expense of understanding the mindset of the 'faithful'.

You are both granting FAR TOO MUCH by way of unevidenced belief if you are willing to semantically offer a way out to faithoholic fuckers.

I implore you to keep at least THIS wall of semantic distinction high and proud.

Faith not only can, but IS sustaining itself, continuously.

What the fuck are we all doing here if not lamenting this very phenomenon most of the fucking time?

Best,
Styrer

102. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190855 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 6:26 pm

Comment #190853 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 6:11 pm

Are you talking only of that sweet Anglican voice? Does the tougher Catholic voice reflect what you say here?

Are Allah's followers simply following a 'warm fuzzy feeling' as they blow you, themselves and your loved ones to smithereens as they shout 'Allāhu Akbar?' paving the way to paradise for themselves and for their families?

Or could it be that you are foolishly trying to play down the notion of 'faith' and all of its manifest wicked effects in general, simply in order to make its incomprehensibility more comprehensible to a nice, easy-going bloke like yourself?

Of course not. You've paid too much attention to the articles posted here to fall into such a lily-livered position.

Well done.

Best,
Styrer

103. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190852 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 6:06 pm

Comment #190845 by Ascaphus on June 9, 2008 at 5:51 pm

I've not come across any theists who have said that 'faith is not necessary'. I have come across theists who exhort the virtues of faith at the same time that they have lauded the biblical miracles.

If they had read Sam Harris's compelling notion of 'betrayal of faith and reason equally', they would surely have prevented themselves from falling into such an inviting little trap.

Little cunts couldn't help themselves, though.

Fuckwits.

Best,
Styrer

104. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190829 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 4:45 pm

Comment #190826 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 4:29 pm

Comment #190824 by Styrer-

No rudeness intended, and no huff.

However you want to use the term creationist, one can surely consider as truly bizarre the idea that natural disasters are somehow a consequence of sin.

Well, I do anyway :)

Zara, you are showing your typical fucking...

Oh, we agree.

Indeed. I would love to learn the mechanism by which sin was inserted into this world.

Never will, I suspect. I weep.

Best,
Styrer

105. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190824 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 4:24 pm

Comment #190813 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 3:55 pm

Comment #190810 by Styrer-

Sorry, but I have neither the time or inclination for this discussion. You are welcome to call me what you like if you feel it helps the battle for reason in some way. It does not concern me.

How extraordinarily rude.

I do not share your catagorical (in my opinion, unevidenced) and dismissive notion as to precisely WHAT creed Robertson attaches himself.

And Steve gets huffy.

It MATTERS.

While you are of course free to disagree with my ideas and to take them to task as you wish, I urge you to relinquish your flat-out and high-handed dismissal of my thoughts, lest you seem...well, a bit unreasonable.

Ah well. Off again, no doubt.

Bonne chance, Steve.

Best,
Styrer

106. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190816 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 4:00 pm

Comment #190812 by Jack Rawlinson on June 9, 2008 at 3:52 pm

Good start, genius: an a priori assumption and a false analogy, bang, right out of the gate.

I guess I don't need to waste any time reading further. Futile to argue with people who aren't even intelligent enough to recognise the most elementary fallacies.

This comment conveys an outrageously arrogant and dismissive attitude.

I hereby second it.

Best,
Styrer

107. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190810 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 3:47 pm

Comment #190807 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 3:33 pm

You don't get off that lightly, Steve.:)

Look - you have ploughed ahead with this notion of yours that Robertson is a 'creationist'.

He may well be - but your assertion, by dint of his stated suspicion of evolution, does not make it so.

You surely understand this.

Your substantiations listed are NOT enough, sir. Many a protestant, catholic, muslim and mormon have uttered, a la Robertson, suspicions of evolution.

This does NOT render them 'creationists'. I fear that your easy application of the term to those who do not fall under the term's purview will lessen the impact our accusations of 'Creationist! Hah!' must retain.

As for my temper - thanks for the consideration. It will remain in good form if an eminent member of this site would stick to the 'reason' extolled at the top of this page.

Best,
Styrer

108. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190805 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 3:26 pm

Comment #190797 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Forgive, Steve, my 'occasional' lack of clarity.

To be clear: you are now on record as stating Robertson is a 'creationist'.

I submit that Robertson's anti-evolutionary stance in an earlier thread is not proof of your assertion.

To support your unproven assertion, you draw our collective attention to the notion that Robertson's (unproven) creationism is an evident feature which we have missed here, but to which you have been vouchsafed some evidentiary sense we lack:

(Your quote, sir): In hindsight, it has always been there.

When questioned about this ubiquitous and ever-present 'creationism', you finally admitted, without apology for wasting my fucking time, that your hindsight was focusing only on 'that article'.

Fuck, Steve. Stop pissing about with language. I really thought you had more there.

Best,
Styrer

109. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190794 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Comment #190752 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Comment #190748 by Styrer-

My hindsight is focussing on that article.

I am highly suspicious about this new, more overt creationism from David Robertson. In hindsight, it has always been there

So, Steve, not always there, in fact?

Your comment makes me think that there is a plethora of hitheto untapped 'creationist' comments by the cunt, revealed only to yourself.

But no. Only since you read the article today, in fact.

Robertson is a fuck of the first water. But let's show the fucker that we mean business when we lay a charge against him.

No need, sir, to exaggerate. He'll hang himself without it.

Agreed?

Best,
Styrer

110. Complex Synapses Drove Brain Evolution

Comment #190782 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Comment #190772 by Steve Crawley on June 9, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Not sure that what you're adding here is entirely apposite to the article and the stated findings it presents, but thank you nonetheless for an interesting lesson.

Best,
Styrer

111. Complex Synapses Drove Brain Evolution

Comment #190770 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Comment #190568 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 8:59 am

Yes.

I think that Irate did not mean this to sound as exclusive and condescending as it did...?

You don't need to be a mum or a dad to really appreciate the joy of kids close to you, and to experience vicariously all their happiness and pain.

I suspect Irate is vaunting something far more solipsistic here. Proud of his spunk, for example?

We know how difficult it is to produce that.

Best,
Styrer

112. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190760 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Comment #190754 by MPhil on June 9, 2008 at 1:56 pm

As a punishment - this guy has to read up on Plantinga's modal ontological proof and Mackie's refutation - and give a half hour talk on why the modal ontological argument doesn't work - including a formalization of all the arguments.

Since joining here, I have determined never to feel sorry for any fucking theist under any circumstance.

Your punishment, though...

Fuck it, it's not hard enough...!

Best,
Styrer (accidentally 'trolled' you, MPhil - hopefully to be ignored).

113. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190748 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Comment #190740 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Comment #190729 by Styrer-

Forgive me, I was not clear. Scottishgeologist has posted a link to an article by DR regarding the Asian Tsunami, written in 2005. It is distinctly creationist in flavour:
http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2005/jan05.htm

It implies that human sinfulness resulted in a fall, which brought death and natural disasters into the world.

I am not talking about hindsight in terms of looking at his postings here - this is about looking back at what we now know he has written in the past.

Yes, I read this shite earlier.

I am still not clear about your comment.

I am not after you on this occasion, Steve, you elitest sod (!) but I don't understand 'I am not talking about hindsight in terms of looking at his postings here - this is about looking back at what we now know he has written in the past.'

Are there other Roberston scriblings in the past which are not posts? Are you talking about his lamentable 'book'?

On what is your hindsight focusing here?

Your comment certainly indicates that we have missed something important which 'has always been there'.

Gotta be careful with the cunt Robertson, so your full clarity here will be appreciated.

Best,
Styrer

114. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190738 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 1:24 pm

A load of shit.

Josh - do better.

(Diacanu No. 13 - well done for getting your snout shitted to elucidate. Liked it.)

Styrer

115. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190729 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Comment #190680 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 11:21 am

Comment #190672 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

I am highly suspicious about this new, more overt creationism from David Robertson. In hindsight, it has always been there, but I do wonder what political motive there is for revealing it now.

(My emphasis.)

Where? Please be specific.

I am really not sure that Robertson's anti-evolutionary stance recently made on another thread (I think Steve is referring to this) is really evidence of the fucker being a creationist.

Confused, yes.

Let's be careful of our assumptions, Steve, lest they detract from the full weight of criticism you and we all have to make against the tosspot.

Best,
Styrer

116. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #190530 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 8:30 am

Comment #190512 by Diacanu on June 9, 2008 at 8:09 am

Yep, another couple of hits followed by a swift run.

He'll of course be back, but on a different thread.

What a disgrace of a human being he is. His fucked-up profferings should be enough to drive doubt into even the most faithful of faithoholics' ideas of 'faith'.

If reason can gain just a slightly larger foothold in the world's consciousness, such that its evidentiary nature could acquire a critical mass, then fuckwits like Robertson should, rather fittingly, simply take care of themselves as they impel themselves towards oblivion.

In the meantime, may our vocabulary remain robust enough to deal with such despicable cunts.

Best,
Styrer

117. Complex Synapses Drove Brain Evolution

Comment #190515 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 8:13 am

The big building blocks evolved before big brains

No scientist, I had often wondered what sparked the huge increase in size of human brains.

This fits.

To all you scientists - how controversial does this seem to you? See any holes?

Best,
Styrer

118. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #190487 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 7:33 am

Comment #190480 by irate_atheist on June 9, 2008 at 7:15 am

99. Comment #190473 by Styrer -

It is all sad but true. Some may think I too readily go on the attack when dogmatic theists venture here. But when a dog bites you every time you try to pat it, that dog needs to be put down.

Religion is that dog.

Indeed.

For the record, I have never thought you too easily go on the attack. How, precisely, could that actually happen, against theists who claim to KNOW - before and in spite of any discussion - that you, I and most here are destined to burn in hell for EVER?

No, my good man. Not possible to go on the attack too easily. The first strike has been made before you have even realised it.

The Hitch's 'we have to stamp out this virus, not permit a gentler version of it' reminds me of your dog analogy.

At the moment, and in my anger, I prefer your way of putting it.

Best,
Styrer

119. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #190473 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 7:02 am

Comment #190424 by irate_atheist on June 9, 2008 at 4:27 am

87. Comment #190420 by scottishgeologist -

Everybody on this thread, I urge you to read the link posted by scottishgeologist

This will give you a flavour of the wilfully ignorant fuckwittery spread by David Robertson et al.

Stone cold fucknuts.

Yes, Irate. It does.

It makes for sad and distressing reading.

Unfortunately I am finding less and less satisfaction in the wonderful taking to task by members here of Robertson and his ideas, I'm afraid. Would that I could get it back.

He is, quite clearly, utterly beyond reach, and is the quintessence of what this site seeks to condemn.

Though I still hold to Hitchen's notion that time spent debating theists is time never wasted, Robertson has delimited this for me to the debating of intelligent theists. Permit me to call a 'time of death' on any such debates involving semi-literate, specious and unpleasant theists such as Robertson.

For Robertson, lest he feel neglected, I will reserve only a well-deserved and heartfelt 'Fuck off, cunt'.

Styrer

120. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #190397 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 2:41 am

Comment #190347 by clearthinker on June 8, 2008 at 11:08 pm

Having attended thousands of prayer meetings

What an absolute waste of time!

Imagine all the terrifically useful things you could have done during these wasted hours - the science and spelling books you could have read, the museums of natural history you could have visited, all the Richard Dawkins videos you could have educationally digested.

It really is not only the wicked precepts of your unreasonable and unevidenced beliefs; not only the snide, unlettered posts you make here, repeatedly trying to justify the unjustifiable; and not only your mind-numbing ignorance and twisted solipsism of which you should properly be ashamed. It is also the downright and wanton waste of precious time, energy and resources you and your fellow faithoholics make a positive glory-fest in promoting as some kind of 'virtue', indoctrinating kids, the needy, the vulnerable and the lonely into your pernicious, nasty world of anti-reason and dangerous wishful-thinking as you proceed.

No wonder such tortuous efforts to cast all your appallingly wicked and offensive claims as 'virtuous' and 'moral' have made of you such a twisted, sneering little oik. Who knows what kind of decent human being you might become if you jettisoned all your mad, wicked and unevidenced beliefs, opened your eyes and took a proper look at this godless universe, seeing for perhaps the first time what a wonderful place it is and how lucky we are to be alive in it?

If I were you, it would be a constant sorrow for me to note with what little regard and with what hostility my posts were met by the decent, intelligent members on this site, every time I popped my head in for a chat. With such uniform and consistent responses, I would certainly take a good hard look at my own attitudes, ideas and resultant demeanour.

Is there any way in which you might persuade yourself to do the same? Unless, of course, you genuinely do not give a flying fuck as so often seems to be the case when you're around.

Styrer

121. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #186685 by Styrer- on May 31, 2008 at 3:06 am

Comment #186683 by aussieatheist_111 on May 31, 2008 at 2:58 am

Absolutely. I've reconsidered and now got over my churlish cynicism!

Sorry again and thanks for putting me straight.

Best,
Styrer

122. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #186652 by Styrer- on May 30, 2008 at 11:06 pm

Comment #186637 by jo5ef on May 30, 2008 at 10:11 pm

Points taken. Bad day at the office. Sorry.

Will try to do better!

Best,
Styrer

123. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #186398 by Styrer- on May 30, 2008 at 8:45 am

Comment #186281 by adamd164 on May 30, 2008 at 4:05 am

Styrer, why should the governmental determination exclude such empirical testing? It's all very well to say that they could make a decision under the assumption that these people genuinely do suffer the effects of WiFi exposure, but are we to treat all similar claims equally? What a mess that would leave us in!

I note that you live in Ireland, as do I. My company was two months ago invited to participate, in conjunction with the Department of Education, Department of Tourism, the Department of Trade and the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism, to discuss proposals in respect of a Dail-led discussion about 'Student Work Permits'.

Our company's rep went there, as did out industry body's spokesperson. The write up to me (I am the owner) was as follows: 'It's a fucking done deal. They didn't have to talk to all the different departments to know this was a good move'.

NONE of the proposed - and initially invited - stakeholders had any say whatsoever.

Fellow Irish friends laughed, over our mutual pint: 'What the fuck did you expect?'

My story is by no means unique. Name your country.

The idea that a fairly well-known Oxford Professor would have the kind of governmental influence to make a difference, of an order of magnitude more significant than that which I was trying to achieve in Ireland, here is utter wishful-thinking.

I hope Richard did go back to bed to have a good sleep.

Best,
Styrer

124. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #186206 by Styrer- on May 29, 2008 at 11:05 pm

Richard

Take a deep breath.

Hold it.

Exhale after realising your desire to make a difference will do no such thing, perhaps only to your heart rate.

This will draw down to a governmental determination.

What chance do you really think an Oxford Professor may have in making a substantive difference here?

Go back to bed.

Styrer

125. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #186175 by Styrer- on May 29, 2008 at 8:13 pm

Comment #186158 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 29, 2008 at 6:38 pm

Speaking of Wi-Fi

Here is Chomsky on Religion and Humanism etc

I've sent it to article submission but I seem to be consistently ignored.

I have now listened to all of this and cannot understand why this interview with Chomsky has NOT been added to the RD.Net store.

Chomsky is, of course, extraordinarily capable, as an 80 year old man, to make mincemeat of any who come before him. His ideas are continuously inflammatory and spark-filled; his views in your clips make only too much sense to me. But he possesses, as Dawkins does not, a nigh on encyclopaedic knowledge of past and modern history. He leaves, I am sorry to say, even Hitchens so very, very far behind here.

Chomsky's erudition is actually terrifying.

I will continue to reclaim my own conception of life a la Dawkins; but I will also do so for more of the latter simply because I suspect Chomsky will be there to answer me when Dawkins is lamentably not.

Best,
Styrer

126. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #186167 by Styrer- on May 29, 2008 at 7:30 pm

Comment #186158 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 29, 2008 at 6:38 pm

I am not sure why you are being ignored. This is probably one of Chomsky's last interviews, as he veers ever closer to death, and as such is an important aural document.

Chomsky's dismissal of the worth of evolution is a possible part of the reason; but this site should surely make a feature of this giant of intellect without delay.

His seminal work in linguistics should, in my opinion, have acquired him a Nobel Prize.

Intellectually, Dawkins slots in extraordinarily highly, but below Chomsky's range.

Chomsky thinks as no human has ever thought before. He deserves a place here.

Styrer

127. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #186161 by Styrer- on May 29, 2008 at 6:52 pm

The city attorney is now checking to see if putting up Wi-Fi could be considered discrimination.

I wonder if this comment will look as fuckwittedly, shit-headedly moronic in 2000 years as it does to me today.

I suggest that the city attorney be ripped, SAS-style, from any main drag he's walking, kicked into a van, flown to Afghanistan and thrust among the locals, dragged before imminent be-heading twats, pulled out just in time into living for at least one day with the locals, AND THEN be delivered to such a safehouse where his repeated enunciations of 'discrimination' would die only with his own drawn-out death.

This turd of a lawyer is surely worth no more than any of the above.

Fuck him.

Styrer

128. 1968 Supreme Court case of Epperson v. Arkansas

Comment #186137 by Styrer- on May 29, 2008 at 5:29 pm

We may all feel orgasmic that a Reverend is here better advocating the place of science in the classroom than his ID-protecting, ignorant opponent lawyer in this debate.

But this does not make him an ally in fighting the real war between faith/supernaturalism and reason.

While he is useful in condemning the idea that ID is a scientific endeavour (when, by the way, was this ever hard?) he is, like Eugenie Scott, Miller and all similar NOMA adherents, simply prolonging the movement our young learners may make to submitting their beliefs to scientific scrutiny.

I do not see NOMA as a 'strategy' in the war against superstitious supernaturalism; I see it as a propitiation to the religious and to the supernaturalists. As such, it deserves our contempt, as we recognise that it permits even full-blooded and even borderline theists to think that they can put their god in a separate little box, to be brought out whenever they see fit.

Some 'tactic', NOMA.

Fuck it.

Best,
Styrer

129. What is science for?

Comment #184130 by Styrer- on May 23, 2008 at 6:18 pm

Comment #184120 by MaxD on May 23, 2008 at 5:26 pm

Blake1i382003920293049238409293209,

You say:

Thank you, MaxD. That gave me the very best laugh of my fucking week.

Best,
Styrer

130. Tribute to a Beloved Mentor

Comment #183966 by Styrer- on May 23, 2008 at 10:25 am

Phew, can Richard write.

His mentor would surely have been moved.

Best,
Styrer

131. 16% of US science teachers are creationists

Comment #183904 by Styrer- on May 23, 2008 at 6:35 am

Comment #183896 by irate_atheist on May 23, 2008 at 6:07 am

Irate, no, I'm sorry, your usual comment eludes me at the moment.

Could you remind me (preferably in bold)?

Cheers,
Styrer

132. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #182932 by Styrer- on May 21, 2008 at 6:13 am

Good job.

Styrer

133. What is science for?

Comment #182927 by Styrer- on May 21, 2008 at 6:02 am

Comment #182853 by uncle tungsten on May 21, 2008 at 3:45 am

Styrer,

I don't know anything about you, but since you're on this forum I'd guess you're an intelligent and clear-thinking person. If we met I'd probably like you. So no, I don't have a problem with you. Calling people names is a bit juvenile though, you must admit.

No. Wrong. Entirely up your own arse.

How'd you like that? Cunting twat.

Now I say to you, in your longed for perfect and carefully enunciated, expletive-free and rather endearing language:

You are going to burn and suffer and experience continuous pain in hell for all of time. There will be no end whatsoever.

I challenge you to state with sincerity that you would not prefer a good old 'fucking cunt' rebuke instead.

And refrain from assumptions which have not been permitted you. I am neither clear-thinking nor intelligent.

And remember to shove my earlier profanities up your genteel and delicate arse. Keep 'em safe.

Styrer

134. What is science for?

Comment #182824 by Styrer- on May 21, 2008 at 2:46 am

Comment #182815 by uncle tungsten on May 21, 2008 at 2:25 am

I have not encountered ASMarques before, and my automatic response would be to take against his stance. But underneath all the juvenile name-calling - chiefly from the clearly angry but rather undignified Styrer - it is ASMarques who has the more interesting point to make.

If you have a problem with me, address me directly, you cunt.

I'm waiting.

Styrer

135. What is science for?

Comment #182819 by Styrer- on May 21, 2008 at 2:35 am

Comment #182790 by Peacebeuponme on May 21, 2008 at 1:18 am

I don't think anybody has "taken on" AS Marques properly here, except to point out that his (you have to say well presented) posts contain links to sites of dubious authority.

This is likely because most here do not have much experience in dealing with Deniers. Its not because AS Marques is occupying the most reasonable position.

For fuck's sake, Peace.

Is there a fucking course we should attend to give us greater 'experience in dealing with Deniers'?

Of course not, you dick.

Get a fucking grip, lad.

And why the fuck do you capitalise 'Deniers'?

So where the fuck have you been over the last few hours, you shit? What fucking right do you have to attempt to dictate how Gobshite ASMarques should be treated?

Whose fucking worldview do you support?

Twat.

Styrer

136. What is science for?

Comment #182730 by Styrer- on May 20, 2008 at 10:51 pm

Comment #182701 by ASMarques on May 20, 2008 at 9:59 pm

Said Styrer:

Can you edge slightly closer towards a reason for my silence?

Sure I can. You sound pissed off probably because you're smart enough to have noticed the dismal performance of the "erudite" faithful you mention (maybe you can quote one of those erudite bits, by the way).

And so the Holocaust denier dings his final ding.

You failed my little test.

The answer was: I wanted to listen and learn, not speak. I thought even an arsehole like you would get that.

I suspect that the above is a concept you really will never understand.

You really are the most despicable of denying cunts.

What the fuck is wrong with you, man?

Here you are. You have been here for a month. You have tried your dodgy ideas out on some of the most intelligent and erudite individuals to be found on the Web. You have been repeatedly and fixedly and robustly condemned for subscribing to beliefs which fly in the face of modern historical inquiry, and in the face of massive amounts of evidence showing that your ideas hold no water whatsoever.

And yet you cling, ever more desperately, to your pre-conceived notions of unevidenced negationism.

I, for one, do not trust the letter of any of your words. And you have no more to say.

Fuck off.

Styrer

137. What is science for?

Comment #182712 by Styrer- on May 20, 2008 at 10:32 pm

Comment #182707 by Teratornis on May 20, 2008 at 10:22 pm

I'll be shorter and terser still - I'm rather enjoying your peak oil-free posts...I fucking knew there was an ok guy under there somewhere...

For what it's worth.

Best,
Styrer

138. What is science for?

Comment #182705 by Styrer- on May 20, 2008 at 10:15 pm

Comment #182698 by Teratornis on May 20, 2008 at 9:54 pm

Teratornis

Did I just detect a...wait for it...sense of humour?

Without peak oil, you're becoming boring. Nothing with which I could possibly disagree in your last post.

Fuck me.

Best,
Styrer

139. Proving ID is Creationism

Comment #182696 by Styrer- on May 20, 2008 at 9:50 pm

Not sure why this stuff is being rehearsed, Josh and Wayne.

What am I missing? Is this for the newbies only?

No comprende.

Styrer

140. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #182689 by Styrer- on May 20, 2008 at 9:20 pm

Comment #182681 by dragonfirematrix on May 20, 2008 at 8:53 pm

Will there be someone to arrest me, or any of us for speaking the truth about religion?

Maybe. Maybe not.

Where do you live?

If EU or USA or Japan - you're probably ok.

Anywhere else, cup your balls, spout and hope for the fucking best.

Styrer

141. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #182680 by Styrer- on May 20, 2008 at 8:49 pm

Comment #182677 by 7Fred7 on May 20, 2008 at 8:39 pm

Great comment.

So you'll contribute a grand too?:)

Best,
Styrer

142. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #182676 by Styrer- on May 20, 2008 at 8:39 pm

Comment #182669 by Ohnhai on May 20, 2008 at 8:13 pm

An un-armed,calm, rational, educated and atheistic teen telling it simply as it is, now that's a different story.

On the thread discussing the Muslim fuck who 'honour'-murdered his daughter, there was an astute comment - can't remember the name of the member here. On the mother's call to her sons to stop her evil shit of a husband from bashing his precious daughter's brains out, those self-same sons rushed to join in with the father, achieving the annihilation of both sister and daughter.

The astute member I mention commented on the fact that the faith-driven violence had skipped easily - as it seems - from one generation to another.

In such circumstances, we must treasure even more a teenage individual whose story we are reading here DEFIES such apparent eventuality. The young man's a fucking hero.

Such ballsy little bastards are our only fucking hope.

I repeat - I'll throw in a grand sterling - any one else up for it?

The little fucker deserves it.

Best,
Styrer

143. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #182668 by Styrer- on May 20, 2008 at 8:09 pm

Comment #182654 by kaph on May 20, 2008 at 6:56 pm

I really think someone from RDF should give that kid a real medal. Seriously styrer, very well said.

Kaph

And how much time, effort and pain did it take me to utter these words?

How long you?

One or two minutes? Fucking nothing.

This lad - FIFTEEN!!!- does deserve a medal, and its earning will surpass any sympathetically clever words we may have on this thread.

I propose that RDFRS swiftly inaugurates a MEDAL - to be given to those unswervingly facing down the enemy of faith and religion who have no financial or political clout whatsoever.

How about making this young lad our first?

The Atheist Medal of Honour. Thoughts?

I'll put forward a quick 1000 pounds, if I'm assured it will go somewhere.

Great profile-raising, too. No?

Best,
Styrer

144. What is science for?

Comment #182661 by Styrer- on May 20, 2008 at 7:34 pm

Comment #182657 by ASMarques on May 20, 2008 at 7:07 pm

Ah, I can see why not. What I can't see is why you feel like bragging about it...

Wrong again. Oh dear.

Here's a little test for you.

I've helped you out just a touch by bringing the two quotes together:

I've read with interest your posts over the last month, without making comment.

I have never considered myself fully up-to-speed about the Holocaust - but here you came, as a nay-sayer, along with an opportunity to follow a fascinating line of inquiry.

Can you edge slightly closer towards a reason for my silence?

I suspect that your self-imposed cut-and-paste policy of posting unoriginal thoughts here prevents you, on your own, from making such a connection as I've tried to spell out for you above.

It really is important to think for yourself.

Have a go. You might like it.

Styrer

145. What is science for?

Comment #182650 by Styrer- on May 20, 2008 at 6:42 pm

Comment #182645 by ASMarques on May 20, 2008 at 6:04 pm

Hello ASMarques

I've read with interest your posts over the last month, without making comment.

I must say that you really do seem to be on your last legs here, now dismissed by admin to an 'alternate thread' - the secular e-equivalent of hell.

You've brought it all on yourself, my poor deluded fellow.

It is true that neither the mountainous terrains of hard evidence gainsaying your position, nor the many, many erudite posts from individuals prepared initially to give you a chance to prove your points, nor the rightly harsh and critical analysis to which your views have been submitted have made the slightest difference to your negationist opining whatsoever.

But it is also true that you yourself, sir, have been spectacularly unconvincing in your attempts to make your most forlorn case.

I was quite excited by the stir you created at the outset; I have never considered myself fully up-to-speed about the Holocaust - but here you came, as a nay-sayer, along with an opportunity to follow a fascinating line of inquiry.

More fucking fool me. There was no inquiry here, from you. You'd made your mind up before you submitted your first post here. You have at no point granted the slightest weight to any idea in contradiction to your own dogma whatsoever.

Your constant 'linking' to external websites, quotes, texts, your constant invitations to read this or that text, not only shows huge discourtesy but also a lack of ability to read, digest and assimilate information of your own back and present it in your own voice.

Your favoured 'linking' seems to be to CODOH - that global bastion of critical historical thinking with a huge forum membership of just over, er, 400, including you - and I think that you have let that particularly warped site down, in your abject failure to present anything close to a reasonable case for your views, every bit as much as you have let down this site, in trying to portray your pre-conceived and immovable notions as open to honest and open criticism to which you would properly respond.

The poorest show I've yet seen here.

Styrer

146. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #182615 by Styrer- on May 20, 2008 at 4:21 pm

Comment #182611 by Auraboy on May 20, 2008 at 4:11 pm

Yes.

Mix and serve any of what you said with a dollop of faith.

Stand back.:)

Best,
Styrer

147. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #182609 by Styrer- on May 20, 2008 at 4:07 pm

Comment #182595 by Auraboy on May 20, 2008 at 3:32 pm

Unfortunately I think regulating speech is just a dangerous area full stop. Insult and humiliation are part of humour and the essence of freedom.

Yes, but faith-based hate speech is hardly the measure of 'freedom of speech'. When fanatical Muslim clerics are beseeching their faith-doped flock to 'kill the infidel', the core of free speech - the free discussion of ideas - plays no part at all. Such words from the verminous clerics to their faithoholic, indoctrinated young become weapons, and are as representative of the whole notion of freedom to challenge ideas as a decapitated head held high.

We all here know what horrible violence can ensue from mere words - pick a holy text as you will - and we need laws to stop such faith-based hate speech leading to all the terrible things we see here, day in, day out.

Real freedom of speech will not be hurt, once anti-hate speech laws based on faith are properly clarified.

Best,
Styrer

148. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #182601 by Styrer- on May 20, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Comment #182591 by Auraboy on May 20, 2008 at 3:18 pm

Can I submit the Christian cross as a sign that causes me distress in public? I live in a city centre very close to a Cathedral and it offends me quite often when they display anything.

Stranger things have happened. Witness the ingenious and ignoble ASBO. At what level of 'harrassment, alarm or distress' in any viewer's mind can the label of 'anti-social behaviour' be assigned? There are some real horror stories of injustice relating to these 'orders'.

At least this terrific young chap is being charged with a real crime, which raises the whole profile of the debacle, the better to attract wide condemnation. He could simply have received an ASBO, rendering a non-criminal act (such as handling a placard) a criminal one on any subsequent 'violation'. We may then never have heard about this at all.

The police's unreasonable severity here ought to be their undoing. And nothing less than a full public apology, with compensation, public inquiry and investigation into the officers themselves for possible corruption will do.

Best,
Styrer

149. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #182589 by Styrer- on May 20, 2008 at 3:13 pm

This ballsy 15-year old kid deserves a fucking medal.

I expect that the Cult Information Centre will be receiving a little visit from City of London police officers shortly, once their rituals at Scientology HQ are over, urging a re-think on its name.

While I think anti-hate speech laws are important in facing up to the violence which can follow from faith-based words, there is clear need to make these laws crystal clear so that shit like this never happens again. The legalities are unclear when they should be transparent, in circumstances where the victim becomes the accused. I suggest criminalization of 'faith-based hate speech' would be at least a start.

In any case - how we can we raise the roof on this one?

Oh, and cue Dr. Benway...:)

Best,
Styrer

150. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #182575 by Styrer- on May 20, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Comment #182560 by freethinker79 on May 20, 2008 at 1:31 pm

Hello Freethinker79. Welcome to the site.

Can I take your name at face value?

Perhaps you would let me know if you are a deist, theist, agnostic or atheist.

Thank you.

Best,
Styrer