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 Styrer-


201. 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

202. 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

203. 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

204. 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

205. 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

206. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

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

Good job.

Styrer

207. 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

208. 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

209. 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

210. 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

211. 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

212. 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

213. 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

214. 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

215. 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

216. 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

217. 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

218. 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

219. 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

220. 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

221. 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

222. 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

223. 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

224. 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

225. What is science for?

Comment #182405 by Styrer- on May 20, 2008 at 1:33 am

I can't decide if Harris is stunningly and brilliantly prescient or simply completely off his rocker!

Richard's impressively astute questioning of him at the end did indicate in Harris a certain vagueness, I thought, if not flat-out contradiction, in his pursuing the ideas he had raised in his talk. His idea that human immortality - or at least hugely increased longevity - would render us no longer human doesn't seem to follow, I think. I'm probably being a bit dim, but Harris's overall message seemed finally a little confused, not least because by the end he was not emphasising nearly as much as he had at the start of his talk his assertion that science is for the general good rather more than for its own exploratory and curiosity-driven sake.

Sulston was more grounded, it seemed, and made his points in favour of science as exploration clearly and engagingly.

Nice to see Richard 'chairing' this - he is usually being 'chaired', it seems! - with real skill, cutting to the chase of the arguments in typically perspicacious manner.

I enjoyed this.

Best,
Styrer

226. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #179928 by Styrer- on May 14, 2008 at 2:10 am

Comment #179896 by Tumara Baap on May 14, 2008 at 12:50 am

Brooks' language is decidedly unscientific. But for this he should not be slammed.


Why not?

His piece relies heavily on scientific findings and yet makes a mockery of the very process whose results he relies on to make his highly questionable points.

science and mysticism are joining hands and reinforcing each other


This statement is entirely unsubstantiated in his piece. How does science 'reinforce' mysticism? What does this mean? How does 'mysticism' reinforce science?

What is meant by these statements?

Instead of providing a persuasive reason for not 'slamming' this wishy-washy idiot's unclear language, you imperiously and unjustifiably decree that he should not be so treated.

Unacceptable round these parts. Careful how you proceed.

Styrer

227. 85% of Americans Want a Presidential Debate on Science

Comment #179880 by Styrer- on May 13, 2008 at 11:27 pm

Comment #179828 by babrock on May 13, 2008 at 8:37 pm

In view of your comment, do you think that the title to this article is misleading?

If not, I do not understand why you have such a negative attitude - which I note you set out from the start - to the inclusion of all Americans in such a science debate.

If yes, why?

Best,
Styrer

228. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #179863 by Styrer- on May 13, 2008 at 10:37 pm

Comment #179747 by Atticus_of_Amber on May 13, 2008 at 3:52 pm

It would be nice if people like Brooks actually bothered to read the "new atheists" before attempting to criticise them.


Not a bad letter, though I think that you have failed to get to the heart of the issue, and have delivered far too much of the shitty baggage of Brooks to the feet of Sam Harris.

[Do be more careful with your English when addressing a publication of note - Brooks did not compare "new atheists" with any 'findings'. I cannot see how anyone possibly could.]

I am at least glad that you have relinquished your wrong-headed insistence on re-labelling, ubiquitously as I recall, the Four Horsemen 'anti-dogmatists'.

Permit me my continuing doubt that your public offerings are really of so much use and help as you seem to think they are.

Best,
Styrer

229. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #179851 by Styrer- on May 13, 2008 at 9:56 pm

Maybe it could have done it better, but now it's time to heal those wounds and this can be done through calm dialogue and collaboration.


Fucking typical Catholic syntax.

Note how neither agent nor recipient is specified: who made the fucking 'wounds'?; who received these wounds?

No answer here. One can almost hear the slinking away of both criminal and victim into the nebulous ether of unspecific language.

Fuck that.

Such 'wounds' - I can infer with justification that these stem from violence, verbal and physical abuse, sexual molestation and rape - will be 'healed' by - wait for it - 'calm dialogue and collaboration'.

These 'wounds' were crimes, carried out by the church, and hushed up over years. The WOUNDED are those who have had their lives disfigured by the rampant immorality surging through an institution which is incapable of, any longer, professing any moral superiority WHAT SO FUCKING EVER.

The proposed remedy of 'calm dialogue and collaboration' is, frankly, a horrifically ignorant and disgustingly unsympathetic response to EVERY SINGLE victim of the Roman Catholic Cult, and the light measure of its expression demonstrates for all to see the levity with which it treats this matter.

I am shaking with anger. I trust I am not alone.

Cunts.

Styrer

230. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #179834 by Styrer- on May 13, 2008 at 8:49 pm

The brain seems less like a cold machine. It does not operate like a computer. Instead, meaning, belief and consciousness seem to emerge mysteriously from idiosyncratic networks of neural firings. Those squishy things called emotions play a gigantic role in all forms of thinking. Love is vital to brain development.


What the fuck does the above mean?

Researchers now spend a lot of time trying to understand universal moral intuitions. Genes are not merely selfish, it appears. Instead, people seem to have deep instincts for fairness, empathy and attachment.


Ah, and Richard fills the forefront, again, and his 'selfish' gene continues to pave the way for utter disregard for its own meaning and its own context, in the hands of deliberate falsifiers such as Brooks, who use it for their own desperately theistic ends, and who by so using it fail utterly to grasp its import.

Nothing new what-so-fucking-ever.

Brooks is a charlatan, playing and failing at communicating, and the above article would submit well to a treatment by Paula Kirby, to rip the fucking thing apart.

For me, I would only say that this utter gobshite's statement:

I'm not qualified to take sides, believe me.


would be better placed at the start in order that I could have fucked off altogether and done something far more productive than reading his ensuing bilge.

Best,
Styrer

231. 85% of Americans Want a Presidential Debate on Science

Comment #179810 by Styrer- on May 13, 2008 at 7:54 pm

I am sure that Leon Kass and his ilk will attempt to persuade Bush that 85% of Americans are simply going through a little tantrum, stomping their little ignorant irreligious feet, and not REALLY desirous of better quality of life and of increased longevity on foot of scientific investigations.

I am equally sure that Bush will be duly persuaded by such attempts.

Best,
Styrer

232. Richard Dawkins discusses Einstein's new letters

Comment #179794 by Styrer- on May 13, 2008 at 6:47 pm

Having heard all sorts of quotes, and having read just a little, I conclude, rather boringly, I'm afraid, that Einstein was simply not interested in the idea of religion and of a supreme being's existence or non-existence.

I don't think he gave a flying fuck.

I think the whole God question was a distraction for him, from the scientific work he wanted to press on with.

I think he would think our musings here rather risible.

Richard's answers here quite nicely reflect this, though I am not sure that we can forgive Richard for presenting himself for such an interview without intimating even once that religion is a stinking load of fuck-eyed piss juice drained from the scrotums of faithoholics, spunked over by elderly perverted and grinning virgins, and served in kids' lunches the world over.

Just my take on it.

Best,
Styrer

233. God seekers go public

Comment #179502 by Styrer- on May 13, 2008 at 10:45 am

Comment #179467 by Diacanu on May 13, 2008 at 9:47 am

I honestly believe people know in their deepest heart of hearts those tactics are wrong, and these things they believe are a tapestry of lies.
They know in their heart of hearts it can't be true.


Diacanu, I catch myself too often feeling the same, until I smack myself upside the head and remember Harris's message: it is when you realise that these people actually do believe what they say they believe that the ignorant fucking madness of it all begins to make some sense.

I fear that it is equally the shithead faithoholics who truly believe that it is us lot who 'know in [our] heart of hearts' that we're wrong.

This will be a long one.

Best,
Styrer

234. 3QD interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #178818 by Styrer- on May 12, 2008 at 5:25 am

I actually enjoyed the 'homely' way this interesting interview was filmed, and it showed off nicely Richard's easy engagement with some not so usual and fairly wide-ranging lines of discussion.

Abbas did indeed seem 'intent about getting his ideas across' but here I think the time spent was justified as he set up some refreshing and quite incisive questions for Richard to get his teeth into.

I am looking forward to reading Richard's new book when it comes out. Not only a celebration of Darwin but a welcome (and timely) decimation of IDiotic 'ideas' too, I hope!

Best,
Styrer

235. I Am Evolution

Comment #178382 by Styrer- on May 11, 2008 at 10:25 am

Comment #178374 by mordacious1 on May 11, 2008 at 10:07 am

I am afraid I agree. This constant combining of 'belief' with 'evolution' risks refuting the very point the article seeks to make. Clarifying that 'belief in evolution' is entirely wrong-headed is ill-served by the rhetorical device used here. Not a great article.

Best,
Styrer

236. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour

Comment #177599 by Styrer- on May 9, 2008 at 10:45 am

Comment #177568 by Diacanu on May 9, 2008 at 10:10 am

*Hauls self to feet*

Fuck, I needed that.

Thank you, Diacanu.

Right. Onwards!

Best,
Styrer

237. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177465 by Styrer- on May 9, 2008 at 6:21 am

Comment #177376 by AllanW on May 9, 2008 at 1:54 am

Styrer; lighten up, man. This is no big deal. And that's why Dawkins' response was apposite; he laughingly swatted a fly, barely deserving of attention in a cool, clear manner.


Yes, I must seem to be harping on, but if you're right that 'it's no big deal', why on earth did he reply at all?

I see no point in his responding unless it was in order to entirely refute this little shit's intimations of anti-semitism.

This is no small-time and insignificant Robertson, whom he rightly and consistently ignores; this man has quite a choir behind him: either give this matter the full deal or give it nothing at all.

Best,
Styrer

238. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177399 by Styrer- on May 9, 2008 at 2:57 am

Comment #177380 by Richard Dawkins on May 9, 2008 at 2:01 am

But I think this is the first time I have heard any reputable spokesman (a) say that Hitler and Stalin's dictatorships were ruled by reason, and (b) say that reason leads to terror and oppression.



So you've not been paying attention, then?

Ben Stein is only too happy to play the 'reason' card for Stalin and Hitler, saying that such regimes are 'logically' the result of atheism, in which regimes 'reason' is the historic and sole diktat by which they can function.

And he thinks that 'science leads you to killing people.' Just a smidgen more worrying than reason leading to terror and oppression, as you put it.

Reputation? Pah. Stein's is greater, over more years, than O'Connor's is and will ever be, small time idiot that he is. Stein is a kind of folk hero in the US. His repeated enunciation of 'anyone' in the Bueller film gained him star-like recognition.

You must have heard all this before. Perhaps you should simply re-calibrate your definition of 'reputable'. I suspect you are setting the bar way too high.

Best,
Styrer

239. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour

Comment #177384 by Styrer- on May 9, 2008 at 2:04 am

Comment #177351 by Rawhard Dickins on May 9, 2008 at 1:01 am

Styrer

Don't give up mate!

Humanity is in it's adolescent phase (childhood was about 2000 years ago).

It just takes time and education and a lot more straight talking.


Thanks, Rawhard.

Just feeling a bit blue at the moment. I'd just shown the 'child preacher' (baby bible bashers) vid here to my wife, at which we both had a good fucking cry.

This thread's topic just jumped on top of me.

Will do better, mate. Cheers.

Best,
Styrer

240. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177372 by Styrer- on May 9, 2008 at 1:47 am

Comment #177343 by Noodly on May 9, 2008 at 12:26 am

Highlight:

Humphreys: "Did you hear Richard Dawkins earlier?"

Cardinal: "No,I was praying"


Did he really say 'no, I was praying'? Or am I not in on some joke?

Styrer

241. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177364 by Styrer- on May 9, 2008 at 1:33 am

Comment #177355 by AllanW on May 9, 2008 at 1:04 am

Bravura performance here by Dawkins. The odious little man was treated with contempt and ridicule for his ignorance of evolution but couched in a polite and jocular manner. I think that hits the right tone for a shallow, shrill clown like Boteach.


Really? You don't find Boteach's re-casting of Dawkins' 'Hitler' as something approaching an anti-semitic reproach of him something a little more than the tone of 'a shallow, shrill clown'?

I re-submit that Dawkins' response here is a real fucking disgrace in its refusal to refute Boteach's implied charge of anti-semitism against him, in strongest terms, and in its consequent failure to properly condemn the manner in which faith-fuelled charlatans like Boteach attempt to make of every susceptible person they encounter a new recruit to their pernicious cult.

I think that Dawkins' 'softly, softly' approach, for which he is famous, was utterly out of place here.

Styrer

242. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177352 by Styrer- on May 9, 2008 at 1:01 am

Comment #177342 by Layla Nasreddin on May 9, 2008 at 12:21 am

We'll see how the good Cardinal responds.


I cannot wait.

Really, I cannot wait.

I'm off.

Styrer

243. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour

Comment #177347 by Styrer- on May 9, 2008 at 12:43 am

I don't think we are going to win this one, folks.

The faithoholics are just too numerous. Their numbers are increasing all the time.

Muslim numbers are increasing as we speak, more than any idea on the planet.

It's just a matter of time.

What's the fucking point in fighting it anymore.

Wish I knew where Steve Zara's watering hole was. I'd stand the first ten.

Waste of fucking effort.

Styrer

244. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177332 by Styrer- on May 8, 2008 at 11:34 pm

Tuned in specially to hear Richard's interview.

Could not have been more than two minutes, within which time, Richard made the great John Humphreys splutter his words!

Richard was in superb form, making the (to us lot familiar) point that the clergy are ALWAYS let off the hook when it comes to justifying their claims in a way that EVERYONE ELSE is emphatically not, because EVIDENCE is demanded.

Richard took Humphreys (and by association, much of the media) to task for applying different standards of interviewing to religious figures than those applied to secular invitees to the show. Cue Humphreys spluttering!

I do not think that Humphreys was expecting such robust rejoinders from Richard at all, perhaps because of the early hour. Humphreys' final 'get me out of here, quick' comment was 'I wish we had more time.'

Richard - excellent!

Thank you. More of the same, please!

Best,
Styrer

245. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177293 by Styrer- on May 8, 2008 at 9:56 pm

Comment #177290 by Eric Blair on May 8, 2008 at 9:38 pm

Eric Blair

Hitler reserved for some of the most despicable and irrational of his statements in public a stridency, a shrillness and a decibel-challenging shrieking for which it is difficult to find another human-voiced comparison. And Shmuley is a shrieker extraordinaire, precisely when he is uttering the most bollocks. The comparison with Hitler is uncanny.

Malicious or naive as regards a reference to Hitler? Way off the mark.

Dawkins' reference is entirely normal and appropriate.

Unlike your response here - may I suspect that you have deeper issues here?

Best,
Styrer

246. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177289 by Styrer- on May 8, 2008 at 9:28 pm

Comment #177257 by adonais on May 8, 2008 at 8:34 pm

Your opinion sucks. Scientists aren't in the business of pandering to demagogues who make their livelihood and fame off deceiving the public. Dawkins has dedicated decades of his life to educating the public, but people like Boteach and Stein et al repeatedly demonstrate themselves to be beyond educating.


Quite so. And so why, my dear Adonais, did Richard deign to make so much as a bleat of a response to one such vacuous, half-witted, self-inflating faithoholic as Shmuley?

And why, while he was about it, did Richard not seek to condemn beyond any measure of doubt this failed stand-up's hateful, twisted and abhorrent notions of - let's see - original sin? Of - er - the unpalatable notion of vicarious redemption by human sacifice? Or - and this was nudging towards my main point - at the very least his odious suggestion that Richard is an anti-semite?

Got it, ace?

Best,
Styrer

247. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177243 by Styrer- on May 8, 2008 at 8:09 pm

Richard

Permit me my opinion - while Boteach is clearly a self-serving, self-publicising chancer of the worst kind, your response to him here is an absolute disgrace.

You have neither properly defended yourself against his despicable intimation that you are anti-semite, nor have you attempted here to categorically denounce such shit-fuelled tactics he is no doubt prepared to use in the propagation of his immoral beliefs to encourage other, more vulnerable people to join his cult.

You may think that you have wisely kept to the issue you raised regarding Hitler and his decibels (which is absolutely on the money), but here is an instance when, I submit, you simply had to take this little fucker to task for the hideous, despicable and hateful associations of which he has disingenuously and viciously sought to make you a supporter.

If you were not prepared to hit back at this horrible little person's crap extremely hard, I think you should have simply said nothing. Your piece seems, stunningly, more like an apology to him.

Extremely poor show, sir.

Styrer

248. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177130 by Styrer- on May 8, 2008 at 4:00 pm

Comment #177127 by Diacanu on May 8, 2008 at 3:47

The motherfucka.


What a moment it would be if Richard turbo-charged his previous on-air 'bullshit' to a well-placed 'the motherfucka' tomorrow.

Back to the land of beautiful dreams...

Best,
Styrer

249. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177126 by Styrer- on May 8, 2008 at 3:46 pm

Comment #177066 by Richard Dawkins on May 8, 2008 at 2:06 pm

OK, well I eventually decided to do it. I'm told I'll be on at about 7.10 am tomorrow morning, 9th May. Then they plan to re-use some of what I say, when they come on to interview the Cardinal later. So he gets the last word! And probably a much longer interview.

Richard


Richard

'twas always thus, and always thus 't'will be.

Until, perhaps, you get Max Clifford in to negotiate you more prime-time.

If I may suggest - do labour the point that the verbose gobshite simply presumes the existence of his god and takes it all, metaphorically as usual, from there.

Not a whiff of a jot of an iota of evidence anywhere.

Give the fucker hell.

Enjoy. But don't be too damned nice to those who, either pityingly or rejoicingly, know you are heading for eternal suffering and pain.

Bonne chance.

Best,
Styrer

250. Trouble ahead for science

Comment #176937 by Styrer- on May 8, 2008 at 11:14 am

Comment #176912 by Cartomancer on May 8, 2008 at 10:32 am

Reluctantly, and solely for the purposes of seeing this film's 'ideas' shoved irretrievably down the world toilet of shit ideas, I agree.

Though quite why a seemingly reasonable chap like Miller doesn't take the next step and have a good old embarrassed chuckle at how daft he's been all this time, I'm really not sure.

Compartmentalization, no doubt. Wearing thin as that one is (intelligent faithoholics must surely know by now what their ill-serving brains are up to), I suppose we must take our support against the likes of anal fissures like Stein as we can.

But definitely reluctantly.

Best,
Styrer

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 | Next