401. Expelled Overview

Comment #149500 by Styrer- on March 25, 2008 at 6:42 pm

40. Comment #149490 by Frankus1122 on March 25, 2008 at 6:00 pm


Yes and no.
I would love intelligent people to see this film and realize the thinness of the ID position. However, I don't know how many people would be able to see through the veil of poorly constructed distortions. Look at how many people in the USA believe in a 'young earth' already. I don't think they are prepared to look at ANYTHING critically. People generally believe what they are told.
Perhaps a strong movie in the opposite direction would be better.

And, Frankus1122, how much more in ignorance those poor uninitiated will remain without beautifully succinct encapsulations of the sheer irrational crap of IDiocy presented here against which we can argue.

Here is a film which should be propagated globally to demonstrate the betrayal of reason its creators have gleefully embraced. Here is a film which is a gift to all eminent proponents of reason, to be used as an extra and powerful tool in the arsenal they are already bringing to bear upon the world of anti-reason.

I feel like I'm pulling teeth here.

Surprising.

Best,
Styrer

402. Expelled Overview

Comment #149497 by Styrer- on March 25, 2008 at 6:27 pm

41. Comment #149491 by markg on March 25, 2008 at 6:09 pm

Come on Styrer, where's your "bloody" sense of humor? I won't spend a dime on this movie, or waste my time. I'm sure I can wait for my local 24 hr religious-wacknut TV station, which constantly shows creationist propaganda including Ken Ham and other IDiots. Then if it's my last day on earth and it happens to be on TV, maybe I'll watch it. Or maybe a copy will fall off the garbage truck on the way to the landfill. Who knows?

Best,
markg

Your welcomely combative response simply confirms to me that you should watch the fucking thing yourself, at the earliest.

It seems to me that you may then have your own and individual naysaying comments to make about it.

And I would submit that simply 'waiting' (either for dodgy TV stations or for copies to fall off garbage trucks) is a pathetic, lily-livered reaction to that which requires urgent and robust denunciation now.

Best,
Styrer

403. Expelled Overview

Comment #149488 by Styrer- on March 25, 2008 at 5:51 pm

Not only will I not go to see this piece of crap. (I'm not evenly slightly interested.) I will only watch it when someone ties me down to a chair and forces my eyes to remain open, while the film plays in front of me as in the move, "A Clockwork Orange."

Thanks Josh, that tells me everything I wanted to know about the film, I feel no need to sponsor the maker of this kind of humbug.

For fuck's sake, people - see it for yourselves before you endorse another viewer's opinion of it (no matter how highly you respect said viewer's opinion).

Perhaps you'll come up with your own individual points of disagreement, so making the condemnation all the stronger.

Bloody hell.

Best,
Styrer

404. Expelled Overview

Comment #149479 by Styrer- on March 25, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Thank you, Josh, for such a blow-by-blow account post-viewing. Almost sorry you had to see it, you poor fucker.

I disagree with you on strategy, though.

I truly hope that this 'docufilm' gains as wide and full an audience as possible.

I don't give two hoots if this 'film' makes an absolute fortune for its creators. I would gladly pay to see it in all its verminous duplicity, in fact, and pay for friends to join me. But I do give very many more hoots about permitting as global and public a crushing and decimation of creationist/ID irrationality as possible, which will ensue following this - I would argue - welcome crystallization of ID bullshit.

The more who see it, the more the fucking merrier.

I am delighted to see that Eugenie Scott et al. are already well prepared for battle. It is through shit such as this that I think anti-rational pro-superstitious supernaturalism will meet, at the public podium, its match from the likes of Richard and every other no-bullshit scientist, secularist and thinker on the planet.

Is this not actually a wonderful opportunity?

In any case, the duplicitous horrors of humanity behind this film would be well advised, in fact, to wisely invest whatever funds they do make from their piece. Following their imminent complete and utter professional humiliation at the hands of respected anti-superstitious supernaturalists everywhere, they'll need all the funds they can lay their hands on to see them through long-term unemployment.

Let the real show begin.

Best,
Styrer

405. Fleabytes

Comment #149076 by Styrer- on March 25, 2008 at 4:52 am

Spineless is nodding your head in the face of a seemingly
majority opinion. Stop flirting with me.

Come, come, sir. Your presumption of my unthinking and uncritical agreement is unworthy.

As for 'flirting' with you - well, you little tease, do you post simply to receive uniform approbation of your views?

Probably not quite the right site for you, in that case. :)

Best,
Styrer

406. Fleabytes

Comment #149050 by Styrer- on March 25, 2008 at 3:50 am

Courtesy says more about the speaker than about who is being spoken to.

Your comment, Steve, can be taken either as an endorsement of my opinion (the lack of foundational courtesy, of civility, of sheer decency in the substance of the proclamations of the faithful) or as a criticism of it.

I shall gratefully accept the former. :)

Best,
Styrer

407. Fleabytes

Comment #149047 by Styrer- on March 25, 2008 at 3:39 am

The issue we are dealing with and participating in manifests itself in a whole myriad, a full spectrum of circumstances; from the ones described above to ones where daily life for un-outed atheists is a repressive hell dealing with family and work colleagues; where children are home-schooled by ignorant, delusional parents; where religious missionaries actively prevent the use of contraception that could prove vital in preventing the spread of AIDS in Africa; where Christian ministries collect money daily to fund the Discovery Institute or Benny Hinns next limo. To fret over how politely some people express themselves on this site is to obsess over one small aspect of the set of occasions when religion comes up against rationality.

This absolutely needed to be said. Thank you.

If I may develop the idea just a tad - if we are talking about 'courtesy', or 'temperance' in our discourse, it is precisely the anti-rationalist, religious pro-superstitious supernaturalists, with their foundational 'holy' books and their pernicious and immoral doctrines taken from them, who have ALREADY rendered said discourse intensely offensive, abusive and uncivilised before we even begin to take them to task.

For this reason, I shall not be tempering my own language and approach in any degree a la mikejswalker's rather hand-wringingly spineless suggested manner.

Best,
Styrer

408. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148826 by Styrer- on March 24, 2008 at 2:42 am

I think we should all be immensely grateful to Richard for taking the time to post this.

I share Lievemebe's enjoyment at his honesty and apparent spontaneity.

And he has EVERY right to be extremely offended and angered by this duplicitous crowd's shitty behaviour and to express himself in very robust terms.

When you really think about the shabby and intimidating way he and his colleague have been treated, he has in fact shown an unmerited measure of restraint here.

Best,
Styrer

409. I suppose it's due ('Expelled' review)

Comment #147943 by Styrer- on March 21, 2008 at 4:19 pm

Thank you, Skatje, for taking what must be rushed time to keep us all posted.

The audience was laughing their asses off, but I can't understand why. Dawkins was kind of stuttering, but it was because he was asked to quantify something that can't be quantified.

The bastards. They made our main guy stutter? Right. This is fucking war.

Duplicitous cunts. How I really hope that this pathetic excuse of a 'docufilm' makes headlines everywhere. The ensuing slaughter of creationist/ID bullshit is going to be an absolute joy to be a part of.

Get those bums on seats.

Best,
Styrer

410. Fleabytes

Comment #147926 by Styrer- on March 21, 2008 at 3:40 pm

So, David, before you go off on a tangent, I would hope that you'd get your facts straight, and just as importantly, not put them together as wrongly as this post demonstrates you're prone to.

AlanF

Your critical analysis is, on the basis of this post, precisely of the sort required to deal with the likes of Robertson and his rather wily ways.

(May I also add some word of appreciation for your courtesy in posting in extremely good English? It assists communication enormously.)

Looking forward to more of same.

Best,
Styrer

411. EXPELLED!

Comment #147911 by Styrer- on March 21, 2008 at 3:07 pm

I don't know if I really like "Expelled" getting this publicity just now, however. But at least it's bad publicity, and even if it helps the movie sell, it'll look like the intellectual debacle that it actually is.

Thank you for that, Glen.

I stand over what I suggested in no. 122 in this thread (I think you perhaps did not read this post) even more because of this!

Excellent.

Best,
Styrer

412. Fleabytes

Comment #147905 by Styrer- on March 21, 2008 at 2:42 pm

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

I will come back to the other comments but

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.

Best,
Styrer

413. EXPELLED!

Comment #147896 by Styrer- on March 21, 2008 at 2:22 pm

134. Comment #147819 by Glen Davidson on March 21, 2008 at 10:59 am

Do they look worse for trying to suppress access and to expel questioners, or for being so incompetent as to throw PZ out and let Dawkins in?

The fact is that they're looking more and more incompetent all of the time, especially every time Stein opens his mouth and reveals his utter lack of knowledge of what evolutionary theory even covers (and tells us that we should allow questions about gravity and the like, since these were not even covered by Darwin--as if there's any censorship of any of these questions, including evolution). This is all quite a minor episode, of course, but once again they look the fools that they are.

We just had better be careful that we don't let people think their crashing bore of a film is interesting because of incidents like these.

I agree, Glen with everything you say. But your conclusion seems faulty to me - let's try to ensure that their pernicious shite sees as much light of day as possible. Roll, then, on with the anti-rationalist experts to pound the little fuckers into the ground.

This film cannot be too highly publicised. It is simply beautiful grist for a much-needed mill.

Best,
Styer

414. Fleabytes

Comment #147882 by Styrer- on March 21, 2008 at 1:45 pm

There was an explicit command from God which was wilfully disobeyed. What it is not necessary to believe is that this happened in a garden called Eden or that it took the form of humans taking a orbidden fruit in response to being incited by a literal serpent.

Artful Dodger, I thought you'd promised to fuck off?

While you and your faith-dripping presence continue to dampen in most smelly fashion this site's pristinely whitened backdrop, answer me this question - on what ground are you setting your statement that 'There was an explicit command from God which was wilfully disobeyed'?

If it is solely the bible, you can fuck right off again.

Clarify, or never darken our blanched background ever again.

Styrer

415. Fleabytes

Comment #147869 by Styrer- on March 21, 2008 at 1:18 pm

6601. Comment #147867 by Bonzai on March 21, 2008 at 1:09 pm

AF


The story of the garden of Eden can be poetical and symbolic with regard to its detail (the Garden, the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the serpent, and so forth) and yet absolutely true with regard to it showing that humankind chose, collectively to rebel against God, and every human being since then succumbs to the temptation to set him/herself up as sole arbiter of their destinies, turning their backs on their Creator.


So if there has been no instruction to obey and God didn't show up until such a late time why was it a "sin" to disobey an absentee God who gave no clear instructions? How could you "rebel" against something that you have no idea exists and have not been given any command? What was the purpose to torturing Jesus to death to atone for non existence sin?

Also, what's wrong with setting ourselves as arbiters of our affairs? Do you want your children to be forever moma's boys who can't make any decision about their own lives? I think your interpretation of the "fall",--a standard one,--fails in guilt tripping us, but only succeeds in showing your God to be a very possessive tyrant whose "love" for us is that of a stalker or an spiteful ex-boyfriend, If one treats his love ones and children in this Godly way he would be given a court order to stay away from his "objections of affection" and rightly,

Whoa, this is a fucking new one on me.

Bonzai - very well said indeed.

Best,
Styrer

416. Fleabytes

Comment #147859 by Styrer- on March 21, 2008 at 12:44 pm

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!

Styrer

417. EXPELLED!

Comment #147771 by Styrer- on March 21, 2008 at 8:15 am

Incidents like this make me want to hug PZ. He and his peanut gallery have been lighting up switchboards (not to mention my blog) across the web with their cries of outrage. They're the best PR team a guy could wish for. Keep up the good work!

While I think our Kev is seriously mistaken in thinking that he will receive good 'PR' from this, I truly hope that this 'docufilm' gains as wide and full an audience as possible.

I don't give two hoots if he makes an absolute fortune from this production - but I do give very many more about permitting as global and public a crushing and decimation of creationist/ID irrationality as possible, which will inevitably ensue.

Our duplicitous Kev and his cronies would be well advised to wisely invest whatever funds they do make from their piece. Following their imminent complete and utter professional humiliation at the hands of respected anti-superstitious supernaturalists everywhere, they'll need all the funds they can lay their hands on to see them through long-term unemployment.

Let the real show begin.

Best,
Styrer

418. Fleabytes

Comment #147725 by Styrer- on March 21, 2008 at 6:47 am

6484. Comment #147680 by Steve Zara on March 21, 2008 at 5:52 am

Just a quick note to say I am very glad that Steve's break from the site has proved short enough to permit him to compose such a great post.

A pleasure to read.

Best,
Styrer

419. Fleabytes

Comment #146508 by Styrer- on March 19, 2008 at 6:40 am

The publisher's web site likely plays the sound of the bottom of a barrel being scraped.

Too good to go without a 'nice one, Doc.'

Very good.

Best,
Styrer

420. Fleabytes

Comment #146474 by Styrer- on March 19, 2008 at 5:55 am

6129. Comment #146401 by Quetzalcoatl on March 19, 2008 at 3:42 am

Everyone-

I've now finished my report on last night's visit by David Robertson (AKA Clearthinker/Wee Flea) to my tranquil home town. Since it's quite long, I've provided a link to it on my blog rather than post it here in its entirety. Let me know what you think.

http://musingsofastrangemind.blogspot.com/2008/03/evening-with-david-robertson.html

Thank you, Quetzalcoat1.

Best,
Styrer

421. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #146441 by Styrer- on March 19, 2008 at 4:56 am

Not necessarily. I can endorse a post because it challenges ideas. A post can be useful and interesting - I call that "good".

Ah. Good.

Best,
Styrer

422. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #146434 by Styrer- on March 19, 2008 at 4:49 am

I was reacting to what Dawkins said in this particular interview. Just in a few statements, he did, I am afraid, come across as sounding elitist. I have no problem with that, as he is one of the elite! But, for most people, suggesting that the meaning of life could include writing books is just not going to appeal. We have to remember that the average IQ is 100. Like it or not, religion provides a framework for living, and considerable comfort, for a large section of the population of the world. The idea that we could all switch to a world of pure reason is naive, I think.

My hope is that religion is reigned in, that it can be made less fierce and less intrusive. Perhaps over decades and even centuries it can evolve towards something more philosophical and undogmatic like the less superstitious forms of Buddhism. That, I think, is a realistic hope.

By typing 'Good post', you endorse said post in its entirety. I hence took it that you supported the notion not only that Dawkins is 'a bit elitest', but also that he is 'out of touch' and that he 'knows a lot about grand ideas, but probably not enough about people'.

May I ask if you wish to continue to endorse these ideas or if you wish to dissociate yourself from any of them?

As I tried to argue earlier, the ideas that Dawkins is 'out of touch' and that he may not know 'enough about people' are serious charges, given my assertion that his entire, most successful career has been built on his being 'in touch' and completely up to speed with what makes people tick.

I remain puzzled.

Best,
Styrer

423. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #146404 by Styrer- on March 19, 2008 at 3:46 am

150. Comment #146233 by robotaholic on March 18, 2008 at 7:52 pm

my favorite thing Dawkins said was "how does it help to postulate an intelligent being when we're trying to EXPLAIN things like intelligent beings..." - that's a great way to phrase it!

Agreed - it is a real joy to hear him pound this one. I don't know about you, but I enjoy it all the more because of his determination to say 'fuck off' to NOMA and insist that the question of gods is a scientific question. When it comes to religion and faith, pissed-off Dawkins is always better than laid-back, professorial Dawkins. It's what's needed!

Best,
Styrer

424. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146362 by Styrer- on March 19, 2008 at 2:09 am

I would love to believe that one day I will be reunited with loved ones who have passed away. Really, I would. Nothing would make me happier.

While I appreciate the underlying sentiment that you love your folks, I am not really sure what 'being reunited' with loved ones after death means. If it is more of the same as we have here and now, it makes sense. But this is not what any of the monotheisms tell us. What would it mean to be reunited with our loved ones 'in heaven'? There really has never been a clear depiction of heaven, apart from the idea that we are constantly in the presence of No. 1, knowing that presumably some of our more 'adventurous' friends and family are forever separated from Mr. Big, perhaps frying forever.

I cannot really see any such idea of heaven being desirable. And I am sure that some already there must surely be pissed off to see some they'd hoped never to be bothered with again suddenly popping in for an eternal visit.

I mean what I say when I say to my wife that I will love her forever. Because my definition of forever does not include her and my entirety of known family, friends, acquaintances being eternally shacked up in a 'heaven' under the watchful eye of the biggest cunt I've ever known, while my favourite and lesser cunt acquaintances will be forever distant from me.

Now that would be hell.

Party on, fella.

Best,
Styrer

425. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146293 by Styrer- on March 18, 2008 at 10:16 pm

May I offer a slight re-wording of this piece, in order to make clear the article's true import, which might otherwise be compromised?

Santanism 'linked to happy life'
by BBC News
Thanks to Chris Ward for the link.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7302609.stm

Santanism 'linked to happy life'

A belief in Santa Claus could lead to a more contented life, research suggests.

Santanists are better able to cope with shocks such as losing a job or divorce, claims the study presented to a Royal Economic Society conference.

Data from thousands of Europeans revealed higher levels of "life satisfaction" in believers.

However, researcher Professor Andrew Clark said other aspects of a Santanist upbringing unrelated to belief may influence future happiness.

This is not the first study to draw links between Santanism and happiness, with a belief among many psychologists that some factor in either belief, or its observance, offering benefits.

Professor Clark, from the Paris School of Economics, and co-author Dr Orsolya Lelkes from the European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research, used information from household surveys to analyse the attitudes of Fairyists - both Pixieists and Elvists - not only to their own happiness, but also to issues such as unemployment.

Their findings, they said, suggested that Santanism could offer a "buffer" which protected from life's disappointments.

Professor Clark said: "We originally started the research to work out why some European countries had more generous unemployment benefits than others, but our analysis suggested that Santanists suffered less psychological harm from unemployment than the non-Santanist.

"They had higher levels of life satisfaction".

Purpose of life

Even though Santanists were unsurprisingly more likely to oppose divorce, they were both less psychologically affected by marital separation when it did happen, he said.

"What we found was that Santanists were experiencing current day rewards, rather than storing them up for the future."

However, he said that the nature of the surveys used meant that undetected factors, perhaps in the lifestyle or upbringing of Santanists, such as stable family life and relationships, could be the cause of this increased satisfaction.

The precise contribution of Santanism to mental health remains controversial, although there is other evidence that it does directly improve happiness, said Professor Leslie Francis, from the University of Warwick.

He said that the benefit might stem from the increased "purpose of life" felt by Santanists.

He said: "These findings are consistent with other studies which suggest that Santanism does have a positive effect, although there are other views which say that Santanism can lead to self-doubt, and failure, and thereby have a negative effect.

"The belief that Santanism damages people is still in the minds of many."

'Meaningless'

Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, which represents the interests of atheists and agnostics, said that studies purporting to show a link between happiness and Santanism were "all meaningless".

"Non-believers can't just turn on a faith in order to be happy. If you find Santanist claims incredible, then you won't believe them, whatever the supposed rewards in terms of personal fulfilment.

"Happiness is an elusive concept, anyway - I find listening to classical music blissful and watching football repulsive.

"Other people feel exactly the opposite. In the end, it comes down to the individual and, to an extent, their genetic predispositions."

But Justin Thacker, head of Theology for the Evangelical Alliance, said that there should now be no doubt about the connection between Santanist belief and happiness.

"There is more than one reason for this - part of it will be the sense of community and the relationships fostered, but that doesn't account for all of it.

"A large part of it is due to the meaning, purpose and value which believing in Santa gives you, whereas not believing in Santa can leave you without those things."

You will surely agree that the emendations, though slight, assist comprehension and evaluation.

Best,
Styrer

426. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #146229 by Styrer- on March 18, 2008 at 7:48 pm

95. Comment #144384 by Bonzai on March 15, 2008 at 10:27 pm

Spinoza



Again, RD did reasonably well confronting our mortality, which of course makeS the faith-based sqirm


I am not so sure. I think he came across as a bit elitist and out of touch. How many of us will write books and music for posterity? What about people who don't have a wonderful, healthy and fulfilling life to celebrate? It is often, though not always, people who feel insecure, unloved, unfulfilled and inadequate that swell the rank and file of church goers. In religion they find comfort, support and reassurance,

Richard said as a teenager he gave up religion after he found Darwin. All I can say is that this young man was destined to become a professor. Not too many people become religious because they need a scientific hypothesis! It follows that not too many people will give up religion simply because they find better answers for abstract questions in science..

If atheists want to persuade people to leave religion,--assuming this is a valid goal,-- they need to understand the psychology of the believers and offer alternatives for what they find in religion. It is simplistic,--and even in a sense patronizing,-- to attribute religion simply to childhood indoctrinations.Many believers do get something out of believing, for them religiosity is actually quite "rational" according to the economist's definition of rationality.

My impression of RD is that he is a brilliant man who knows a lot about grand ideas, but probably not enough about people, and he is also a very privileged man.

At the risk, Bonzai, that you may wish to rehearse your near-hysterical criticism of me as a 'bully' and as being 'reptilian', I think your above post shows you to be remarkably presumptuous and condescending.

You have absolutely no idea of the experiences Dawkins may have had which might similarly have made him feel during his life, in your terms, 'insecure, unloved, unfulfilled and inadequate'. You have absolutely no idea of what losses, what tragedies and what pain could have significantly detracted from your presumptuous suggestion that Dawkins has ubiquitously enjoyed 'a wonderful, healthy and fulfilling life.'

Your assertions that Dawkins is 'a bit elitest', that he is 'out of touch', that he 'knows a lot about grand ideas, but probably not enough about people' strike me as bizarre in the extreme.

Is this not the man whose whole fucking academic life has been devoted to explaining to ignorant gits like you and me the notion that we are all together, as wonderful parts in the evolutionary process that so many cannot understand? Is this not the man who has made, at least in my case, the most explosive impact in making some realise wherein lies their real humanity? Where, sir, do you find the sheer ignorance and, may I say, audacity to suggest that Dawkins knows a great deal 'but probably not enough about people'?

If atheists want to persuade people to leave religion,--assuming this is a valid goal,-- they need to understand the psychology of the believers and offer alternatives for what they find in religion.

I find this latter comment of yours to be the height of solipsistic condescension. So you, Sir Bonzai, Atheist-In-Chief, insist on instructing us little non-believers that we must find 'alternatives' to 'offer' to the poor benighted faithful? The scales blinding their eyes will only properly fall if we can offer them something better, something more comforting, with which to replace them?

As Harris made eloquently clear, it is not about offering [your words: 'alternatives for what they find in religion']. It is about taking religion, taking faith, taking supersitious supernaturalism away. It is not about replacing them. What would in this case remain would be sheer, unadulterated, wonderful, painful but real humanity.

To Steve Zara who endorsed Bonzai's post with a 'Good post': For shame, sir. You surely know better.

I think you have both misrepresented Dawkins to a discourteous and untenable degree.

Styrer

427. Fleabytes

Comment #146147 by Styrer- on March 18, 2008 at 5:15 pm

6065. Comment #146127 by mixmastergaz on March 18, 2008 at 4:32 pm

Styrer: I read your reply to Robertson and a quotation I think I must've heard on clip on this site somewhere sprang to mind:

"The religious mind cannot understand the ironic one."

(Or something like that!)

I recall it too, Mixmastergaz, but can't pinpoint the source either. But it's the metaphorical mind which is worrying me the most at the moment. I am dismayed that the (arguably) sophisticated capacity we all have for making connections between disparate ideas - by which capacity we glimpse something true about ourselves, about our world - is being debased by the likes of McGrath (and in most unsophisticated manner, by Robertson) to assert twisted ideas of a superstitious, of a supernatural basis for our place in the universe.

It would all be enough to put me off literature and the creative arts altogether if I didn't think that religion were actually detracting and devaluing the force of the numinous and of the transcendental, whose proper home is ourselves, our rationality and our awe at simply being alive, and whose proper expression is very often found in those self-same repositories of literature and the arts.

Best,
Styrer

428. Fleabytes

Comment #146117 by Styrer- on March 18, 2008 at 4:19 pm

5282 - Styrer - Don't be too disappointed but you do realise that J K Rowling is a practising Christian (a member of the Church of Scotland) and that she recently stated that much of Harry Potter was inspired by the Bible - and especially the last book - with its theme of resurrection? Guess you'll have to go back to Pullman. (And thnaks to MPhil for pointing that out as well) . And by the way JK is not more popular than the Bible - which is still by far the worlds best selling book. But don't let a little fact like that put you off your rant!

And so, Robertson, you show me that not only are you incapable of providing any evidence whatsoever for your chosen deity (and my word, you poor chap, you certainly do have your work cut out for you in justifying your selection of just one from the many on offer), but of entertaining any meaningful discussion about creative fiction, which I would have thought was, er, shall we say, your more natural province. Poor show on both counts.

Is it really beyond your faith-drenched understanding to notice that Rowling gives allegorical treatment to the interplay between the different characters' stories, giving rise almost inevitably to notions of sacrifice, the death of Christ, the resurrection etc.? It seems so. I think that the story of Christ is still one of the greatest stories ever told, that it holds a unique resonance in the world, and that it will continue to do so. But Rowling has trumped it with her story of Harry Potter, I submit, and both stories can, my poor deluded fellow, be quite wonderfully experienced and enjoyed by that which is already innate in us (in the case of the Bible, with some serious excising, of course) without any recourse whatsoever to the preposterous notion that they have any claim at all to truth when it comes to their characters' fictitious lives, or recourse to the realm of superstitious supernaturalism.

Rowling's 'inspiration' from the Bible in creating the magnificent fiction of Harry Potter is about as impressive as Baudelaire creating one of the most beautiful, haunting love poems ever composed in any language through his 'inspiration' from a dead outgrowth of protein.

Wonderfully allegorical as they are, as illuminating as they are of what it is like to be alive and to have the privilege of thinking about our existence and of our relationships with other humans, 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.

Neither fiction, it seems, is in any case capable of making of you in any degree a pleasant, engaging or wise contributor to this site.

Quite the opposite.

Styrer

429. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #144021 by Styrer- on March 14, 2008 at 10:19 pm

135. Comment #144019 by lievemebe on March 14, 2008 at 10:15 pm

Chris Hedges seems to use labels as entities that are discrete forces in the political world wheras they are made up of people who are complex and evolving. We all occasionaly use these phrases as general descriptives, but the number of labels he uses are perplexing:

New atheists
secular left
radical christian right
secular fundamentalist
religious fundamentalist
american fascist
religious right
radical religious right
fundamentalist
christian right
Jacobin
irrational religious hordes
western society
american society
cultural relativist
christian, hindu, jewish and islamic fundamentalist
religious communities

His profligate use of labels may explain his rash title:
"I do not believe in Atheists". Then who are we, supernatural hobgoblins?

Are these the words you discerned from your reading? If so, I agree - his appetite for such terms seems rather interesting.

Is this right? I really just don't have the fucking stomach to go though it again to check, at the moment.

Styrer

430. Fleabytes

Comment #144011 by Styrer- on March 14, 2008 at 9:32 pm

Dr Benway

Please remove Robertson's image.

It is quite enough that the poor fellow, in all his ridiculous desperation, is shown to be everything that so many have been able to portray through language.

But you take a step too far, my good Doctor, by posting this.

Let's keep it linguistic, eh?

Best,
Styrer

431. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143998 by Styrer- on March 14, 2008 at 8:27 pm

The idea that suicide bombing is entirely faith based is a mistake. There is no religion (not even fundamental Islam) in the world that that actively encourages it's adherents to wake up on a morning and randomly blow themselves and others to pieces. Any religion that did so would soon find themselves rather short of followers. What Religion can do is act as an enabling device to create suicide bombers for a particular cause. It's much easier to blow your self up for whatever cause if you know that you will be looked on as a hero and your family will be taken care of. (For example, the Kamikaze pilots of Japan during WWII)
It is also true that Suicide bombing and other forms of terrorism are an effective threat in an asymmetric struggle. However, here we have to look at morality. The specific targeting of civilians is surely a greater worry than than the means used to cause the carnage. To do so would seem to require a great faith in something to justify such an action. Perhaps it is here that religion has a role to answer for?

While you are entirely correct that religion has a HUGE role to answer for, do I really need to spell out that the suicide bombings I refer to are our current spate of Islamic fundamentalists venting their fury?

The decision of our latest crop of anti-rights, anti-democratic, anti-free-speech, anti-female emancipation, anti-freedom maniacs to imprint 9/11 into our history books is entirely faith-based.

I really cannot see how this can be in any sense in question.

I will not countenance the lily-livered, propitiatory bollocks that the likes of a gobshite like Bonzai (whose last chance has now expired) wishes to impose on the rest of us. Down roads such as his lie dangerous appeasement, equivocation, macho-bullshit and anti-reason.

While I am not sure that you are really close to the truth of things, I think you are at least on the right track.

Best,
Styrer

432. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143989 by Styrer- on March 14, 2008 at 7:52 pm

Styrer,


You have added precisely nothing to the discussion with your above post


This was exactly what I intended. I gave you exactly what you deserve for your rambling non sequitur.


Best,

Bonzai

If your intention, sir, was genuinely to 'add nothing', then may I ask why you are continuing to post?

Last chance, Bonzai - 'Their acts are entirely faith-based; they are entirely religion-based. For you to suggest otherwise is moving dangerously close to a notion that is guaranteed to piss me off beyond your little and immoral endorsement of: 'blame the fucking victim'.'

Respond to the substance of my post or piss off.

Styrer

433. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143986 by Styrer- on March 14, 2008 at 7:41 pm

121. Comment #143980 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 7:25 pm

They were driven - entirely - by faith-drenched doctrines inculcated from the earliest age that their oppressors could manage.


By repeating the same simplistic "bollock" over and over doesn't make it more right. You can type in caps and that wouldn't make an iota of difference.



With all the reserves of patience and of courtesy I have


I would prefer people who are upfront about their emotions rather than hiding behind a facade of fake politeness while making abusive and snide remarks like your usual reptilian self.


And stop pissing me off


Glad I did. At least you sound more genuine,

Best,

Bonzai.

Bonzai

You have added precisely nothing to the discussion with your above post. May I invite you to join the Fleabytes thread? I understand that there is a similarly substance-challenged poster (DR, I think) whom you could possibly assist.

I note that you have not given one speck of a substantive response to my challenge in no.113 to dissuade me from the idea that you are an unthinking, ignorant 'blame the fucking victim' devotee.

Styrer

434. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143981 by Styrer- on March 14, 2008 at 7:27 pm

117. Comment #143976 by ungodlystheist on March

14, 2008 at 7:09 pm

Styrer.

I think your post supports Hedges point.

In case you do not realise, that is not flattery.

Really?

Styrer says - Hedges is the most disgraceful and simultaneously wonderful example of the feculence that informs shamefully uneducated, rampantly ignorant and untruthful self-seeking soundbite journalism anywhere on the fucking planet.

Please indicate how my post supports Hedges' point.

Intriguing.

Best,
Styrer

435. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143979 by Styrer- on March 14, 2008 at 7:21 pm

Please elaborate how does saying suicide bombers are motivated by politics instead of religion is "blaming the victims"?

With all the reserves of patience and of courtesy I have (neither of which, Bonzai, you are really entitled to after your little hissy fit against me earlier), I say that you are utterly off the track by suggesting that the 9/11 suicide cunts were motivated by 'politics'; they were driven - entirely - by faith-drenched doctrines inculcated from the earliest age that their oppressors could manage.

What the fuck is confusing you about this? Have you read Harris? Have you read his notion of a 'moral and intellectual emergency'?

Get a grip, lad.

And stop pissing me off.

Styrer

436. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143974 by Styrer- on March 14, 2008 at 7:05 pm

Styler,

Shouting "utter bollock" and ranting against "leftists" like a charging fanatic shouting "Allah akbar" is not going to make your argument more convincing or logical. I notice your tendency to insult and bully others quite a while back, If I have an ignore button I would have pressed it unhesitatingly whenever I see your condescending and simplistic bullocks.

Best,

Bonzai

You, sir, are the most insulting of members I have read today. I invite you to respond to the substance of my complaint against you.

If you do, I will reflect; if you cannot, then shut the fuck up.

Styrer

437. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143971 by Styrer- on March 14, 2008 at 6:55 pm

Suicide bombing is a way of waging asymmetric warfare. It is a desperate measure for the weak side in a conflict to inflict maximum damage on an overwhelmingly stronger adversary by turning themselves into human bombs. While suicide bombing may be relatively modern, sacrificing one's own life in order to get a much more powerful enemy is not new, nor is it particularly tied to religion.

History is replete with examples of people who died willingly and knowingly for all kind of political causes: Assassins went on mission that they knew for sure that they wouldn't come back alive; resistance launch attacks on much more powerful enemies knowing that their chance of survival was practically zero; people who willingly sacrifice their lives for political principles, etc. Despite evolutionary hard wired lust for life, people can and do often give up their lives for causes they find worthy enough. Politics alone can be quite sufficient a reason, the promise of virgin is not really necessary,

Islam is strongly against suicide, the torture for those who die by their own hands is quite horrific and most Islamic scholars agree that suicide bombing is not martyrdom. The normal definition of martyrdom is that one has to die by the enemy's hand. Suicide bombing would be the last thing a Muslim would do if he is motivated only by religious fanaticism because mainstream interpretation of the religion is overwhelmingly against it.

There is a minority view which equate suicide bombing with martyrdom. But why do the bombers more receptive to the minority view if religion is all they care about? It seems that they do pick and choose the interpretation that happens to justify what they have already decided to do before hand. Religion is only a kind of rationalization, if the normal interpretation of the religion doesn't provide the justification they sought, they simply find another interpretation that would. So I wouldn't agree that religion is the primary trigger,

Utter bollocks.

So those 'asymmetrically warfaring' individuals who strap bombs to themselves and explode every living person in their midst, shouting to Allah and to the paradise to which they are laying the path for their relatives, are doing so for something other than faith? For something other than religion?

Their acts are entirely faith-based; they are entirely religion-based. For you to suggest otherwise is moving dangerously close to a notion that is guaranteed to piss me off beyond your little and immoral endorsement of: 'blame the fucking victim'.

Careful there, Bonzai.

Styrer

438. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143966 by Styrer- on March 14, 2008 at 6:39 pm

Hedges squeaks: I was appalled at how what they had done for the secular left was to embrace the same kind of bigotry and chauvinism and intolerance that marks the radical Christian right.

I really did not need to read anything beyond the above from this lily-livered, liberal appeasing pseud to surmise that his bollocks were of the smallest, smelliest type; Hedges is the most disgraceful and simultaneously wonderful example of the feculence that informs shamefully uneducated, rampantly ignorant and untruthful self-seeking soundbite journalism anywhere on the fucking planet.

Former theist, my arse. Still thinks like one, the twat. May he slowly rot in his own perverse pit of morally relative propitiatory piss.

(Acknowledgements: Reverend Dark - for allowing me to derive the word 'feculence'; Richard Dawkins; and all the rest of you lot who will not stand for such despicable bollocks.)

Best,
Styrer

439. Fleabytes

Comment #143692 by Styrer- on March 14, 2008 at 9:58 am

5315. Comment #143662 by Paula Kirby on March 14, 2008 at 9:36 am

MPhil: But we have no justification to assume that animals fear death
Steve Z: Oh I think we do. We can see their reaction, their mourning.
One day about ten years ago I was driving along a very long, straight track in the Alentejo, in Portugal. Far in front of me I was aware of something moving around on the track in an odd fashion. When I got closer, I saw it was a female bird - not one I recognised, but it looked finch-like - in a complete and utter frenzy by the dead body of her mate. She was twittering and fluttering around, up and down, up and down, pecking at the dead bird as if trying to wake it, and making the most heart-rending noises. She seemed to be in so much distress that it seemed almost impossible for such a tiny, delicate frame to bear it all.

About two hours later I was driving back along the same track - and she was still there, still twittering, still fluttering, still trying to "wake" her mate, still giving off all the signs of shock and utter distress.

The sight has haunted me for years (as you can tell). I can't account for her behaviour in any way that excludes the experience of avian emotions at least similar to the human ones of grief, shock, fear, panic and, who knows, perhaps even love?

Am I being too fanciful? Could there be a non-emotional explanation for her behaviour?

Well, thank you, Paula. You've just got my Paddy's Day Weekend off to a rollicking start...:)

Of course love too. Those chemicals keep us together so beautifully, you know, even when the brain is not quite developed enough to recognise both the evolutionary and numinous beauty underlying it, nor when so developed that the tragedy-wreaked fellow creature you mention might otherwise be silent and contrite next to its beloved, in awe before the Great Flying One in the sky.

I shall now withdraw for the experts to expound...:)

Best,
Styrer

(Happy St. Patrick's Day, folks!)

440. Fleabytes

Comment #143609 by Styrer- on March 14, 2008 at 8:42 am

why would god allow JK Rowling to be a more popular and, yes, better writer, than his celestial self?

Because He is testing us...er, no, wait...He works in mysterious ways...er, no, wait...

Over to you, Robertson. And surprise me by actually saying something of substance...er, no, wait...

Best,
Styrer

441. Fleabytes

Comment #143594 by Styrer- on March 14, 2008 at 8:25 am

5284. Comment #143585 by MPhil on March 14, 2008 at 8:13 am

I love Harry Potter, too - and find it a great series...


... but we do have to take into account that her broadly christian belief did influence the story immensely. The willing sacrifice of one's life to save others and subsequent rebirth at the end of the seventh book are a prime example.

Yes, perhaps, but the fact that a series of books can cause such varied reactions worldwide, from straight adoration to denunciation for paganism (pissing off Christians is a most welcome advantage) is not just a clue to the books' originality and boldness but to the fundamental cleverness of Rowling's approach.

All those 'paganistic', 'magical', 'fantastical' aspects of the books, including the so-called Christian example you cite, are used by Rowling to introduce and vividly illustrate good old 'universal truths' about this world (the redemptive power of love, friendship, bravery, loyalty, choice etc.) It's all there.

And it never pretends to be anything other than a terrific ol' yarn. Would it were always so...!

Fuck the Bible, sideways if possible, pernicious, crass, ignorant and woefully inept fiction that it is.

Best,
Styrer

442. Fleabytes

Comment #143580 by Styrer- on March 14, 2008 at 8:08 am

5247. Comment #143512 by annabanana on March 14, 2008 at 7:14 am

There are plenty of other characters in plenty of books that exhibit morals as great, if not better than Jesus. Harry Potter is a good example.

Fabulous comment, Annabanana!

Harry sets out on a moral journey of self-discovery and self-realisation in Bildungsroman form, taking us with him unsure step after unsure step, growing increasingly aware of his uniqueness, his individuality, his talents, his uncertainty, his human foibles - all of which make him a man among men (or a wizard among wizards, but the message is the same!). Ultimately heroes are also flesh and blood, fearful, erratic and impulsive, as well as pretty honest, trustworthy, brave and quite skilled at at least one activity. Much, in other words, like most of us see ourselves. Rowling makes it thinkable that we too might just be able to become heroes. Her grasp of psychology is formidable, and her ability to weave it into the fabric of such a rich text quite amazing.

What the fuck have Jesus Christ and the sodding Bible to compare with any of this? Far more profound and moving fiction, with a good deal more verisimilitude! :)

Spot on!

Best,
Styrer

443. Fleabytes

Comment #143496 by Styrer- on March 14, 2008 at 6:52 am

David Robertson utters: I notice in your post you are basing your argument on feeling and personal experience. Whilst that would constitute evidence for me - it is very limited and I would need a whole lot more.

This comment is for me the most flabbergastingly delicious utterance from DR I've read in quite a while.

Without a trace of irony, he unerringly gifts us in a nutshell the reason why further wrangling with this paragon of both the double-standard and of the vacuous is a complete and utter bloody waste of time.

Best,
Styrer

444. Don't blame Islam for terrorism, expert says

Comment #143385 by Styrer- on March 14, 2008 at 4:41 am

To say that the militant, globe-bestriding America bears some responsibility for what happened to the working, tax-paying America on 9/11 is not to "blame the fucking victim". Quite the opposite.

Just came across your reply, late, and must say that I find it utterly contemptible.

To suggest, in any degree whatsoever, that America (however you wish to define it) bears any responsibility whatsoever for the attacks of 9/11 is to strike an utterly wrong-headed propitiatory stance which I cannot condemn strongly enough. By doing so you shamefully re-direct blame from the true and sole perpetrators of this act of mass murder: warped and despicable Islamic fundamentalists drenched in faith who despise everything that civilised, democratic countries represent.

Your comments above have, as far as I am concerned, simply precluded any further serious consideration of your stance in this matter, unless you are prepared to reconsider your deplorable statement.

Styrer

445. When blasphemy bit the dust

Comment #140499 by Styrer- on March 7, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Congratulations to the Professor!

There seems little doubt that Richard's magnificent description of that OT bastard will go down in history not only as one of the most iconic linguistic depictions of our time, but as instrumental in bidding welcome adieu to this ridiculous law.

Marvellous. Trebles all round!

Best,
Styrer

446. Fleabytes

Comment #140447 by Styrer- on March 7, 2008 at 11:14 am

Richard Morgan - thanks for the link!

PM for you, by the way.

Best,
Styrer

447. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140288 by Styrer- on March 7, 2008 at 5:28 am

What I am sure "get to" meant in the original post was "upset", or "cause distress". I share that concern.

Oh, without doubt, Steve, though you do hopefully agree that it is the evident 'distress' caused by Wooter's comments that was a call to action to Philip, resulting in his excellent and necessary thumping down of such unpleasant faith-drenched immoral bullshit.

As you say, 'productive' must remain key, in every case. Though quite what will prove 'productive' in entanglements with Wooter and his clan remains to be seen.

Best,
Styrer

448. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140273 by Styrer- on March 7, 2008 at 5:03 am

461. Comment #140263 by Quetzalcoatl on March 7, 2008 at 4:49 am

Philip1978-

I doff my hat to you, sir. Have some tea. I know it's hard, but try not to let him get to you. He's not worth it.

I hope you don't mind my interjecting here, but we SHOULD let the little fucker's ideas get to us. And we should take the little shit and all his ilk to task every time that they utter immoral precepts in the name of their sky-fairy.

Wooter's downright wicked views are extremely representative of fundie religious whackjobs everywhere, and they need to be thumped down, viciously, whenever they raise their servile yet arrogant little heads, open their mouths and spout not just banal but positively evil horseshit.

Best,
Styrer

449. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140250 by Styrer- on March 7, 2008 at 4:31 am

Philip

Just given your post a top ranking.

Well worth waiting for.

Thanks,
Styrer

450. Fleabytes

Comment #139138 by Styrer- on March 5, 2008 at 7:51 am

Dr Benway

Thanks for the explanation. I'll work on my silly-funny gene and get back to you. No guarantees, I add. But I do thank you for taking the time to talk to me. Lolcat talk right back at you, if it is permitted to utter such a sentiment in staid English.

Reverend

To you too, thanks. For this and for the following:

- Whenever you post, I nearly puke my fucking liver out laughing. Even this last one brought up a few cells.

- You added 'feculent' to my vocab.

I love this site. :)

Best,
Styrer