Comments by Diacanu

1901. Why Darwin matters

Comment #125717 by Diacanu on February 11, 2008 at 10:51 pm

wooter-

Darwin and his theory is not even a prerequisite to understand the creation since it is not based on logic and reason

You're a crackpot.

A flat out crackpot.

Please, go away.

1902. Bill Maher on Larry King Live

Comment #125702 by Diacanu on February 11, 2008 at 9:33 pm

GSP-

I wonder then if you would be interested in cutting back certain aspects of your lifestyle

Such as?

1903. Bill Maher on Larry King Live

Comment #125697 by Diacanu on February 11, 2008 at 9:24 pm

GSP-

You're missing the point.

I get the point, but it's a pointless point.

You LITERALLY think doctors think they can eliminate ALL disease??

No, they're going to try to wipe out as many as they can.

We wouldn't have as many treatments and cures if they didn't.

Given the goal is to whup as many diseases as possible, more is better than less, so one would naturally want to get as close as theoretically possible to the "all", end of the spectrum, then the "none", end of the spectrum.

So, at worst, they're guilty of rounding upward a bit high.

Big fuckin' whoop.

Let them.
It works.

1904. Bill Maher on Larry King Live

Comment #125691 by Diacanu on February 11, 2008 at 9:11 pm

GSP-

I have just finished applying my reasoning to law enforcement and trash collection. And the reasoning would be the same, IF law enforcement's goal was the elimination of all crime and trash collection's goal was the elimination of all trash. But I don't think either of these claims the elimination of their respective concerns as their goal.

So, that little matter of semantics matters to you enough to stick in your craw, eh?

Okay, so what's the answer to make that bit of "illogic", go away?

What diseases should doctors slack off on, or give up on entirely, because "oh well, they won't cure them anyway"?

Frankly, I want a garbage man who picks up everyone's trash every week, not one who goes "ah, well, there'll always be more trash anyway, fuck it".

1905. Bill Maher on Larry King Live

Comment #125685 by Diacanu on February 11, 2008 at 8:58 pm

GSP-

My point is merely a criticism of what I believe to be modern medicine's goal: the elimination of disease. I believe a goal such as this is unattainable and hence the driving force behind the discipline is irrational.

Oh, wow, that's fuckin' retarded.

Apply that reasoning to law enforcement, or trash collection, and see what you get.

1906. Battle of the Chambersburg billboards

Comment #125683 by Diacanu on February 11, 2008 at 8:52 pm

...well, I guess Steve's silence on the matter means he isn't gonna cry, and call me a stupid head, and throw a pickled fetus at me over the matter.

So, there's yet another point not on christianity's side of the scoreboard.

1907. Battle of the Chambersburg billboards

Comment #125678 by Diacanu on February 11, 2008 at 8:36 pm

Oh, and also, transhumanism is fat, smelly, and its mother is a whore.

And did I mention the smell?

Oh yes.

Oh yes.

*Nods*

1908. Battle of the Chambersburg billboards

Comment #125677 by Diacanu on February 11, 2008 at 8:34 pm

Actually, it was the new orange Listerene.

1909. Battle of the Chambersburg billboards

Comment #125662 by Diacanu on February 11, 2008 at 7:56 pm

LorienRyan-

ROFL!!

What a coinkydink!

I watched an episode of this show where this woman was such a bad alcoholic, she was drinking mouthwash, and her husband tried to get her mouthwash bottle away from her and yeow!

Yeah, I seen that reaction.
Very similar.

1910. Battle of the Chambersburg billboards

Comment #125658 by Diacanu on February 11, 2008 at 7:47 pm

It's GOT to be surrigating one's self esteem to an outside source that's the factor, because you never see the deep personal offense when it's about politics.

You can call George Bush a drooling retard monkey whose kryptonite is pretzels, and who roasted his brain with too much blow, and you'll never get a republican as indignant as when you slag off God to a christian.

Hell, slag Darwin and/or evolution to me, it'll roll off my back.
I'll have to correct their misrepresentations, but still...I don't weep over it.

Okay, one thing, one thing I've found I can piss other atheists off about if I go after.

Transhumanism.

Hoo-oo-oo-LY shit!
I had no idea how many geeks were in love with this panacea.
WOW!

Watch.

Steve, transhumanism sucks.
It's the death of humanity.
Discuss.

*Evil wink*

1911. Battle of the Chambersburg billboards

Comment #125651 by Diacanu on February 11, 2008 at 7:25 pm

LorienRyan-

Yes, exactly. Also the person has a base emotional attachment to the concept of God itself. The idea of God fills them with feelings of wonder, like a drug.

As we say in Maine, ayuh.

1912. Battle of the Chambersburg billboards

Comment #125649 by Diacanu on February 11, 2008 at 7:23 pm

Steve Zara-

I think in this case, because he doesn't want to. I suspect he is attempting to get sympathy by appearing to be a victim.

And then there's that whole martyrdom addiction christians have going on.

It's really a nasty soup of negative human traits they've got bubbling there.

1913. Battle of the Chambersburg billboards

Comment #125645 by Diacanu on February 11, 2008 at 7:09 pm

satanhimself1955-

Why is it so hard for him to differentiate between ideas and the people who espouse them?

Because the religionist credits God with everything good about themself, so to attack God is to attack their own personal human dignity.

That's the forcefield religion has constructed around itself.

Criticize the religion in any way, the religionsts jump in front of the bullet for their imaginary friend.

It's really quite frustrating.

1914. Exorcism undergoes a revival across Europe

Comment #125561 by Diacanu on February 11, 2008 at 3:37 pm

Ugh...

Beware any organization with "concerned", "family", "focus", or "youth", in its name.

1915. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #125450 by Diacanu on February 11, 2008 at 11:48 am

al-rawandi-

Ooo!! Can you PM me that theory too?
*Rubs hands*

1916. Why Darwin matters

Comment #125063 by Diacanu on February 10, 2008 at 9:07 pm

Oh, no, no, Darwin is the chosen prophet of the atheist religion.
The christians say so.

1917. Why Darwin matters

Comment #125058 by Diacanu on February 10, 2008 at 8:55 pm

Of course, the only evidence I have left is the crusty hanky I blew my nose on as I cried myself to sleep after the firing.

You believe me doncha?

I mean, that's enough to base a faith on, right?

1918. Why Darwin matters

Comment #125053 by Diacanu on February 10, 2008 at 8:47 pm

I designed the pink bungadoo!
A tree that's 8 miles tall, bright red, and smells terrible!
God fired me after that.
:(

1919. Sharia fiasco

Comment #124989 by Diacanu on February 10, 2008 at 3:21 pm

I get a kick out of Bill Maher sometimes, but his views on relationships are stunted in adolescence, and he honestly and stubbornly believes Vietnam helped win the cold war.

1920. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124968 by Diacanu on February 10, 2008 at 2:14 pm

Peacebeaponme-

btw - your avatar. explain. witch, samurai, what?

Vampire Hunter D.

He's from the anime of the same name.

He's sort of a cross between Batman, Lestat, and Clint Eastwood's the man with no name.

Check out "Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust", sometime, it's a good flick.

1921. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124957 by Diacanu on February 10, 2008 at 1:37 pm

He's shining you all on.
All he cares about is hearing his own blather.
He's a blackhole of narcissism.
You're not going to get through to some core fleck of human conscience, or whatever you think is going to happen arguing with him.
There's just a bag of self-absorption, ego, bullshit,and greed where a human being used to be.
He's gone.
All Randroids are gone.
They're Borg assimilated.
Lost cause, move along, folks.

1922. Sharia fiasco

Comment #124940 by Diacanu on February 10, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Steve Zara-

Indeed, and this is one of the great issues for Europe in the near future, I believe. How does a liberal democracy cope if it contains a significant minority who disagree with the liberal attitude?

Well,...don't know what to tell ya.

Try to reason respectively...but seems you've tried that, and got bad compromises for your troubles...

Tell 'em to take a flying fuck off a rolling donut like Pat Condell suggests seems the next step.

If they dig in their feet,...well, sad to say, lead might have to fly.

Yeah, you sweet tea sipping types can't handle that, it's okay, you don't have to, you limeys have rednecks, chavs I think you call 'em, arm your chavs, pump 'em full of propaganda, aim 'em in the right direction.

I really, really, really, really, hope it doesn't come to that though, but...if it crosses a certain threshold...what else ya gonna do?

The run away to Switzerland option I hear a lot, but come on...

1923. Sharia fiasco

Comment #124913 by Diacanu on February 10, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Steve-

Well, fundamentalist islam is flat out incompatible with liberal democracy.

Thomas Jefferson knew this way back with the Barbary pirates.

1924. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124910 by Diacanu on February 10, 2008 at 12:11 pm

scooternyc-

As the greatly admired Hitchens would say,...

Yeah, well, Hitchens fuckin hates Ayn Rand, so there's another reason why I dig him.

*Smirk, finger*

1925. Sharia fiasco

Comment #124864 by Diacanu on February 10, 2008 at 11:28 am

Richard-

That's what it is, empire guilt?

Well, you guys can't let yourselves get too emo about the guilt, or it becomes suicidal.

1926. Sharia fiasco

Comment #124857 by Diacanu on February 10, 2008 at 11:20 am

Edit- To Steve.

Carlin is the closest thing I have to a God.

1927. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124841 by Diacanu on February 10, 2008 at 11:02 am

Oh, and Scooter? Go fuck yourself.
With a big purple jelly dildo with glitter in it.
Up your puckered Randroid asshole.

Good day.

1928. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124840 by Diacanu on February 10, 2008 at 11:01 am

Ah, I see Scooter has turned this into another platform for his Ayn Rand shit.

Have fun trying to enjoy the ruined thread.
I'm gonna hang out in a non-ruined one somewhere.

1929. Sharia fiasco

Comment #124836 by Diacanu on February 10, 2008 at 10:55 am

*Applause*

1930. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124643 by Diacanu on February 9, 2008 at 11:20 pm

Hmm...I think I have all those!!

Sayonara, baby!!

*Mwah!!*

1931. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124640 by Diacanu on February 9, 2008 at 11:15 pm

SharonMcT-

Diacanu:

You're making perfect sense to me. Except...eggs? really...I like cake. Eggs are like eating farts. I like to avoid eating farts. ;)

Lol!!
Well, there goes that craving...

What would you suggest?

Don't have ingredients for cake.

I need another vehicle for provalone cheese.

1932. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124639 by Diacanu on February 9, 2008 at 11:12 pm

Shrommer-

How would you get 8,000 people to vote for someone who doesn't exist,

Try talking to a fucking Ron Paul supporter sometime.

1933. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124635 by Diacanu on February 9, 2008 at 11:09 pm

Sharon, how'm I doin?

I'm sleep deprived, hungry for eggs, cranky, and having acid reflux, but I think I'm holding up quite well all things considered.

1934. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124634 by Diacanu on February 9, 2008 at 11:08 pm

Shrommer, say, what else do you buy into?

Loc-ness monster? Bigfoot? Ghosts? UFOs? John Edwards?

Or just the invisible sky king and his zombie son?

Hey, what about medical zombies made by voodoo witch doctors?
People really have witnessed that shit.
Why aren't you into voodoo?

1935. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124632 by Diacanu on February 9, 2008 at 11:03 pm

Shrommer-

You won't have a million people believing that Spiderman is real during the hundred years since the comic was created.

It hasn't even been 100 years.

Give it a bit.

So how do you think that a million people came to believe in the resurrected Jesus during the first century without anything special happening and without any eyewitnesses telling the news to others?

Lies, gullibility, credulity,stupidity, wish thinking, all the same crap that makes people fall for televangelists today.
Same type of people.

1936. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124629 by Diacanu on February 9, 2008 at 11:01 pm

SharonMcT-

wow, i would not want to be charged in the court of law that allows evidence from one eyewitness as sufficient proof

Spiderman would bust you out, fair damsel!!

1937. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124626 by Diacanu on February 9, 2008 at 10:58 pm

Shrommer-

Hmm, when it was written it was not written as Holy Scripture and was not written as part of a Bible. It was simply written as historical accounts.

You were there, were you?

1938. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124624 by Diacanu on February 9, 2008 at 10:57 pm

Radesq-

Dammit, King Arthur is real!!

He has to be, or I'll die!!

*Tears squirt*

He's ree-ee-al!! He's reee-ee-al!! He's ree-ee-aal!!!

*Flings self into pillow and shrieks*

1939. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124619 by Diacanu on February 9, 2008 at 10:51 pm

Shrommer-

John was most certainly an eyewitness.

Proof?

Or just feelings?

1940. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124616 by Diacanu on February 9, 2008 at 10:48 pm

Shrommer-

The similarities show that there is a core truth.

Just like The Amazing Spiderman, The Spectacular Spiderman, Web Of Spiderman, Spiderman 2099, and Ultimate Spiderman.

Or, the 60's Spiderman cartoon, the 80's Spiderman cartoon, and the Spiderman movies.

All different, core similarities.

And still fiction.

1941. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124613 by Diacanu on February 9, 2008 at 10:40 pm

Shrommer-

why they think that historical evidence is really no evidence at all.

...*massages temples*

There is no historical evidence outside of scripture.

And archaeological evidence and real history decimates scripture.

The Bible is not a history book any more than fucking Narnia or Lord Of The Rings are.

Hey, it would be nifty if there were a Spiderman, then I could retroactively get college credit for my wasted teen years, and call myself a fucking history professor.

But guess what?
Spiderman, Aslan, Gandalf, Jesus, fuckin' imaginary!

1942. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124606 by Diacanu on February 9, 2008 at 10:31 pm

Shrommer-

See comment 110 again, too.

No.

You're keeping me from fluffy omelettes now, so now you're a bastard, and I want to put pins in you.

1943. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124603 by Diacanu on February 9, 2008 at 10:27 pm

Arrgh!! That omelette was as good as mine and then...argh!!

Shrommer-

I gave supply in comment 133 and you already said it doesn't convince you.

Then bye.

1944. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124601 by Diacanu on February 9, 2008 at 10:25 pm

Unh, son of a bitch, these people...

I need a snack or something....

1945. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124600 by Diacanu on February 9, 2008 at 10:24 pm

*Tumbleweed*

1946. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124599 by Diacanu on February 9, 2008 at 10:23 pm

*Crickets*

1947. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124598 by Diacanu on February 9, 2008 at 10:19 pm

Shrommer-

What the new atheists are saying, however, is that Christians do not have any evidence or that we believe

Supply it.

1948. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124595 by Diacanu on February 9, 2008 at 10:12 pm

Shrommer-

The religion that Hitchens says is poisonous and we shouldn't believe in is already the religion that we are standing against.

Okay, that's all sweet and perfumy an huggy-smoochy and all if religious moderates want to stand against fundamentalism, spiffy.

But see, I'm an atheist, I don't believe that stuff.
Quoting scripture cuts no dice.

See, to me, religion is harmful enough BY NOT BEING TRUE.

Make the lies as fuzzy and snuggly as you want, THEY'RE STILL LIES.

That's harm enough.

The stuff Hitchens complains about is just icing on the cake after that.

1949. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124592 by Diacanu on February 9, 2008 at 10:07 pm

....sorry everyone, Shrommer has been doing this routine for some months now, and it finally...it put me in a Dennis Leary fucking mood....

1950. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124589 by Diacanu on February 9, 2008 at 10:02 pm

Don't care!!

Christianity being fluffy or not doesn't make it true!

And you got no proof!!

I don't care if Jesus is made of marshmallows and hugs!!
I don't!!
Any more than I give a fuck about when Mickey Mouse's birthday is!!