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 irate_atheist


301. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180597 by irate_atheist on May 15, 2008 at 9:27 am

PBUM - A joke? Certainly not. The word 'colleaugue' was available for all to see for at least 5 seconds.

If I was going to take the rise out of someone, I'd have written, 'However, he can still use his brain to think clearly - unlike you', in response to someone's post. But I didn't, as you can see.

302. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180593 by irate_atheist on May 15, 2008 at 9:06 am

129. Comment #180383 by Richard Morgan -

But are temporary brain infarctions and epileptic fits life-changing?
Yes. I have a colleague who is no longer able to drive because of this and is on permanent medication to prevent it happening again. However, he can still use his brain to think clearly - at least most of the time.

"There's no fool like an old fool." How apt those words are.

Edit: Typo.

303. Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear

Comment #179972 by irate_atheist on May 14, 2008 at 3:40 am

27. Comment #179477 by IQHQ -


Get your head out of your arse, Irate....
Why should I? I'm enjoying the view.
And anyway, before you get up on your high horse, do you honestly believe that Brooke, a fellow biographer, would just casually attribute false perspectives to the great man, and what's more do so without a shred of proof?
He might do. I don't know the man's character well enough to judge either way.
Walter Isaacson, in his recent biography on Einstein, makes this point quite explicit, citing several letters to prove it.
Now that's more like it! A pointer to some evidence. Splendid!

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

Comment #179964 by irate_atheist on May 14, 2008 at 3:27 am

Epeeist -

Metaphysical snakes?

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

Comment #179940 by irate_atheist on May 14, 2008 at 2:49 am

Fucktards, the lot of 'em.

306. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #179451 by irate_atheist on May 13, 2008 at 9:04 am

481. Comment #179446 by Quetzalcoatl -

Cheers!

(Raises glass of tap-water and toasts his munificence)

307. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #179445 by irate_atheist on May 13, 2008 at 8:54 am

479. Comment #179443 by Steve Zara -

Steve - what's your blog address?

308. God seekers go public

Comment #179418 by irate_atheist on May 13, 2008 at 8:21 am

22. Comment #179399 by EvidenceOnly -

Should we call this the Lying for Jesus Disorder (LJD)?

Could science come up with a cure for this terrible disease?
The cure is the Hitchens Enema Kit(TM).

309. God seekers go public

Comment #179377 by irate_atheist on May 13, 2008 at 7:23 am

10. Comment #179373 by annabanana -

Hear hear!

This month's oxymoron award goes to "Christian Science Monitor".

310. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #179362 by irate_atheist on May 13, 2008 at 6:59 am

65. Comment #179359 by riandouglas -

He's gone silent, it appears.

Talking to his 'mediator', perhaps?

Or was this another (s)hit and run by him?

311. God seekers go public

Comment #179360 by irate_atheist on May 13, 2008 at 6:56 am

Fill in the usual comment:____________

312. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #179354 by irate_atheist on May 13, 2008 at 6:47 am

63. Comment #179351 by riandouglas -

Has anyone mentioned the self-confessed act of criminal fraud by Robertson? No? Oh well, I'll let someone else do it.

313. Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear

Comment #179352 by irate_atheist on May 13, 2008 at 6:44 am

24. Comment #179346 by IQHQ -

"Brooke said that Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated..."

Let's examine that part of the sentence. Even the first four words, perhaps:

'Brooke said that Einstein...'

No source cited. No direct quote. Nothing.

Just .'Brooke said'.

Unsubstantiated third hand statement (unless Brooke can show he met Einstein, and that Eintein said it to him. In which case, we would still only have Brooke's word for it).

Einstein may have held this view - but statements that claim he did should be backed up with evidence.

Evidence, please.

314. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #179347 by irate_atheist on May 13, 2008 at 6:29 am

59. Comment #179336 by riandouglas -

They are lies.

He tells them.

He may be deluded and believe them, but they are still lies, and he is still telling them.

315. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #179340 by irate_atheist on May 13, 2008 at 6:21 am

56. Comment #179326 by clearthinker -

More 'back to basics' for you.

To prove the truth behind what you claim and proselytise, you have to prove the following:

1. The Universe was created
2. The creation was performed by a deity
3. The deity is interventionist and keeps interfering in the universe
4. The deity happens to be that of an iron-age Semitic people from one region of a small planet circling a star in a galaxy of some 100 billion others, the galaxy being one of some 150 billion others
5. All of this is documented in the "holy book" of that particular set of people

Please - start at number one and see if you get anywhere from there.

316. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #179329 by irate_atheist on May 13, 2008 at 5:59 am

56. Comment #179326 by clearthinker -

Where there is some doctrinal dispute it is not because of the congregations being enlightened by TGD - but rather because a growing number of ministers in the Cof S are returning to the Bible. This does not go down well with some more liberal congregations.
The ultimate 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.
Its(sic) about time we got back to basics.
Certainly, if that's what you want. You tell people lies for a living.

It doesn't get more basic than that.

317. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179304 by irate_atheist on May 13, 2008 at 5:04 am

People may be expecting me to comment here on this risible activity, but I won't.

318. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178939 by irate_atheist on May 12, 2008 at 9:14 am

207. Comment #178934 by MPhil -

...(language and grammar, which your cat doesn't have)
I don't like to take any chances on this. Just in case it ever develops these abilities, I never allow it near a copy of the Daily Mail. You can never be too careful.

319. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178931 by irate_atheist on May 12, 2008 at 8:46 am

202. Comment #178926 by MPhil -

By 'meaning' do you mean information?

So we can process 'information' to understand it - perhaps even reach a decision?

And then physically act upon the 'decision' made as a result of this process?

So does my cat. When it's litter tray is overdue for replenishing, it craps on the rug in the hallway.

1. Information - smell and physical condition of tray.

2. Processing - take information in 1 and decide you don't like the tray.

3. Take the decision arrived at in 2 and decide that, given you want a crap, that you'd rather do it elsewhere.

4. Decide that the rug, being two rooms away from your litter tray and your food - and not the place you sleep, either - is the optimum place to crap.

5. Crap, then relax, feeling all nice and catty.

6. Do not get on knees and pray to Ceiling Cat to thank Him for the fortuitous positioning of the mat.

Srsly.

320. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178914 by irate_atheist on May 12, 2008 at 8:17 am

189. Comment #178909 by keith -

At last!!!!! A new theistic argument!!!!

We will call it 'The argument from typographical errors.'

Or 'argumentum ad mistakum'.

What a prat.

321. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178899 by irate_atheist on May 12, 2008 at 8:01 am

183. Comment #178897 by Mitchell Gilks -

Or people hold that position, and believe it? Oh then it must be well supported, and have good reasons to accept it is true...
But of course! The same applies to the existence of the Hindu gods, that Mohammed used a flying horse and that Princess Diana was murdered by Prince Philip.

Ah, now hang on. Didn't I hear a lawyer after that inquest say, 'Belief is not evidence'?

322. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178892 by irate_atheist on May 12, 2008 at 7:51 am

172. Comment #178882 by Artful_Dodger -

1. Define 'soulish' activity.

2. Define 'unsoulish' activity.

3. Provide evidence to uphold your assertions as to what activity fits into which category.

4. Provide evidence for a 'soul'.

Thank you.

323. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178870 by irate_atheist on May 12, 2008 at 7:13 am

163. Comment #178864 by Artful_Dodger -

i) Define 'nonrational'.

2) Define 'physical phenomena'.
(Or, if you prefer, describe 'non-physical phenomena')

3) Precisely explain why any of your statements 1-5 are not assertions with no evidence to back them up.

324. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178856 by irate_atheist on May 12, 2008 at 6:43 am

158. Comment #178847 by Artful_Dodger -

"CS Lewis's Dangerous Idea" by Victor Reppert

A book containing a set of philosophical musings. Not a shred of evidence.

Doesn't stack up very well against 3000 years plus of scientific enquiry, does it?

325. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178798 by irate_atheist on May 12, 2008 at 4:46 am

137. Comment #178793 by Artful_Dodger -

"Mankind cannot bear too much reality".
Speak for yourself.

326. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #178794 by irate_atheist on May 12, 2008 at 4:25 am

I see our latest one-off man-mental is still providing the cabaret.

I think I'll just sit back and watch the stage.

327. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177550 by irate_atheist on May 9, 2008 at 9:30 am

135. Comment #177392 by epeeist -

The thing that troubles me is that as the (relatively) reasonable people in the CofE and Catholic church disappear then all we will be left with are the real nutters, the bible literalists, creationists, follows of Wright, Hagee and the Phelps family. And that is only the Christians!
epeeist - was that the thread that I wrote something along the lines that, 'because it was no longer reasonable to believe in gods, only the unreasonable would do so?' Hence, in effect, an increase in the nutter quotient? Total numbers may decline, but the remaining rump will be the Ben Steins of the world.

Edit: Edited becuase the bloody keybord still can't spell properly.

328. Citing Faith, Bush Defends War Actions

Comment #177503 by irate_atheist on May 9, 2008 at 7:48 am

Oh man. This is well beyond fucktard. Even wilfully ignorant self-deluding mass-murdering tripe-filled cunt is too light an insult. Can anyone help me here? I'm out of my depth, drowning in a sea of madness. The lunatics are running the asylum, running it into the ground.

329. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177485 by irate_atheist on May 9, 2008 at 7:08 am

Let me end with these words, Cardinal:

Fuck off, you fool.

330. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177484 by irate_atheist on May 9, 2008 at 7:06 am

At last! Well done Richard!

If they employ ad hitlerum's against us, it is reasonable to use ad hitlerum's against them.

To pick another cult: When Catholicism is involved in a debate, you should highlight the current Pope's 'Stalin like control freakery'. Go on - you know you want to ;o)

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

Comment #177483 by irate_atheist on May 9, 2008 at 7:01 am

Hundreds of churches are protesting at soaring water bills, with some parishes facing increases of up to 1,300 per cent.
Presumably because their purpose is to take the piss?

332. Home-schooling special: Preach your children well

Comment #176890 by irate_atheist on May 8, 2008 at 9:14 am

Time for me to come off the fence:

Fucking twats. A waste of valuable oxygen, every one of them..

Thank you.

333. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176841 by irate_atheist on May 8, 2008 at 6:41 am

1061. Comment #176839 by Quetzalcoatl -

:(

334. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176837 by irate_atheist on May 8, 2008 at 6:31 am

1059. Comment #176827 by Brian English -

I'm 25 hogsheads If that helps.
Well, I'm Spartacus!

335. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176819 by irate_atheist on May 8, 2008 at 5:52 am

Bonzai -

Gertcha.

336. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176414 by irate_atheist on May 7, 2008 at 9:22 am

990. Comment #176367 by seeker_of_truth -

Hey, fucknut. Look into it before you puke on the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

304 billion - 75% adults - 40% YEC'ers come to 91 billion. My 80 plus billion was off the top of my head and damn close I might add. Now fuck off with your stupid ass shit.
Is this evidence of demonic possession? I think we should be told.

Oblig: Fucktard.

Edit: 1032. Comment #176412 by clearmind -
Is there possibility that seeker can be wooter?
There is a possiblility. Given that both are cunts, it is not impossible. Get a life.

337. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176356 by irate_atheist on May 7, 2008 at 7:51 am

978. Comment #176353 by riandouglas -

It is a collection of myths therefore it is evidence.

It also illustrates his thinking(?). If you get a really big pile of non-evidence, you can prove anything.

338. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176354 by irate_atheist on May 7, 2008 at 7:49 am

975. Comment #176350 by Philip1978 -

Worse than that. He used my plumber, who is now no longer available to service my boiler. The wife is not best pleased with this. Quetz - you have been warned.

339. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176349 by irate_atheist on May 7, 2008 at 7:47 am

969. Comment #176344 by Quetzalcoatl -

Seeker-

so you're not going to answer Irate's questions 1 and 2, then?


Given that he believes that approx 200 billion people live in the USA, I doubt he will.

340. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176332 by irate_atheist on May 7, 2008 at 7:28 am

959. Comment #176330 by seeker_of_truth -

I am obviously a layman.
A straight answer, at last. But one we could have deduced from the breathtaking inanity you spout and the pisspoor standard of the 'evidence' you cut and paste.

341. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176327 by irate_atheist on May 7, 2008 at 7:14 am

950. Comment #176321 by seeker_of_truth -

Appeal to fear. Oldest fallacy in the book.

Ooh. I'm scared. How about you Rev. Dark, epeeist, anyone else?

Why would I be scared of that which does not exist?

Perhaps we have uncovered your problem. Scared of all the nasty old stories, scared enough to believe anything to make them true?

Edit: Al -i ndeed. He has cracked and shown his real face.

342. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176322 by irate_atheist on May 7, 2008 at 7:11 am

949. Comment #176320 by riandouglas -

So, you're sticking to 6000 - infinity for the possible age for the earth and universe then?
Indeed - as he won't answer the direct question - we can assume he is happy to seriously propose 6000 years.

This puts him beyond any reasoned discourse.

343. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176316 by irate_atheist on May 7, 2008 at 7:03 am

942. Comment #176313 by seeker_of_truth -

I would have to say this much - if you people are any representation of the scientists that you rely on, the bias within these scientist's work would be difficult to offset in the attempt to arrive at truth. Not that it can't be done, just why make it so difficult?
Cards on the table time. What are your credentials in the scientific field?

344. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176311 by irate_atheist on May 7, 2008 at 6:56 am

938. Comment #176308 by seeker_of_truth -

Sometime in ancient history I believe there was a widespread flood, possibly global, and not localized as we know floods to occur today. It becomes difficult to deny the possibility when you consider such flood stories exist in almost every ancient culture of the world.
So there we have it. A self-confessed fool who can't understand evidence, has no comprehension of science, and thinks that seperate stories of separate floods at quite possibly different times (no date is ascribed to any of these events)- that may or may not have happened - can be classed as compelling evidence for a global flood.

Time of death: 13:50 GMT

Reason: Being a total fuckwit.

345. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176304 by irate_atheist on May 7, 2008 at 6:44 am

935. Comment #176300 by seeker_of_truth -

I read that post of yours and then could not grasp why you carried on wittering about C14 dating. You even asked us to explain - in plain terms - why C14 dating for organic items of age approx 50,000 years plus is worse than useless.

I'm getting tired of wrestling an eel.

I'll ask you three straight questions that demand three straight answers.


1. How old do you acknowledge the Earth to be, and why?



2. How old do you acknowledge the Universe to be, and why?



3. What's your fucking point?

346. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176262 by irate_atheist on May 7, 2008 at 3:25 am

187. Comment #176256 by Chris Walsh -

JESUS SAVES!!!

Shearer scores on the rebound.

347. The detail in the Devil

Comment #176254 by irate_atheist on May 7, 2008 at 2:53 am

65. Comment #176246 by 8teist -

C is for cookie! That's good enough for me!!!

348. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176245 by irate_atheist on May 7, 2008 at 1:55 am

918. Comment #176019 by seeker_of_truth -

This list has been destroyed by us already.

Personal opinion and belief are not evidence.

349. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176243 by irate_atheist on May 7, 2008 at 1:51 am

898. Comment #175954 by seeker_of_truth -

Good morning.

Comment #175942 by irate_atheist

That was not a question for you and even if it were, what happened to "in your own words"?

I have read the Wiki page along with dozens of others over the years and given my explanation for the limits of C-14.

Seriously now, can no one here do the same?
Simple words for a simple person, then. Here we go. The half-life of C14 is such that after approx 50,000 years of decay, the radioactivity of a once organic object is low enough so as to be virtually indistinguishable from background radiation levels.

The article epeeist referrred you to, shows a technique being pioneered to reduce the effect of background radiation, thus increasing by 20-35% the timespan that C14 dating can be used for.

If this is not simple enough for you, get a dictionary and look the words up.

350. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175952 by irate_atheist on May 6, 2008 at 9:21 am

895. Comment #175946 by The Reverend Dark -

I note that Seeker has gone, for now. Perhaps he is trying to count his toes before learning such trivialities as logarithms and differential calculus.

epeeist - creotard - I like it. It also sounds somewhat like a creosoted leotard. A thin layer of clothing that stinks and does little to flatter the wearer. Also highly appropriate.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 | Next