1. When too much Rapture is barely enough

Comment #219589 by Trilobyterian on July 27, 2008 at 9:43 am

Wow. Talk about losing one's head over something. I always say 'I wish these idiots would hurry up and rapture and get the hell off my planet."
But they never do. Damned shame, that. Seriously, though, Sam's main concern is that these believers, when given access to high office, actually see global conflict as a good thing. It's in their vested interest to see the world engulfed in war and strife. They should be kept as far from the halls of government as possible. However, what we see is 'Dubya' consulting - yes, actually consulting - with the authors of the 'Left Behind' books on the topic of world affairs.
Frightening. It's when I see this kind of pandering to wilful and almost militant stupidity that I am ashamed to be an American.

2. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165327 by Trilobyterian on April 21, 2008 at 10:51 am

The tone of this letter from 'J' rings entirely false. I don't think it was a prank, I think it was a deliberate plant by one of the Howler Monkeys of the Creationist Tribe. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that the oddly befuddled Mr. Stein (whom I once thought to be reasonably intelligent) had penned it himself to drum up publicity for his pathetic piece of cinematic trash. I'm just about certain. Nonetheless, it was another good excuse for Dawkins to air out the usual rebuttal to 'arguments' of this type.

3. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #110782 by Trilobyterian on January 12, 2008 at 1:51 pm

Well, I'll have to watch it, but I'm on the fence on the 'Four Horsemen' moniker. On the one hand, it's better to just go ahead and make that connection before the JeezBots do; on the other hand, they'll be shrieking in the streets, convinced that the Apocalypse is nigh, because they were too stupid to come up with the idea on their own, and it's a complete surprise to them. Or they already call them that, which is why our friends chose the title in the first place, so that they would 'own' it.
I need some scotch.

4. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #77963 by Trilobyterian on October 11, 2007 at 10:04 am

I feel I have to weigh in on the question of Business as a legitimate course of study. My wife is getting her MBA, and I can tell you, it's hard. A lot of it requires high-level mathematical formuli and a thorough knowledge of economics and finance, as well as statistics. She's been able to apply many things she's learned.
As far as Godology goes, one person is as much of an expert as the next, so one could arguably just grant oneself a Phd.

5. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #77961 by Trilobyterian on October 11, 2007 at 9:56 am

Whew. In response to 31/Stevencarrwork: I just read that Harvard article - well, I tried to read it - and I'm baffled as to why anyone gets paid to write such rubbish. Wordy, filled with theological jargon (developed over centuries of haggling over the furnishings of Heaven and Hell) and nonsensical.
Perhaps I should write a similar article on the Flying Spaghetti Monster, complete with my own jargonistic blatherings.

http://www.hds.harvard.edu/news/bulletin_mag/articles/35-23_coakley.html

6. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73923 by Trilobyterian on September 26, 2007 at 3:01 pm

Actually, I have opened the Egyptian Book of the Dead, not to mention the Popol Vuh, and bad things DID happen. Reagan was elected, Jerry Falwell gained more political power than he deserved (he deserved one vote), and we have an Armageddon-loving Bible-thumper for a President.
It's all my fault.

7. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73911 by Trilobyterian on September 26, 2007 at 2:43 pm

Revcort:
Nobody here is going to threaten anyone's life, for the simple reason that not one of us believes religion to be worth the trouble.
The source of the hostility is frustration, pure and simple. To condense Northern Bright's response, we flat-out don't believe in ANY of it.
Seriously, and I really mean this, you might as well be quoting the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

8. Critical Analysis of Case for a Creator

Comment #73907 by Trilobyterian on September 26, 2007 at 2:27 pm

Wow. This character hit the wall of intellectual cowardice from the get-go. If he really wanted to get to the heart of the matter, he should have gone back and studied evolution intensively first, to make sure that he could understand it, before he went to that place for 'information'.
Science is a rigorous discipline, and it can be difficult to grasp some concepts, unlike faith, which requires nothing of the believer but blind acceptance. Wait. If he'd done that, he wouldn't have gone to the 'Diskuvery Instytoot' in the first place.
I found myself unable to continue watching it.
Sort of like watching 'Plan 9 From Outer Space'. Painfully bad, to the point that it ceases to be funny and is simply unwatchable.

9. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73886 by Trilobyterian on September 26, 2007 at 1:51 pm

In response to posting 714, why does someone have to define what they mean by God before they can show that a particular God exists?
Whether it's a Judaeo-Christian God or the Monkey God or the Phabulous Phat Phart Ghod, we know what we're talking about here: fairy tales.
Do I need to define which species of leprechaun I'm trying to prove or disprove? What's the freaking point? It's this kind of hair-splitting that gives these jokers the confidence to defend their inane utterances in the first place.

10. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73845 by Trilobyterian on September 26, 2007 at 10:31 am

I love Northern Bright's comment: "You have to show that God exists AT ALL before it can be a serious undertaking to analyse whether or not he takes sugar in his coffee." Beautiful. Nobody ever seems to question the validity of theology as a subject. There's a quote about scholarship in general - the origin of which I can't recall - that fits theology: 'The shoveling of dry bones from one grave to the next.' Or something along those lines, probably from Ambrose Bierce. The problem is, there are no bones. Oh, and no shovel or grave. They just come up with theological 'arguments' based on ancient lunatic rants and build whole careers on them.