351. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156794 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 9:10 am

I am for equal rights and choice, though I often can't understand why some people make theirs. I never understand why gay men and lesbians want to get married in the first place. I support rights to same sex marriage because of equality, on the other hand I think it is a silly idea to copy heterosexual institutions. I always find it odd at weddings, gay or straight.

I'm reminded of Hitchens' comment on a recent US talkshow (Maher, I think), to the tune of 'I'm not sure why gays would WANT equality in the institution of marriage'; on the basis of it being such a shite institution in the first place.

Perhaps here is where diffentiation is, in fact, a distinct advantage after all!

Best,
Styrer

352. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156771 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 8:41 am

Comment #156732 by Cartomancer on April 8, 2008 at 8:03 am

What if left-handed people didn't pay VAT through the normal channels but instead paid a comparable rate "Sinister Persons' Goods Levy"?

As a sinistralist, I would rather enjoy that.

Would make me feel a tad special.:)

Yours in feigned sadness,
Styrer

353. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156762 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 8:28 am

But I will be giving lots of thought to this point.

Jay

Couldn't ask for more. Good on yer.

On the 'old son' thing - I am not yet entirely convinced by the letter of your word, particularly when your profile reads: 'User does not exist'. It is intentionally a touch condescending, to be relinquished when you've fully earned your stripes. :)

Best,
Styrer

354. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156736 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 8:07 am

169. Comment #156726 by yussel123 on April 8, 2008 at 7:45 am

Styrer:

I THINK you missed my point.

People grow up refusing to face reality. From the time they are children, they are fed a steady of diet of fantasies, religion being one among many. Fairy-stories, movies, sports, just to name a few, contribute to this. Adults spend their time thinking about how they can divert their attention from reality (i.e.: where will I go tonight after work; what's on TV; where will I go for my next vacation; what new, exciting experience can I indulge in) Nobody wants to live in THIS world. Religion is not alone in doing this.

You wake up!

You're on a loser here, I'm afraid.

Literature, films, cartoons, Disney Land - these all fall under your dubious category of 'reality-facing refusal'.

You are HUGELY in error by insisting on a 'reality check' equivalence between all of these AND religion/faith.

At no point did my mother make of my diet of Bambi, Enid Blyton and Fred Quimby a regime of ETERNAL PLEASURE versus ETERNAL SUFFERING depending on my acceptance or non-acceptance of Bugs Bunny's latest winning escapade.

The so-called 'holy texts', and all of their divine and infernal doctrines, are thrust upon children all too often as the very STUFF of what will determine either a happy or a miserable life here and now, together with the evil propaganda fired constantly at their precious little 5 year old that their refusal to go along with such doctrines will affect them irredeemably after they die.

Still want to argue from your hopeless position, old son?

Do think on - I think you'll be a great asset if you stop talking bollocks. Your head otherwise seems to be in the right place.

Best,
Styrer

355. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156724 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 7:40 am

160. Comment #156710 by yussel123 on April 8, 2008 at 7:13 am

Quetzalcoatl:

I'm not sure my example is entire off the mark.

Telling children fairy-tales, lays the groundwork for a certain mindset that, perhaps on an unconscious level, still inhabits the world of fairy-tales well into adulthood. I cite the popularity of Harry Potter as evidence. Adults love to escape into fantasy because, secretly, in their sub-conscious, they want to escape the real world with which they are bitterly disappointed.

Children raised on fairy-tales grow into adults who don't want to accept the real world.

If a parent were to read his/her kid a fairy story and make clear that it was real, that it was a code by which to live and die, that a full embracing of it would lead to ETERNAL DELIGHTS when said kid is dead, and HELLFIRE if not accepted fully, then you are right: there is an equivalence, and we should be concerned.

But...Oh fuck it. I can't even be bothered to finish this one off.

Wake up, man.

Best,
Styrer

356. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156694 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 6:44 am

Comment #156685 by Quetzalcoatl on April 8, 2008 at 6:29 am

Damn it, foiled again. Too smart for the Machiavellian touch, you lot.:(

Yussell23, don't you think that it is really a matter of Dawkins having the sheer audacity to treat religion and faith with the same tools of criticism we all expect to use in every single other realm of discourse available to us?

The 'Role of Expectancy' is the title to an article on war I read years ago. It could surely be up-dated and re-worked to include religion.

Best,
Styrer

357. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156681 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 6:24 am

Comment #156678 by mmurray on April 8, 2008 at 6:18 am

Damn, I hope you're wrong, having just hatched a cunning plan to call on all members on this thread to self-immolate by troll button in solidarity with Philip.

Had Admin condemned our apparent frivolity, I'd have claimed a clear-thinking defense of investigating the jihad mindset...

Bugger.

Best,
Styrer

358. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156673 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 6:11 am

Fuck, bollocks, wanker, shit, cunt.

(Just testing the troll function on myself to see if I can join Philip in Fucked-Right-Off Land.)

[Edit: Nope. I'm still here. Hang in there on your lonesome, Philip.] :)

Best,
Styrer

359. Expelled Overview

Comment #156652 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 5:35 am

Comment #156577 by J. McPhearson on April 8, 2008 at 12:11 am

I appreciate how eloquently and articulately this review was writtin

Sorry, I couldn't help myself!

Extra points if your error was intentional!

Best,
Styrer

360. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #156627 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 4:33 am

235. Comment #156618 by Steve Zara on April 8, 2008 at 4:09 am

Yes, I remember the debacle quite well, and recall that Private Eye was a pretty stern supporter of his findings, so propagating panic even further. Pretty scary combination - ignorance of the dangerous repercussions of speaking freely AND bad science!

Best,
Styrer

361. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #156619 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 4:10 am

284. Comment #156525 by keith on April 7, 2008 at 6:32 pm

Styrer,

Diacanu, that was superb. Absolutely superb.

You must be of the Jack Kerouac school of writing where expression is all and content and style are secondary matters.

Keith

Diacanu is a content-filled, style-fuelled jet-propelled breath of fresh air on this site.

As such, he gets to the point unerringly, provocatively, often in devastating fashion.

If you've a problem with him, perhaps you could borrow a leaf and get to the point too.

Best,
Styrer

362. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #156614 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 3:58 am

15. Comment #152931 by Dr Benway on March 31, 2008 at 6:16 pm

I'm waiting to hear from Steve, Stryer, and Phil Rimmer, as they were defending the hate speech laws on another thread.

Dr Benway

Just come across this, sorry for not replying sooner.

You should perhaps consider that, even without recourse to any anti-hate speech legislation, your 'freedom of speech' is not as unrestricted as you seem to think, and is already constrained by all sorts of caveats. Your 'freedom of speech' is restricted by slander and libel laws, by prohibition of perjury, by copyright legislation, by your country's so-called 'Fighting Words Doctrine', to name a few.

These well-established restrictions appear to me to negate your assertions of 'slippery-slope' consequences.

The pieces of legislation in Ireland and in the UK I've mentioned before are actually an acknowledgement, I think, of the fact that faith-based words can lead to violent action. It is legislation which is a tacit, unwitting recognition of a good deal of our wailing and gnashing of teeth on this site about the despicable, wicked, inhuman consequences which so often lead directly and intentionally from faith-based hate speech.

As regards this article, it seems to me that the problem is not so much rooted in anti-hate speech, as you wish to cast it, as in abstaining members precisely not making use of their 'freedom of speech' to the full extent.

Somewhat ironic, wouldn't you say, given your position?

Best,
Styrer

363. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #156387 by Styrer- on April 7, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Diacanu, that was superb. Absolutely superb.

And fucking well said.

Best,
Styrer

364. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156369 by Styrer- on April 7, 2008 at 12:12 pm

17. Comment #156357 by CanadAdam on April 7, 2008 at 11:36 am

You can email the bigot here: mdavis@hdsmail.state.il.us

While it would doubtless be satisfying to take her to task directly, I'd prefer to have the e-mail address of the person who can sack her forthwith for, at the very least, bringing the due process of the legislature into disrepute.

Any idea?

Best,
Styrer

365. Fleabytes

Comment #156340 by Styrer- on April 7, 2008 at 11:11 am

I am afraid I have to disagree with many who say they would believe in God given evidence. I can't see what kind of evidence could demonstrate the existence of an infinite, eternal and all-powerful God, as almost any alternative explanation is simpler.

Well, I for one am with you all the way except for the conclusion above!

If such a god as you describe existed, surely it would not be beyond her/him/it to make a regaling night-out's worth of miraculous wonder all around, ubiquitous suspension of natural laws, on cue, with a decent voice-over soundtrack?

Is not your inability to 'see what kind of evidence could demonstrate the existence of an infinite, eternal and all-powerful God' simply a failure of imagination?

For what it's worth.

Best,
Styrer

366. Biologists Take Evolution Beyond Darwin Way Beyond

Comment #156204 by Styrer- on April 7, 2008 at 5:25 am

"Selection probably happens at all scales, from gene to individual to species to collection of species to ecosystem to we don't even know what," said Maya Paczuski, head of the Complexity Science Group at the University of Calgary.

"Man is the one who's undergoing this incredible evolution now," Woese said. "We see some in the insects, but the social processes by which man is evolving are creating a whole new level of organization."

Oh dear. I really hope I am completely wrong about this, but I detect an unpleasant whiff of...evolution by postmodernism here!

And there I was, thinking it was all about genes.

With no disrespect whatsoever to any of the other erudite posters here, this is one of those articles on which I'd really like the Professor to pop his head in and give us his opinion.

Best,
Styrer

367. Fleabytes

Comment #156182 by Styrer- on April 7, 2008 at 3:20 am

Aw shucks, Robertson, leaving so soon? Before you answer my oft repeated, humble little question?

But it does seem that you were rather struggling with it:

Robertson: What do you mean? I will answer the question when I understand it. Please explain.

Just in case you are still taking a peek in here, do let me repeat my various solicitations of you to answer a question (offered both directly and implicitly) which is beyond me but which I would have thought the doddliest of doddles for you:

...you are really doing yourself an enormous disservice by insisting on perceiving metaphorical significance as suggestive of the reality of a supreme being ready to judge us suitable for either eternal pleasure or for eternal suffering.

Robertson

You have so far ignored my complaint against you that you mistake metaphorical significance for the reality of your chosen deity.

Gosh, it would be ever so nice, actually spiffing, if you would take the time to explain to my why you do this.

Oh, and my word, I wonder if you wouldn't mind perhaps giving, in the same reply, just the teeniest weeniest bit of evidence for the reality of your chosen deity? If it's not too much to ask, of course. Oh, and, while you're at it, could you, just perhaps, tell me why you know that your god is Mr. Yahweh? It's just that, well, poor old Mr. Allah, and Mr. Narayana and Mr. Baal have really been getting a little hot under the metaphorical collar about all your preachingly preaching preachings.

You see, there's a wee bit of an argument over who is going to send you to hell over - now, would you believe it? - that little old illegal cheque business! Deities, eh? A law unto their own.

I think they want to have a little word with you. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

Come on, Robertson. You know you want to tell me. Go on.

I am so looking forward to your answer!

6622. Comment #147897 by clearthinker on March 21, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Robertson:I will come back to the other comments but


Styrer: No! Me! ME! ANSWER ME!

Phew, promise I'll calm myself. That's where new Dawkinsian phrases lead you, when you grant them power to faithheads - 'I will come back to the other comments buttery.'

Robertson - come, come, sir. Prove I am wrong in thinking you the most lamentable and vacuous member here.

Solipsistically, I venture to repeat my own question of you, you tricky little puppy: why do you insist on perceiving metaphorical significance of your god's story as the reality of that god?

Perhaps, this time, you will have the courtesy to answer my question.

I am not quite sure how you could have missed these repeated and direct requests to you for an answer to my question, especially when you do seem to spend a good deal of time 'commentating' on and 'reviewing' this thread for our collective attention.

Perhaps you would care to offer a response even now? It isn't too late, old boy. Your reply would also assist in ridding me of an unworthy little thought that you simply cannot provide an answer of any substance or real persuasion whatsoever.

In (perhaps foolish) anticipation,
Styrer

368. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154817 by Styrer- on April 3, 2008 at 6:53 pm

I am sure that all of us will recall the many polite and comprehensive answers Paula gave Robertson on the issue of the balance of this event.

I understand that she even took the time to patiently explain why Robertson's criticism was so vacuous on the Forum part of this site.

That Robertson has decided to ignore all of Paula's kind and open explanations and to pursue a self-seeking, dishonest agenda involving the media in this matter REALLY shows us, beyond any shadow of a doubt, what a duplicitous little twat this shame of humankind really is.

While I certainly feel a touch of sorrow for Paula (in that she expended so much of her valuable time in responding with dignity to such a worthless gobshite), I hold just a pinch more for the ignorant saps (and especially their poor kids) who will continue to be swayed by the words of this disingenuous, rotten little fucker.

Styrer

369. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154794 by Styrer- on April 3, 2008 at 6:00 pm

I am so pleased that I have the chance to repeat this: what is rather pleasing about this article is that Robertson's presumable ambition to aggrandize himself through it fails so spectacularly. He comes across as a self-seeking, extremely petty-minded whinger, and this to even the uninitiated, I suggest.

Nice one, Robertson.

My real distress is really at the BBC's apparent notion of what constitutes news.

And I must add my wholehearted support to the wise member here - can't recall who, I'm afraid - who said that Robertson should be required, following this, to permit an atheist to speak alongside him in his sermons henceforward. Shades of Hitchens, to be applauded.

Best,
Styrer

370. Beware the Believers

Comment #154756 by Styrer- on April 3, 2008 at 4:59 pm

394. Comment #153061 by Richard Dawkins on April 1, 2008 at 1:51 am

Dick to the Dawk to the PhD
WHY is this video so ALLURING

There was once a competition to choose the WORST poem anybody could devise. The winner was this:

So we leave her
So we leave her
So we leave her,
Far from where her dusky comrades roam.
In the scarlet fever
In the scarlet fever
In the scarlet fever
Convalescent home.

Yet even this worst poem in the world has a curious way of getting inside my head and being hard to forget (indeed, I just repeated it from memory, after many years). I wonder whether the rap rhyme that some people here seem to find so captivating might work in a similar way. Mark Twain has a story about the capacity of memes (he didn't use the word, of course) to bore into the brain and relentlessly refuse to let go. In his story, the rhyme, to be spoken by a bus conductor, had the refrain, "Punch in the presence of the passenjare" (Google it). As I remember it, Mark Twain (or his protagonist) almost went mad from the brainworm, until he succeeded in handing the 'infection' over to the Vicar, whereupon it blessedly left him (a nice echo of the story of the Gadarene swine).
Richard

While I am sure that Richard is right that there is a 'rhythmn' to which we are all more or less susceptible, to which we will all normally tacitly attest by tapping either foot or finger to even the most basic beat, I think he is doing our brains a disservice by suggesting that it is only said beat, a la meme variety, which makes of ' Dick to the Dawk to the PhD/He's smarter than you/He's got a science degree' a memorable phrase.

No. It is precisely its rhythmic phrasing together with the notion that Richard is rather a smarty-pants which gives full force to the expression. Nice try, Richard, may I say, to delimit the force of these lines to a simple memetic device devoid of content. But it won't quite do, sir.

As for the WORST poem Richard cites - isn't it interesting how different our reactions can be to the same stimulus? I found this worst poem rather moving. Scarlet fever was once a rather scary disease with which to be afflicted, and I find the long drawn, repetitive phrasing to reflect rather well what I have heard can be the delirium characterising worst case scenarios of this illness.

Even if I am entirely wrong in seeing the verse in this way, I am at least not in error by unfairly separating the form of the poem from its perhaps questionable content.

It seems that Richard, by contrast, may once again be attempting to divorce form from content, simply to endorse a questionable notion that 'Dick to the Dawk to the PhD etc.' holds only memetic significance, quite apart from any substantive meaning it may hold for others, and particularly for those who have been able to raise a smile at this piece in a way he clearly cannot.

Best,
Styrer

371. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152847 by Styrer- on March 31, 2008 at 4:17 pm

256. Comment #152839 by Dr Benway on March 31, 2008 at 4:05 pm

...the anti-incitement legislation here in Ireland and in the UK...
Incitement to what? To hate? To riot?

Muslims have used anti-hate speech laws to challenge criticism of Islam.

The counterpart legislation in the UK to Ireland's 'Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act' ensured that the despicable Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri is currently serving a seven-year prison sentence for soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred.

As a Brit originally, my freedom of speech still seems ticketyboo, thank you.

Best,
Styrer

372. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152833 by Styrer- on March 31, 2008 at 3:54 pm

247. Comment #152824 by Dr Benway on March 31, 2008 at 3:37 pm

The term "hate speech" always makes me nervous.

For a long time we've had laws against criminal threatening, disturbance of the peace, and inciting a riot. What does a hate speech law add to this?

Power, like a mentally retarded child, requires clear, well-defined, concrete constraints. "Hate" is too elastic a concept for those in power over us. And the notion of crimes against broad social groups with fuzzy boundaries like "the Jews" or "the Muslims" is not workable.

Hate speech laws ultimately will erode our right to free speech.

As I've offered before, Dr Benway, the anti-incitement legislation here in Ireland and in the UK is actually a tacit acknowledgement of the violent action that can follow, and is increasingly following, faith-based words and speeches.

What on earth are we doing here if not lamenting this very phenomenon? You yourself are one of the most vocal against it, I note.

The legislation is designed to save lives. It has worked, and free speech is not suffering a damn because of it.

Best,
Styrer

373. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152628 by Styrer- on March 31, 2008 at 9:18 am

Al-rawandi, I hope you are right, genuinely.

In any case, let me not distract you from continuing your informed and essential denunciation of Nairb's dangerously foolish 'softly, softly' approach.

Best,
Styrer

374. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152612 by Styrer- on March 31, 2008 at 8:58 am

Al-rawandi, in answer, you may recall that you rather took me to task in an earlier thread for stating:

'Moderate, fundamentalist, mere 'nodder-towards'; I remain fearful of them all. They are all, in potentia, life-threatening conditions.'

Had I known about taqqiya, it would have lent some support for my point.

In any case, given that you are well-versed enough to know about taqqiya, I wonder how you can be so sure of the real intentions and of the apparent 'moderation' of those Muslims you claim in this thread to know will be your acquaintances for years to come.

Surely the answer is that you cannot be so sure.

Best,
Styrer

375. Fleabytes

Comment #152600 by Styrer- on March 31, 2008 at 8:46 am

Thanks for the link, Quetz.

What is rather pleasing about this article is that Robertson's presumable ambition to aggrandize himself through it fails so spectacularly. He comes across as a self-seeking, somewhat petty-minded whinger, and this to even the uninitiated, I suggest.

Nice one, Robertson.

My real distress is at the BBC's apparent notion of what constitutes news.

Best,
Styrer

376. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152570 by Styrer- on March 31, 2008 at 8:18 am

Very interesting on the Taqqiya point, al-rawandi.

Wish I'd known about that in our previous little encounter - I'd have been brazen enough to use it to support my point about blanket condemnation of Islam and all of its followers!

Best,
Styrer

377. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152486 by Styrer- on March 31, 2008 at 6:23 am

77. Comment #152480 by MrPickwick on March 31, 2008 at 6:05 am

dragonfirematrix prayer:
"I hope Pat Condell does video on this."
has been answered:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3_qelW5qp4

Thank you for the link, MrPickwick and Luthien.

Another absolute cracker from Pat, perhaps the best so far.

I think Josh should run it as a separate article!

Best,
Styrer

378. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152476 by Styrer- on March 31, 2008 at 6:01 am

73. Comment #152469 by ateu luso on March 31, 2008 at 5:46 am

Styrer,

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my post, but in no way did I mean to suggest that Wilders should not have the right to express his views.

My comment wishing that his film be forgotten (not ignored) quickly related to its lack of quality/originality, and to the fact that the film was nothing more than a right-wing prick's ego-trip. Wilders cleverly manipulated the media into a frenzy so he could get the attention he craved.

Having said that, I'm half-glad that, on this occasion, his manipulation succeeded, because, as I mentioned in my post, the film hits upon a very important point, and one we must take seriously.

So my dismissal of his film was meant to imply that we don't need his sort of people on our side in order to win this crucial debate. Unfortunately, we probably do need people like Wilders to bring this debate to the mainstream public.

And that is yet another reason for complete, non-negotiable freedom of speech.

I hope this cleared things up.

Yes, it has, Ateu. Thank you.

Best,
Styrer

379. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152460 by Styrer- on March 31, 2008 at 5:09 am

Apologies for the double-post, but I checked the LiveLeak link again and it's back on, with a notice from the company:

On the 28th of March LiveLeak.com was left with no other choice but to remove the film "fitna" from our servers following serious threats to our staff and their families. Since that time we have worked constantly on upgrading all security measures thus offering better protection for our staff and families. With these measures in place we have decided to once more make this video live on our site. We will not be pressured into censoring material which is legal and within our rules. We apologise for the removal and the delay in getting it back, but when you run a website you don't consider that some people would be insecure enough to threaten our lives simply because they do not like the content of a video we neither produced nor endorsed but merely hosted.

A courageous and welcome move.

Best,
Styrer

380. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152455 by Styrer- on March 31, 2008 at 4:48 am

59. Comment #152408 by ateu luso on March 31, 2008 at 1:19 am

First let me get something out of the way: Geert Wilders is a little right-wing racist prick. I live in Amsterdam, so I get to know more about him that I'd like.

It is therefore a very troubling reflection of the threat our secular society faces that a very banal film, containing a bunch of snippets of films everyone's seen many times on the internet, causes so much uproar. This film should be treated the same way neo-fascist demonstrations are treated, by crushing those bigoted fucks under the weight of our indifference and contempt. This is one of the consequences of freedom of speech, and complete freedom of speech is absolutely non-negotiable.

When, however, in the midst of his belligerent rhetoric, Wilders says his film is part of his fight to stop the islamisation of Europe, I have to concede he has struck a chord. Our liberalism, our freedoms, our willingness to bend over backwards to accommodate the cancer of multiculturalism, are all being exploited by religious bigots in order to slowly but very surely introduce their middle-age values into our society. This cannot be allowed!

Everyone must be treated in exactly the same manner and afforded exactly the same rights as everyone else, regardless of their culture! And our laws, while not being perfect, must not be tainted with fairy-tales (horrible ones at that) supposedly dictated to some ignorant bronze-age peasants by their imaginary friends, just because some demented fucks say so!

This silly film by Geert Wilders should, we hope, soon be forgotten. Not before some mullah-incited token outrage, inevitably. But the climate that allowed such a film to grab the headlines should be dealt with. The virus that religion (ANY religion) is must not be allowed to destroy our free, inquisitive, rational, fair and SECULAR society!

Well, Ateu, though I won't for a moment be as condemnatory as Fanusi, I am not sure what you are actually saying here.

On the one hand you (rightly, in my view) condemn all religions, and so Islam, as a threat to 'free, inquisitive, rational, fair and SECULAR society'; on the other, you seem not to want to grant Wilders his freedom to speak out against Islam through his film and would like to see it ignored or forgotten as soon as possible.

Could you please explain this apparent contradiction?

Best,
Styrer

381. Beware the Believers

Comment #152413 by Styrer- on March 31, 2008 at 1:44 am

The trouble is that the movie is so well done, and the song expresses the sentiments of so many of the people here, that people feel it MUST be on 'our' side. Its a mickey take and not even that subtle!

Robertson, you should perhaps acquaint yourself with the hugely diverse opinions which have been put forward on this video by 'so many of the people here' by DIGESTING the contents of this thread before you spout.

And speaking of subtlety, you yourself, sir, are about as subtle as tiresomely repeated kicks in the head.

Styrer

382. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #152035 by Styrer- on March 30, 2008 at 3:40 am

288. Comment #152028 by Steve Zara on March 30, 2008 at 3:30 am

This is one of those rare occasions when I am getting more upset with time. People die because others believe in magic. Supposedly "moderate" believers (whatever that word means) and some "belief in belief" non-believers are trying to hand-wave this away. I don't think that is just misguided, I think it is dangerous. This showing the worrying protected status of religion, even in the minds of some non-believers.

Spot on. I could not agree more.

Well said.

Best,
Styrer

383. Beware the Believers

Comment #151712 by Styrer- on March 29, 2008 at 8:43 am

...most satirical messages are not "clear" in this sense, which is precisely what satire is most often about

The best satire is, I think, rather more clear-cut, and hence effective, than you suggest. I'm with Jonathan Miller when he threw at the editors of Private Eye, a well-established UK-based satirical magazine: 'When are you lot going to develop a point of view?'

This 'rap' is not going to win any satirical awards because of a well-defined 'point of view', but it is well executed, arguably funny, and shows that Richard and the others are getting through.

May I add that Richard's deliciously withering suggestion that it is 'postmodern' is just sheer cruelty.

The poor rapper may never rap again, if he hears about this. :)

Best,
Styrer

384. Beware the Believers

Comment #151669 by Styrer- on March 29, 2008 at 7:07 am

4. Comment #151544 by Richard Dawkins on March 29, 2008 at 12:44 am

If anyone can understand a single word of this, don't bother to translate, just tell me whose side it's on. I get the feeling (same with South Park) that there are people out there who assume that something that is obviously MEANT to be funny therefore must BE funny, and they immediately shower it with accolades such as "Wow", "Hilarious", "Awesome" and, most side-splitting of all, "LOL".

Sorry, I seem to be showing my age. Enjoy yourselves LOLling away.

Richard

I think I can just about understand Richard's apparent irritation here, though must say that I find the execution of this piece, if not its irritatingly unclear 'message', immensely more amusing than any episode of South Park, whose alleged humour entirely escapes me.

Putting together something like this takes time and effort, no matter whose side the creator is finally on. If I were Richard or any of the others, I would take the whole thing not only in good spirit but as an enormous compliment.

Whichever side it's on, it shows that Richard is succeeding hugely in 'raising consciousness.'

Best,
Styrer

385. Happy Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #149954 by Styrer- on March 26, 2008 at 11:01 am

Many Happy Returns!

Best,
Styrer

386. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149678 by Styrer- on March 26, 2008 at 5:24 am

Ben Stein, he of Expelled (and Earthworm Jim, the animated TV series) fame, has views similar to clearwooter... Darwinism "doesn't explain the orbit of planets" and stuff like that. Are you calling him insane as well? Surely not! ;)

Steady on there, Steve. It's worth at least a passing thought that he might be.

----

Ok, he's probably not. But if he's not insane, he has a rather closer relationship with insanity than is perhaps healthy.

For my own money? He has a terror of death and is acting on it.

Best,
Styrer

387. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149672 by Styrer- on March 26, 2008 at 5:08 am

lie:a falsehood uttered or acted for the purpose of deception; an intentional violation of truth; an untruth spoken with the intention to deceive. the proper notion of a lie is an endeavoring to deceive another by signifying that to him as true, which we ourselves think not to be so.

How lovely to hear from you, Wooter. I was beginning to think I could not have lasted one more moment without you.

Consequences of LIE
Discovery of a lie tends to discredit other statements by the same speaker and can lead to social or legal sanctions against the speaker, such as ostracizing or conviction for perjury. Another consequence of a discovered lie is that it undermines trust which is a binding agent of human relations. One trusts that another is truthful. When a lie is discovered then the state of mind and behavior of the lie teller is no longer predictable. Trust then decreases and is perhaps even completely withdrawn.

Wooter, my funny little friend, your English has really acquired a nigh-on communicable combination of those little bits and pieces of words you seemed to struggle with so much before. Well done, lil Woo. Now, try to bring your new-found linguistic facility together with some...idea. Ok? Steady there, little fella...

Boeing 747 is a very simple analogy. Indeed what E.T. says (ET is the abbreviation of Evolution theory) From that junkyard, according to E.T we have microwave, washing machine, computer (Our body is a good example), shaver, television, typewriter (DNA codes, but somebody who should know all heritance information of 400 thousand kinds of animals should hit the keys), batteries, mobile phones, … and on an on THROUGH CHANCES AND LUCK. That does not make sense to any branches of science and to Reason. My REASON' SIEVE is getting in the way. ET cannot get through my reason's sieve.

Oh Jesus Fucking Christ, my lil woo! What happened? Melt-down:

(DNA codes, but somebody who should know all heritance information of 400 thousand kinds of animals should hit the keys)

Come on, little guy. Concentrate. Think about what you want to say. Ok? Here we go...

WHO NEEDS LYING?
Biology refutes ET
Physics refutes ET
Thermodynamics refutes ET
Timing refutes ET
Astronomy refutes ET
Chemistry refutes ET
And logic refutes ET
So how are you gonna fill in these gaps?

By books out in the market. God decision, Blind blindwatcmaker, Climbing down improbability, etc. Sometimes big lies turn into small books with big titles that can hop just like a small flea around little little pond (primordial soup)


Prof. Dawkins: All I've said is that I don't think there is any intelligence or any creativity or any purposiveness.

What is the purpose of the earth's revolving around the sun and itself?
What's the purpose of oxygen, carbon dioxide, trees, sunlight,
What is the purpose of chickens, sheep, cows, bees,?
What is the purpose of atoms circling in their orbits? (the same way as the planets in our solar system)
What is the purpose of white blood cells and red blood cells?
What is the purpose of your brain?
What is the purpose of your mind?
What is the purpose of your feelings like crying, happiness, sad?
What is the purpose of our five senses? Hearing, seeing, tasting etc?

What is the purpose of MIND:

a) To think logically
Creation is like an elephant that cannot fit in a can -like of evolution while big area of logic is ready for creation to be fit.

b) to lie to cover
Fabricated skulls?
Fake fossils?


Let me finish my comment with the same analogy
Once upon a time there was a liar. He always lied but his sole friend was always around him to cover up his liars. Again Liar Liar started lying; He said 'this morning there were eggs falling down from sky. His cover-up friend just supported him. It was the eagles that got the eggs from the farm and they dropped down the eggs. Another day LIAR LIAR was again at it. He said 'this morning, I heard the sounds from sky. I guess there were sheep in the sky. Cover up guy just corrected again, "It was the eagle that took the sheep away from the farm. Another day, it was his habit and he continued, "today I hunted down a bird with my arrow and when I went to take my bird, amazingly, I saw that the bird cooked already, roasted perfectly along with green salad and drink on the table waiting for me. The cover up guy could not take it anymore and said, "Oh man, I covered you up all the time but this time you lied in such a way that neither me nor my logic can cover you up? You have gone too far. You are having fun and enjoying yourself only. Your liars cannot be covered up anymore.

This is what evolution is indeed. The more books and articles to be written to cover up, the more people believe creation.

P.S : You were in my story under the name of Philip. Don't worry you are included, not in the evolution tree anyway.



Believe in evolution
or get rid of your logic

Not so good, not so good, really, but you should be proud of yourself for trying. Thank you for putting so much effort in. You know, you really are a clever boy.

Give the lad a hand, everyone. Please join in. Ok? Thanks! It's not easy, is it?

Take care, Wooter!

Best,
Styrer

388. Fleabytes

Comment #149631 by Styrer- on March 26, 2008 at 3:01 am

6908. Comment #149628 by Philip1978 on March 26, 2008 at 2:46 am

Styrer,

I hope you have a fine kettle and a good supply to whatever hot drink you love the most, call me "mad as a pair of trousers filled with kippers Philip" but my instincts tell me you are in for a long wait! :)

{sighs, stretches}

Already on my third cup, my friend. But hanging in there.

{sighs, stretches, swigs]

Best,
Styrer

389. Fleabytes

Comment #149623 by Styrer- on March 26, 2008 at 2:24 am

Robertson

Well, you elusive little fellow, I finally found you focusing rather quickly on the Expelled thread to make one of your epic, dull, no-value-added posts addressing all members here whom you thought you could take to task.

I presume that the enormous interest in Dawkins worldwide is not bothering your competitive little instinct in the slightest and had no influence whatsoever on your eagerness to be a part of that thread.

How disappointed you must have in any case been, my dear chap, to find that you were simply in very well over your intellectual head, despite your attempt to portray prolixity as substance.

Not entirely unexpectedly, you contributed to that thread, sir, knowing that you had left questions unanswered on this thread.

Solipsistically, I venture to repeat my own question of you, you tricky little puppy: why do you insist on perceiving metaphorical significance of your god's story as the reality of that god?

Perhaps, this time, you will have the courtesy to answer my question.

At this point, I am simply seeking an answer from you to this particular question.

My questions regarding the method, metaphorical or not, of your choosing your deity from the many on offer will follow your response above. Following reception of your answer, I shall also grant you time to respond to my raising of the notion of theodicy and the enduring difficulties any approach you may adopt may hold in this regard.

Following your answer to this latter, I shall invite you to respond to the questionable status of apparent non-intervention into human affairs of not only your god but of those gods whose adherents state that your god is a positive immoral proposition, belief in which must be eradicated at all costs.

I think that we may find, in this way, insight into each other's way of seeing the world.

I may even decide to overlook your criminal action in writing that cheque!

Nah, only joking. I would never fail to bring that tasty little morsel to the party!

Anyway - looking forward to your answer to my first question.

Styrer

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

Comment #149596 by Styrer- on March 26, 2008 at 1:37 am

Mabye not all is right with the world - but at least something is still right in all the corners where the valued contributers on this site reside :)

What other kind of fucking answer did I really expect from you?

Furrow on,
Styrer :)

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

Comment #149590 by Styrer- on March 26, 2008 at 1:26 am

Now we've done it, Steve... we've become a menace to the RD-society :P

Bullshit. It is you two who mark precisely what this site is about.

When, after reading you both, I can take away even a slight increase of knowledge, then I know that all is right with the world.

As you were, gentlemen.

Best,
Styrer

392. Fleabytes

Comment #149589 by Styrer- on March 26, 2008 at 1:18 am

Steve

If today is your real birthday, Many Happy Returns!

If not, save this post till the real date. You'll not get another from me, you greedy fucker.

Enjoy, Maestro. Please continue to educate us all.

Very best,
Styrer

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

Comment #149582 by Styrer- on March 26, 2008 at 12:54 am

May I say that the debates between Steve and MPhil have just about reached the level of archive usefulness?

Without sarcasm, I wonder if Josh would be good enough to create a separate 'Steve/MPhil' thread as an ongoing resource?

With just a touch of sarcasm, I wonder if he would make sure that they be forced to stay there until they've worked it all out?

Best,
Styrer

394. Expelled Overview

Comment #149570 by Styrer- on March 26, 2008 at 12:08 am

67. Comment #149558 by adonais on March 25, 2008 at 11:31 pm


Well you think wrong. I'll be honest and let you know that my impression of you from reading your comments here on RDF is that of one who likes to argue for argument's sake. Which I think is what you're doing here.


While I am often guided to buying a book because of decent reviews, I am never dissuaded from buying a book in which I have some interest because of negative reviews.

Neither am I, IF I really have an interest in it.

It is not the case, as you seem to think, that deep down I really have an interest in this movie, and that I am being willfully dissuaded by the negative reviews. I have read several (both positive and negative) reviews from people of various creeds who have attended screenings at different times. There is NOTHING in all that I have read that makes me interested in the movie. Got it? I have NO interest in this film. I have NO interest in seeing it merely for attaining some elevated intellectual platform from which I can give it "fair appraisal." From all that I have read, I think it is trash, that is my appraisal. If I'm wrong, well that's too bad, but I can always catch up later and change my mind if it turns out to be the case. Not holding my breath though.

Well, my dear sir, how well you seem to know me without knowing me. I do enjoy disputation over matters which strike me as even just apposite to my main interests. I admit to a certain fondness for the words from a great man: 'Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence.'

But I would hate to think that you thought my argument against you was vacuous. No - you have decided to deliver your own verdict on a film you have not seen and to deny your unfairness in delivering it. That, sir, I find contemptible. I have not seen the film, am prepared to say 'it's shit', and admit, unlike you, that I am deeply prejudiced. You have also claimed, outrageously, that you are not giving special treatment to this film in your appraisal. If you are in the habit of ubiquitously proclaiming films you HAVE NOT SEEN as 'a piece of trash', then perhaps I am wrong. But I cannot think for one moment that your opinion and flat-out denunciation of this docufilm have not been influenced simply by another person's opinion here, which has in turn led you to give 'special treatment' to your verdict on this one.

Poor show.

Styrer

395. Expelled Overview

Comment #149562 by Styrer- on March 25, 2008 at 11:38 pm

Let us not exaggerate, my dear Styrer! Most of the globe will never even hear about this shitty little film.
On a global level, this is all a very tiny storm in a minute tea-cup...
Talking about tea...

I hope it does, my dear tea-supping Richard; I really hope it does.

Happy birthday, by the way. I couldn't work out if it was August or 'aujourd'hui' after all the arguments on the other thread, so take it from me now and don't ask for another, you greedy bugger.

Best,
Styrer

396. Expelled Overview

Comment #149555 by Styrer- on March 25, 2008 at 11:11 pm

However convincing moderate faith-heads and fence sitters about ID.iotism & Cretinist doctrine is not by showing this poorly made trash-film EXPELLED but some other approach like showing an easy to understand film which shows all the nonsense they are spreading.

Where my argument may fall down - and I repeat my real wish to see this film broadcast as widely as possible - is in over-egging the level of flat-out condemnation the film will receive from rationalists all over the globe.

That Eugenie Scott is adding her considerable academic weight behind some of the world's heaviest intellectual hitters, with Dawkins probably leading from the front, suggests that this shitty little movie will prove a catalyst in the EXPULSION of itself from the realm of reasonable ideas.

I think this film is a superb and generous gift to scientists of calibre and integrity everywhere. I think it is a particular gift to the foremost scientist of the age, Dawkins. I think Harris and Hitchens might welcome it too.

I really hope that this film is shown everywhere. Publicity of ID notions, as Dover showed rather nicely, is not necessarily in ID's favour.

This film may just prove to be the gift that keeps on giving, to quite the unintended recipient.

Best,
Styrer

397. Expelled Overview

Comment #149544 by Styrer- on March 25, 2008 at 10:03 pm

61. Comment #149534 by discipline on March 25, 2008 at 9:19 pm

we need serious, measured, detailed responses to the film in every media outlet possible. I don't think PZ calling them "fuckwits" will get us anywhere in the marketplace of ideas.

I (nearly) agree with your first assertion and utterly disagree with your second.

My brother's new born baby boy is, according to Christian doctrine, 'a sinner'. My little nephew, who does not even know how to focus his little eyes yet, is at the moment destined to hell-fire, brimstone, eternal suffering et fucking cetera UNTIL, according to Christian doctrine, he WELCOMES Jesus into his heart.

I could continue. But my assertion is this: no number of fucks, fuckwits, cunts, shits, twats, fucktards, bastards and wankers could ever POSSIBLY be as offensive, immoral, disgusting and anti-human as the Christian precept which I have described in my previous paragraph.

Such despicable offence, insult, inhumanity, immorality and abuse are in religion's tenets from the very inception; all our responses to them could never possibly be anything more than an approximation to them when it comes to venom, injustice and immorality. No 'Fuck you' will ever be sufficient in its condemnation of someone insisting that my little nephew is currently indecent, immoral, covered with sin, destined for eternal torture. But it's a fucking good effort.

So - let's get the message out there, as you say, but not make it 'measured'; and let's say that PZ's use of the word 'fuckwit' can only possibly be taken to task on one basis - he did not use the word 'cunt' as well.

Got it, ace?

Styrer

398. Expelled Overview

Comment #149515 by Styrer- on March 25, 2008 at 7:42 pm

Unfortunately the majority of US citizen believe the creationist B.S. and more than 50% of the entire US population are even YEC, believing in a 6000 year old earth and universe according to the literal interpretation of the Bible.
So with this audience in mind making a political statement of fair treatment for the alternative "scientific theory of ID" and spread it to a wide audience will not expose the utter nonsense of IDiotism content but will increase the pressure on politicians to allow teaching the first 2 pages of the Bible as alternative to Evolution as 50/50 share in Biology.

The intended audiences are not persons like Styrer the target audience are all the Clearmind/Wooters with IQ of 75 or Cleathinker/Robertson types who are only using maximal 75 out of the higher available IQ when it contradicts their faith.

If all of the statistics you present are true, Roland, they simply add to my conviction that this film must be made all the more the current centre-piece - and made as widely available across the world as possible - of the ongoing anti-rationalist agenda. It must be shown unrelentingly in order that eminent pro-rationalists everywhere - and please do not underestimate either their number or their determination - have the opportunity to crush these untrue and dangerous ideas under foot.

You seem as if you have already given up.

That would mean I also had to read a dozen Flea-books to see their nonsense, for which I don't like to waste time (still some more interesting books in my reading backlog) and money for paying BS.

Yes.

At least if you wished to add any comments about the content of the dozen Flea-books you posit.

Best,
Styrer

399. Expelled Overview

Comment #149509 by Styrer- on March 25, 2008 at 7:22 pm

LOL again. I'm not sure if my liver is lilied, but Sir, those sound like fighting words where I come from.

Best,
markg

markg

Your words:'those sound like fighting words where I come from' are themselves 'fighting words'. I normally meet this type of response from small-minded bullies with low self-esteem.

Surely I am wrong in seeing you as such here.

In any case, certainly fighting words - where I come from, too - to which you should give a proper riposte to tell me why I'm wrong in thinking that your 'let's wait' approach is not both pathetic and lily-livered.

Your despicable 'let it pan out' approach grants too much time to those ideas we should be doing our damndest to take to task with immediate effect.

Best,
Styrer

400. Expelled Overview

Comment #149504 by Styrer- on March 25, 2008 at 7:03 pm

No special treatment.

Really, Adonais? No special treatment? In enunciating a verdict on a film you have never seen - 'I think Expelled is a piece of trash'- you are not giving special treatment to your appraisal of it?

I think you are.

While I am often guided to buying a book because of decent reviews, I am never dissuaded from buying a book in which I have some interest because of negative reviews.

Makes the whole experience somewhat spicier.

Perhaps this, and not on the issue of fair appraisal and intellectual honesty, is simply where we differ.

But I would ask you to see the film asap - argumentative types such as yourself are perhaps more likely to come up with lines of criticism not yet explored.

Best,
Styrer