251. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163252 by Styrer- on April 18, 2008 at 5:16 am

Comment #163247 by irate_atheist on April 18, 2008 at 5:10 am

Fuck, sorry, don't know what came over me.

Will do better.

Best,
Styrer

252. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163226 by Styrer- on April 18, 2008 at 4:41 am

Comment #163083 by Quetzalcoatl on April 18, 2008 at 1:15 am

Off topic-

Having read RM's insults yesterday I composed a response criticising what he had said. This morning I received an e-mail from David Robertson telling me that my response will not be displayed, in the interests of keeping the thread "on topic". I appreciate that not everyone here cares about this, but for those who might be interested, my response to RM's original post can be found here:

http://musingsofastrangemind.blogspot.com/2008/04/irate-response.html

So YOU are Mr Jonathan Ward! I read your response to RM last night on FCOS not knowing which RD.netter you were, and was most impressed by its composition - courteous, forceful, fair.

That the laughable Robertson has quashed your post is simply a hoot. He not only continues to show just what a small-minded, petty and vindictive fool he really is, but makes any claim to his oft-repeated notions of 'truth' utterly redundant on a travesty of a site supposedly seeking it.

Good effort, but I think now is the time to really cut the ties with their parochial, sad, deluded little cult, and its ridiculous, unpleasant little Leader.

Best,
Styrer

253. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #163188 by Styrer- on April 18, 2008 at 3:58 am

Comment #162954 by MPhil on April 17, 2008 at 5:52 pm

MPhil, you make some very interesting points, but I ask you to recall that I was specifically taking issue with your unfair charge that it is 'malicious and irrational' to propose an alternative view to your idea that the pope is 'genuinely concerned, deeply troubled' etc.

My reasons for doubting the letter of his word are not 'irrational' (unless you wished to be rather cruel to me!), such as they stem from his and his office's traditional lack of candour in this matter, his continued protection of guilty clergy under his authority and his refusal to submit to legal process. I also consider the Papacy's long-established confused, if not downright twisted, attitude towards sexual practices to have rendered both its moral compass and its claim to authority in discussing such matters deeply dubious.

In recent days, Ratzinger has of course condemned the abuse and expressed sorrow for the victims of it, but in almost the same breath he has leapt to the 'pain and embarrassment' of the priesthood, insisting that bishops must restore morale, and comparing this pain and embarrassment of innocent clergy to "Christ in his Passion."

You may see, in the light of the above, why I remain in considerable doubt as to the real level of concern for the 'children' he proclaims he has, and which you seem to fully accept, and consider that you have been rather unkind in suggesting that my opinion in this matter is malicious or irrational.

This is a situation, in any case, where I sincerely hope that you are right and I am wrong.

Best,
Styrer

254. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #162917 by Styrer- on April 17, 2008 at 4:54 pm

Comment #162911 by Quine on April 17, 2008 at 4:48 pm

'Who, me? Thank you very much!' :)

Yes, it all helps, I hope.

This clip is in any case an excellent start to what I hope is a massively embarrassing campaign for the IDiots.

Best,
Styrer

255. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #162903 by Styrer- on April 17, 2008 at 4:34 pm

Comment #162895 by Quine on April 17, 2008 at 4:20 pm

Well, my humble little assistance is to e-mail the youtube link to everyone in my contacts file.

Little person power!

Best,
Styrer

256. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #162890 by Styrer- on April 17, 2008 at 4:11 pm

Very witty!

Well done, Richard, for your contribution at the end!

More, please!

Best,
Styrer

257. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #162872 by Styrer- on April 17, 2008 at 3:59 pm

Comment #162866 by MPhil on April 17, 2008 at 3:46 pm

I find this interpretation of a pope who refuses to accept responsibility, both personal and legal, to be somewhat unreasonable itself.

I think that his lack of candour, his continued protection of guilty clergy under his authority and his refusal to submit to legal process provide rather more evidence for justifying the charge of a lack of concern than your decreeing, seemingly without due evidence, that he is 'deeply concerned' etc.

I certainly think that your charge of being 'irrational and malicious' is not properly substantiated, at present, and hence uncalled for.

Best,
Styrer

258. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #162864 by Styrer- on April 17, 2008 at 3:41 pm

Comment #162860 by MPhil on April 17, 2008 at 3:27 pm

'and prayed with them'.

This is the most sickening part, for my money. The pope will simply do as popes always do - pray, so absolutely no change there - but that he is joined by the victims and their families praying too is truly bizarre.

I wonder if Popey ever permits himself a gleeful, private little rubbing of hands?

Best,
Styrer

259. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #162857 by Styrer- on April 17, 2008 at 3:18 pm

Comment #162855 by MPhil on April 17, 2008 at 3:04 pm

Yes, the priority would be to present them as one legal entity. But even if this could be successfully argued, the dreaded notion of (unfair) precedence would no doubt kill it stone dead anyway.

What an absolute farce.

Best,
Styrer

260. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #162849 by Styrer- on April 17, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Comment #162846 by MPhil on April 17, 2008 at 2:48 pm

MPhil, according to the article linked by Quine:

'Shea said Tuesday he would challenge the constitutionality of the U.S. diplomatic recognition of the Holy See on the grounds that it goes against the First Amendment's "establishment clause" that bars any laws respecting the establishment of religion.

Shea noted that in trying to have the case dismissed, Ratzinger's lawyers have already admitted in court papers that the Holy See is a church. A May 26 motion to dismiss the suit, citing the First Amendment, says the case should be thrown out because it would "invite court intrusion into the internal affairs of the Roman Catholic Church."'

Worth a bash, but it's a long shot.

Best,
Styrer

261. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #162843 by Styrer- on April 17, 2008 at 2:42 pm

But immunity can be revoked - and should be.

If enough pressure can be brought to re-assert the primacy of the establishment clause, then there's a chance. Its disgraceful submission to faithheads in power should be generating a great deal more anger, as the one thing US citizens seem to prize more highly than their beloved 'faith' is their Constitution.

Best,
Styrer

262. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #162805 by Styrer- on April 17, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Comment #162802 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Suppression perhaps, but there is also the unpleasant fact that many paedophiles actively seek to place themselves in environments where there is increased likelihood of access to children.

There have been explosive reports of paedophilia in the clergy in Ireland going back years, where easy access to children seems to have been an added incentive to join the clergy in some cases.

Best,
Styrer

263. Fleabytes

Comment #162699 by Styrer- on April 17, 2008 at 9:40 am

Comment #162697 by Geoff on April 17, 2008 at 9:31 am

I think it's actually Dawkins who first uses that idea.

But the point remains.

Best,
Styrer

264. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162684 by Styrer- on April 17, 2008 at 8:35 am

Comment #162681 by Foster Zygote on April 17, 2008 at 8:21 am

Yes, there is a danger of that. But I think it rather better that it does receive a wide distribution, in order that it can be comprehensively taken to task on all of its apparently many duplicitous fronts.

In fact, it may even prove to be counter-productive with some of the less moronic faithheads out there. The film is reportedly so utterly distorted, devoid of content and frankly imbecilic that hopefully some of the credulous will at least be less inclined to give full endorsement to its vicious and unsubstantiated claims. They may even do a bit of research after viewing it, the better to see the shite it purports to convey as undisputed fact.

I look forward in any case to a welcome and devastating condemnation of it by rationalists everywhere. It could be unexpectedly useful as an example of precisely what is wrong with the creationist creed.

Best,
Styrer

265. Fleabytes

Comment #162591 by Styrer- on April 17, 2008 at 5:30 am

Comment #162581 by Paula Kirby on April 17, 2008 at 5:03 am

Undoubtedly, Paula. Our solipsism not only fuels irrationality as you describe but also limits our ability to make the most of those desirable cognitive faculties - critical thinking, empathy etc. - we all have.

Had your hairdresser instead been the poor victim in the crash, she would no doubt find utterly despicable the notion that some unknown hairdresser in another part of town was relishing the idea that an unseen, supernatural hand - religiously-based or not - had so arranged her morning as to avoid such a horrible accident.

Religion is still a biggy, of course, as it is the organised, concrete form such horrible, unsympathetic (and in your example, outright unwittingly cruel) solipsism most often takes.

Best,
Styrer

266. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162479 by Styrer- on April 17, 2008 at 2:44 am

Comment #162475 by Egomaniac on April 17, 2008 at 2:43 am

Oh, so close, Ego.

Try again - this time, use your words to - here's a thought - SAY something!

Bonne chance,
Styrer

267. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162476 by Styrer- on April 17, 2008 at 2:43 am

Comment #162472 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 2:39 am

By Jove, I think Steve found some substance in our lovely new member's post!

Good effort, maestro (sincerely!) :)

Best,
Styrer

268. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162470 by Styrer- on April 17, 2008 at 2:34 am

Comment #162464 by Egomaniac on April 17, 2008 at 2:30 am

Ooh, and another content-free post there, Ego.

Third time lucky?

[Edit: and the vacuity continues to the 3rd strike. But do have another go.]

Styrer

269. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162450 by Styrer- on April 17, 2008 at 2:01 am

Comment #162423 by clodhopper on April 16, 2008 at 11:42 pm

Clodhopper, I think you're getting a bit carred away there.

:)

[Edit: Oh, AllanW beat me to it!]

Best,
Styrer

270. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162221 by Styrer- on April 16, 2008 at 11:38 am

Comment #162216 by al-rawandi on April 16, 2008 at 11:24 am

Al-rawandi

Politically the guy is utterly off his fucking rocker, but his contribution to the field of linguistics remains absolutely outstanding. Ground-breaking stuff.

He should have stuck to that.

Best,
Styrer

271. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162212 by Styrer- on April 16, 2008 at 11:08 am

Comment #162173 by thisisme on April 16, 2008 at 9:12 am

Do we really live as if there's no moral objectivity? If there is no objectivity, why do we criticise others? This is the point I've come back to time and again and not had answered. This was my original point - *if* there is no moral objectivity, why does RD criticise someone for lying? How can we say that anything is wrong for anyone else? How can we say that anything was wrong in the past, or will be in the future, or is wrong in a different society?
This is where I *am* going to bring in scripture.

Thisisme

Permit me to say what I usually say to those insisting on theistic notions of morality.

The realisation by Chomsky (much developed by Pinker) that human babies are born with brains which have a 'universal grammar', before expression of it manifests in one particular (native) language, suggests to me that morality may have similar evolutionarily adapted origin.

If so, it is likely that there is a 'universal morality' embedded in our material brains in the same way as 'universal grammar' is embedded there. This embedded, evolutionarily developed 'universal morality' may then manifest itself (as with language) as a morality based on the more specific environmental and cultural influences (e.g. Japan as distinct from North Korea) of the place where the material brain engages with the world.

Would you not agree that this is more compelling than the notion that holy texts are the ultimate arbiters of what is right and wrong? If you disagree, please explain your preference for certain 'holy codes' over others. Is it not the case that you bring to bear upon your chosen holy text an independent judgement of what is good and bad, quite independent of the text itself? Your decision to grant more power and authority to one 'moral lesson' in your holy text over another shows that you are, flat out, bringing your own moral values to the party.

You will notice that they are brought to any such party without any recourse whatsoever to the supernatural.

As such, Darwin is very much more in the moral picture than any notion of theism can possibly be.

It's a beautiful picture, too, and requires no twisted, debasing and immoral notions of vicarious redemption by human sacrifice, original sin, and everlasting pain and suffering for those unwilling or unable to go along with such grotesque ideas to see it clearly.

Open your eyes and have a look!

Best,
Styrer

272. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162150 by Styrer- on April 16, 2008 at 8:31 am

Comment #162129 by al-rawandi on April 16, 2008 at 8:00 am

I wholeheartedly endorse Al-rawandi's comment.

Especially this:

Just remember they think you are going to burn for all eternity. Calling one of them an "ass hole" is mild by comparison.

A point which I've made several times before, and which cannot be emphasised enough.

Best,
Styrer

273. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162125 by Styrer- on April 16, 2008 at 7:52 am

Comment #162119 by hungarianelephant on April 16, 2008 at 7:34 am

Sorry, I thought it was understood we were discussing voices explicitly identified as Bugs', or God's.

If we're simply talking about conscience - having a natter with ourselves, and being aware of that, even if playfully referred to as Bugs' voice while doing so - then there's no disagreement here between us, I suspect.

It would be the certainty that it is Bugs or God behind the voice that would be hastening me on my way to the doc.

Best,
Styrer

274. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162116 by Styrer- on April 16, 2008 at 7:29 am

Comment #162069 by Star Spangled Eagle on April 16, 2008 at 5:42 am

Wow. This RM conversion business has become soap opera-ish. We shouldn't take this too seriously, srsly. For all you know, this RM fiasco could all be a game, and we shouldn't risk falling victim to it.

Ah, Star, but you must know how utterly addictive even the shitest of soap-operas can become...:)

I think the interest is more to do with at least some genuine concern about another member here, and with the notion that Robertson and his clan may have their teeth into a new recruit whom we thought was one of 'ours'!

If it's all a storm in a tea-cup as you suggest it may be, continued discussion is inconsequential and not worth worrying about anyway, and so should be tolerated. If there's more to it, then I would be surprised if, in time, you don't join in yourself!

Best,
Styrer

275. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162112 by Styrer- on April 16, 2008 at 7:13 am

Comment #162092 by hungarianelephant on April 16, 2008 at 6:39 am

Sure, potentially. But if you've already agreed, as Kardshovel has, that this is subject to rational conflict resolution with others, where is the problem? Conversely, if I am convinced that my inner voice is internal but won't submit to rational conflict resolution, then there's still a problem, whether I take personal responsibility or not.

I suppose I would then wonder why such a voice-hearer, who willingly engages in 'rational conflict resolution' to mediate the voice, would
not simply seek to cut out the middle-man (so to speak!) altogether. The voice clearly serves no purpose in being identified as that of any god or cartoon character, and would surely rather be an issue of mental health, and hence a problem.

A visit to the doc seems the only solution to me, in either case you posit.

Best,
Styrer

276. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162071 by Styrer- on April 16, 2008 at 5:47 am

Comment #162068 by hungarianelephant on April 16, 2008 at 5:37 am

That being so, does it matter whether you think the Easter Bunny is talking to you?

I think it matters hugely. By insisting that an internal voice belonging to the Easter, or Bugs, Bunny is guiding you, you are potentially abdicating and denying your personal responsibility for the outcomes of your actions in heeding that voice. The results can, as we see all too often, be catastrophic.

When those voices come calling, a quick visit to the GP is in order, for everybody's sake.

Best,
Styrer

277. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162063 by Styrer- on April 16, 2008 at 5:25 am

Comment #162061 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 5:14 am

It does illustrate a point some rationalist campaigners make: what support or community do you provide if you take away religion from someone's life?

RD.net, for one, clubs, societies of all sorts, for further example, together with the sense of 'support' and 'community' that comes from knowing that one is embracing life proudly and squarely on its own terms.

The community defence of religion is vastly over-played in any case, I think. The familial rifts I've seen at first hand caused by an adherence to such a faithhead community can be horribly real, such that the indoctrinated turn their backs on kith and kin as Jesus urged his followers to do.

There are finer, more noble and infinitely more productive and beneficial ways of 'belonging', if that is what one is seeking, than anything religion has ever been able to provide.

Best,
Styrer

278. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162049 by Styrer- on April 16, 2008 at 4:13 am

Comment #162038 by irate_atheist on April 16, 2008 at 3:11 am

Possibly worth a try, if it can be done.

Poor old Richard has really handed himself to the lions here. If he was going to re-tread the theistic route, why on earth go for such a proven gobshite rabble as Robertson's motley crew?

Religion, and the ghouls who ply it, played a huge part in driving one of my (very vulnerable) relatives to a suicide attempt, such that he is now in permanent care. His chosen motley crew of despicable faithheads bear a striking similarity in their doctrines and their specious argumentation to Robertson and his lot's (evidenced so clearly and sickeningly by Robertson himself here at every turn).

These fuckers simply revel in the delight of recruiting someone when they're clinically depressed, vulnerable or just plain down in the dumps.

I hope Richard Morgan escapes their evil clutches.

Best,
Styrer

279. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161737 by Styrer- on April 15, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Comment #161736 by SPQR83 on April 15, 2008 at 2:52 pm



Well, I guess it's because I seem to know so muc...

Oh right.

Couldn't tell you, mate. Anyone else got an answer to this terrifically astute question?

Best,
Styrer

280. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161728 by Styrer- on April 15, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Comment #161726 by al-rawandi on April 15, 2008 at 2:33 pm

*sigh* No guarantees, I'm afraid.

Seems you lot have him well in hand, though!

Spectator time.

Best,
Styrer

281. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161723 by Styrer- on April 15, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Comment #161699 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 2:12 pm

"Randomness" is an adjective, in this case modifying the noun "Evolution", which is what Steve is claiming has no purpose. Try to stay on the ball, professor.

Actually, 'randomness' is a noun, and doesn't qualify anything here. You mean 'random', which can qualify the noun 'evolution'.

Stay on your own ball, perhaps? :)

Styrer

282. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161670 by Styrer- on April 15, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Comment #161665 by WhoMadeYou on April 15, 2008 at 1:40 pm

I'm surprised you would stoop so low as to make personal attacks that are characteristic of a 5th grader in a forum.

Come on Dr. Dawkins, keep your dignity while you're still the pope of Darwinism.

And you probably really do not see the irony here, do you?

While you're dishing out the dignity, do take a peek at some of the paragons of dignified discourse posting from your presumable camp here.

Unbelievable.

Styrer

283. Teacher Expelled Over Religion

Comment #161614 by Styrer- on April 15, 2008 at 12:59 pm

While I am sure our US members will have ideas on making suitably loud noises over there, and on who should be hearing them, I wonder if there is any advice for a willing European as to how to join in the fray?

This is an absolute disgrace, my hackles are risen and I'd be grateful for any contact information.

No doubt the magnificent Eugenie Scott will be involved in securing justice for poor Ms. Comer, but as wide an attack as possible is surely nonetheless in order.

Best,
Styrer

284. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161387 by Styrer- on April 15, 2008 at 8:27 am

Nor are they as sharp, quick, knowledgeable, and capable of predicting future events.

We could go around all day on this, unless you tell us specifically what was said, and how it could not possibly have been information, a solution or a stance that your own cognition could have worked out, as per its usual function.

Care to share?

Styrer

285. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161350 by Styrer- on April 15, 2008 at 7:39 am

Comment #161329 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 7:12 am

You may want to do a little digging into what I said before you keep asking questions that can be answered in three words: "God needs us."

Well, Kardashovel, I extended your invitation to myself and have read through as many of your recent posts as I could stomach.

You do seem otherwise well-adjusted; and I join another member here in congratulating you on your happy life; but your repeated assertions that 'God needs us', and that you are hearing voices from him, absolutely baffle me. Do these private hearings ever divulge to you information you did not previously know, and could not possibly have known? Or is it more likely that you are simply having a little natter with yourself?

The only fact that I can really discern from your religiosity is that it can be every bit as dangerous and terrifying in its absolute certainty as that of the Wooters of this world. It is perhaps even worse, in that you are evidently an educated individual capable of at least making an appearance of rational argument in favour of your wholly irrational propositions.

Styrer

286. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161270 by Styrer- on April 15, 2008 at 4:52 am

Comment #160677 by al-rawandi on April 14, 2008 at 9:16 am

Styrer,





David Robertson has still refused to answer my question regarding the FCOS creed which states "pre-ordained damnation" as an article of faith.

I admire your persistence, but the man is slimey.

Al-rawandi

Still no sign of an answer for either of us, then, I note.

He does seem to have a tendency to cut and run at moments when avoiding answer by way of continued inanity becomes rather too conspicuous even for him.

He may simply have his hands full in justifying the unjustifiable on the PZ thread here; or in doing his best to make a convert to his cause of poor old Richard Morgan, who is still receiving all his love and affection on the FCOS site. I'll check this thread out from time to time, but a proper response for either of us is looking increasingly unlikely.

Best,
Styrer

287. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160674 by Styrer- on April 14, 2008 at 9:13 am

Comment #159930 by David A Robertson on April 13, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Sorry guys - you should really just read the posts then you would not have to engage in the detective work/conspiracy theories etc. I explained that I was only reinstated as David A. Robertson today. But don't worry clearthinker will return!

Styrer, I have answered your question about metaphor - but perhaps you are asking a different one? You clearly are having difficulty with the English language (hence your need to swear a lot) but I assume you understood my answer? But perhaps you were asking a different question/accusation? You obviously seem to think it is the great unanswerable point - so I tell you what. There is one thread I am very interested in and when I get the time will write a post - please feel free to be as irrelevant there as you are here!

What a truly unpleasant person you are, Robertson.

To correct you yet again, you have not answered my question and you are tiring me out with your lying insistence that you have. Either answer it or take your leave.

It rather pleases me that my swearing has so obviously upset you. Unfortunately, I could fill all my posts with back-to-back expletives and their sheer volume would not even approach the deeply perverse, offensive and de-humanising doctrine by which you claim to live your life. The positively immoral notions of vicarious redemption by human sacrifice, your filthy propagation of the idea of original sin, your despicable espousal of the doctrine of eternal pain and suffering for those who cannot or will not go along with your verminous madness have all made of you a deeply twisted, unpleasant man.

The burden of attempting to make these horrible ideas work for you has clearly seriously fucked you up, such that I would normally feel pity for a person reduced to such a state; but my pity for you is reduced in proportion with both the self-inflicted nature of it and with your insistence on attempting to drag other people, including children, into your vile little world of delusion.

I genuinely hope you will one day wake up, if not for your own sake then for the children's.

Styrer

288. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159869 by Styrer- on April 13, 2008 at 9:32 am

Comment #159851 by Corylus on April 13, 2008 at 8:55 am

Hurray! I now know how to talk down Styrer when he gets wound up: distract with Cat Stevens.

I'm a' singin' Moon Shadow next time :-)

Dr Benway
What to do about all this
Maybe one of us should offer to 'fight alongside then' when they come on so they don't feel swamped? This will

a) Provide good practice for the person playing 'Devil's (Christian's?) Avocate.

b) Stop the new guy feeling swamped.

c) Seem fair

d) Maybe cut down on rudeness.

I'm willing to do this now and again, but would probably be best twinned with an Anglican moderate as I know that best... real biblebots will need someone else.

I suppose my overall fave - though it changes, as is usual - is On the road to Findout. Ah! I hear it now. There's nothing to compare...

Ok, as for the rest of your post...

Are you MAD?

Never give the fuckers AN INCH!!!

Seriously, I think this idea of a 'walk me through' can work at some universities etc., but you are asking far too much of both theist and anti-theist alike on this one...

Corylus, don't forget. The theists already know.

Terrifying.

Best,
Styrer

289. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159868 by Styrer- on April 13, 2008 at 9:30 am

Comment #159844 by Dr Benway on April 13, 2008 at 8:32 am

Oh fuck. Went and made a twat of myself.

Sorry.

It was the 7 point system, same as Dawkins...

Oh fuck it, no excuses. Just made a twat of myself. Full stop.

Best,
Styrer

290. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159850 by Styrer- on April 13, 2008 at 8:53 am

Comment #159844 by Dr Benway on April 13, 2008 at 8:32 am

Under which number do you yourself fall, my good Doctor?

And is your solitary no. 7 Richard Dawkins?

Best,
Styrer

291. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159848 by Styrer- on April 13, 2008 at 8:46 am

Comment #159842 by Peacebeuponme on April 13, 2008 at 8:28 am

Styrer
It was a fucking travesty. (It was Boyzone, by the way.)
The pedant in me is duty bound to tell you it was Ronan Keating (and not all of Boyzone).

Yes, and no pedantry involved. I was wrong.

Cat (or YUSUF, now, the twat) thought that Ronan had the voice for it. From what I've heard, Cat's son Muhammad has indicated that Pops was not really happy with the outcome...

Best,
Styrer

292. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159838 by Styrer- on April 13, 2008 at 8:20 am

Comment #159812 by Corylus on April 13, 2008 at 7:36 am

Teehee.

I am now tempted to ask Stryer what he thinks of that Westlife* cover of Father and Son, but I wouldn't want to get him cross :-)

It was a fucking travesty. (It was Boyzone, by the way.)

Keating didn't rise to the scale of the original (which was the whole point - father (low) son (high)) and he kept the same key throughout!

And Cat was walking behind him, assisting here and there! Should have sung the whole damn thing.

Fucking religion...it RESTRICTS, and never ENABLES.

Phew. Thanks, Corylus. Off my chest now.:)

Best,
Styrer

293. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159831 by Styrer- on April 13, 2008 at 8:07 am

And yes Styrer, I do come and go as I please. We call that freedom. And you really do need to look up a dictionary (and not for more swear words!). I did NOT answer as though I were a fundamentalist, I said 'unless' you are a fundamentalist.

Fucking Robertson again! (That expletive was on the house; you'll pay, of course, for the next, won't you? Cheques not accepted.)

Er, Robertson, may I ask you why you are logging on to Richard Dawkins' site on such a busy Sunday? What on earth are you neglecting, my dear sir, simply to be here?

'it is a Sunday and I do have better things to do.'

Oh, poor lonely David. Was I right in thinking that you can't get enough of us all? Is it Cartomancer's legs? Is it Steve Zara's shoes? Is it, oh admit it, MY terrific sense of humour?

Always welcome, old fella.

But I must take one teeny tiny issue with you. You have still not answered my question, have you, old love? Come now. Give it to me straight. Devastate me with your acumen...

Perhaps next time you could answer the question directly? All these referrals, all these procrastinations...surely you can answer me in real time?

Good luck!

Styrer

294. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159824 by Styrer- on April 13, 2008 at 7:52 am

I think he is just a cranky guy with a colourful vocabulary.

Oh stop, stop, you go too far! Such approbation, please, no, oh stop!

Bastard. I'll never be able to look in the mirror the same way again.

Best,
Styrer

295. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159816 by Styrer- on April 13, 2008 at 7:44 am

Comment #159807 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 7:26 am

Aw, Bonzai you have ever been a poet,
But you were simply not reared to know it.

That's me out of jokes. I'm too much of a serious fucker for all your puerile shite.

Now, where's that cunt Robertson got to...?

Best,
Styrer

296. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159813 by Styrer- on April 13, 2008 at 7:36 am

Comment #159806 by David A Robertson on April 13, 2008 at 7:24 am

Sorry to butt in - I have no wish to intrude on the high standard of debate but I do feel that poor Styrer is getting himself worked up over nothing. I will reply and then leave you to continue your intellectual discussion..

Styrer asks 'Robertson has NEVER deigned to respond to my question of how metaphorical readings can POSSIBLY lead to assertions of REALITY for those metaphorical parts which he has admitted are key to his doctrine."

Its not really that difficult - unless you are a fundamentalist who thinks that there is only one absolutely literal way to read anything. When Jesus said I am the door - he did not mean that he was made of wood and had a handle. He meant that he was the way to God. That is how metaphor works.

Sorry for the intrusion... Now I must leave this oasis of clear thinking, freedom,love and reason and return to the cess pool of Christianity....

Tot Ziens....

No intrusion, old bean. You seem to come and go as you wish in any case.

Now, tut, tut, my furry faith-drenched friend. You haven't answered my question, have you?

Answering as though you are a 'fundamentalist' (ARE there such, Robertson, in your funny little church?) is hardly answering as David A. Robertson, now, is it?

My question, Robertson, is clear, and it is addressed to YOU, my funny little e-acquaintance. I'll repeat, for the avoidance of doubt:

Why do you mistake metaphorical significance in your holy book for the reality of the fictitious deity described within it?

You know, Robertson, I will fucking love to hear a decent response from you on this.

Come on, you slippery puppy you.

Waiting...

Best,
Styrer

297. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159804 by Styrer- on April 13, 2008 at 7:22 am

Comment #159793 by alan baylis on April 13, 2008 at 7:00 am

Aw shucks. I was just warming up.

Best,
Styrer

298. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159799 by Styrer- on April 13, 2008 at 7:14 am

Comment #159792 by Peacebeuponme on April 13,

2008 at 6:59 am

Styrer
My (now seemingly insubstantial) point was that we have a freedom here which Richard Morgan is going to sorely miss.
No, that is a substantial point which we need to remind ourselves of. Its why I and I suspect many others spend a lot of time here. There are not many places like this on the web.

There is really nothing out there like this.

My only comparison has to be my 6 year membership with Catstevens.com. Don't laugh - it wasn't just a bunch of us logging on talking about hippies. The best part of the site, which I visited almost daily, was titled from a Cat Stevens song - Maybe you're right - with the addition of - 'and maybe you're wrong'. Debates were had, but RELIGION was strictly off-limits.

That this site's raison d'etre is its stance against religion is more wonderful than I am used to in e-land. IT MUST continue.

But if it cannot take a few fucking cunting shites, then I'll continue to hunt...:)

Cat Stevens is still my all time favourite musician. A ridiculously talented man, he gave up music at the age of 28 to become a Muslim. He has now, at the age of 58, convinced himself that it is ok for the verminous mullahs to permit him to play guitar again. After 30 years.

If I didn't hate religion for ANYTHING ELSE, I would hate it solely because of what it did to one of this generation's most original, special and compelling singer/songwriters.

Best,
Styrer

299. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159789 by Styrer- on April 13, 2008 at 6:50 am

Comment #159785 by Peacebeuponme on April 13, 2008 at 6:39 am

Yes, thank you, and I apologise for my previous shite.

My (now seemingly insubstantial) point was that we have a freedom here which Richard Morgan is going to sorely miss.

Robertson has NEVER deigned to respond to my question of how metaphorical readings can POSSIBLY lead to assertions of REALITY for those metaphorical parts which he has admitted are key to his doctrine.

The cunt pisses me of more than I would ever have thought possible.

Sorry for venting, folks. You know it's not you.

Best,
Styrer

300. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159784 by Styrer- on April 13, 2008 at 6:35 am

Comment #159777 by Roland_F on April 13, 2008 at 5:48 am

This goes to Roland and to all of you soppy-pants

STOP giving a flying fuck what Robertson will do with our posts.

We could start being, irrationally, as nice as fucking pie to each other, talking about how sweet everything is, how lovely the world is, what a delight we all are to each other and supersitious supernaturalists everywhere will continue to paint us just as they want.

Don't fall for it, all. Press on as usual.

Now, who haven't I called a fuckwit today?

Best,
Styrer