1. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #178608 by pkruger on May 11, 2008 at 5:43 pm

As long as this type of mentality persists on our planet--
Mankind has nary a chance of survival.

2. Science leads to killing people

Comment #171166 by pkruger on April 28, 2008 at 10:45 am

A fucktard.
A clownful fucktard.

3. Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists

Comment #165590 by pkruger on April 21, 2008 at 6:34 pm

For the choir Bozell is preaching to, this isn't a very bad article at all. Just how would one rebut this article to that very choir? I submit that this is our challenge.

4. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #161129 by pkruger on April 14, 2008 at 9:35 pm

This article is banal journalism in its purest form, completely unworthy of comment.

5. Rep. Davis: The Worst Person in the World

Comment #157950 by pkruger on April 9, 2008 at 8:22 pm

Well I think atheists are about as dangerous as all the older kids who tell the younger kids there really isn't a Santa Claus.

6. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #143855 by pkruger on March 14, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Richard was at his intellectual, charming and eloquent best here. Among his highlights was his hitting the nail on the head description of creationists insistence that "No transitional fossils exist!"

Colmes was ok, seemed to like to listen to himself talk somewhat more than he should have, but his tussle with Zelda about "it's completely constitutional to be offensive" was priceless.

7. Fleas on the Horizon: In Defense of God

Comment #138041 by pkruger on March 3, 2008 at 7:50 pm

The only thing the flea authors are worried about is the potential millions of dollars believers will no longer dish out blindly to their local church/evangelist after they become non-believers.

8. Darwin's dangerous idea

Comment #137432 by pkruger on March 2, 2008 at 8:44 pm

I think I'm going to scream.

'Begging the question' means circular reasoning--and nothing else. It does NOT mean something like 'which leads one to ask the question' or 'which brings one to ask' etc.

I'm amazed how many times I see posters in here commit this faux pas, in the print media, and on the radio--and what amazes me is that it gets by editors who I presume are defenders of proper use of the English language.

Time now to take that pill.

9. Berlin gallery in Islam art row

Comment #136480 by pkruger on March 1, 2008 at 9:48 am

It is toward the Kaaba that Muslims must pray.

10. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #134491 by pkruger on February 27, 2008 at 9:59 pm

Did anyone else laugh out loud when that women accused all of RD's arguments as being non sequiturs, and promently demonstrated some for our listening pleasure? I found that astondingly ironic.

11. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133617 by pkruger on February 26, 2008 at 12:40 pm

At any rate, Canada's too cold. SC is almost too cold in the winter...but thanks for the offer.

12. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133209 by pkruger on February 25, 2008 at 9:19 pm

would you guys stop misusing the phrase "begs the question"!!!

13. Bart Ehrman, Questioning Religion on Why We Suffer

Comment #130254 by pkruger on February 20, 2008 at 7:45 am

How wonderful to see someone seeing through all the obvious bullshit.
I've had discussions with christians, challenging them as to why God allows so much suffering and misery, and the usual smug response is something like: "God is 'testing' us"-- or some other nonsensical ad hoc explanation.
To which I would respond "Now that being the case, how would this differ if there were no God at all?"

It's a knock-out blow.


Another response could be:.."But exactly what would he be 'testing ' us for? For all the other times when he decides to, or cannot do anything to prevent us from experiencing misery?"

( And you will find with this question, you will always be interupted before finishing your question )

14. 'Frog from hell' fossil unearthed

Comment #129244 by pkruger on February 18, 2008 at 10:31 pm

Now if this giant frog had approached an intersection with no stop signs, and was on a collision course with a truck loaded with turkeys...

Oh never mind.

15. Cutting Edge: Baby Bible Bashers

Comment #129193 by pkruger on February 18, 2008 at 9:00 pm

All this shows to me is that there exists some chistians who feel an effective method to spread their message can be done by an emotional reaction of an audience to a dog and pony show.

Obviously, these children evangelists knowledge of 'the word' is learned purely by rote, and it would seem many christians feel this is all that's necessary.

Could you imagine the reactions of these children's elders if someone suggest they partake in a Q/A session, when there may exist a possibility of what they preached required futher explanation or even be challenged?

You would never see another flock of grownups suddenly jump in front of a bunch of kids so fast attempting to defend their suddenly very vulnerable little dears

If I ever was somewhere where I saw something like this--I wouldn't hestitate for an instant to heckle this kid. Then after all the inevitable ruckus, maybe someone will realize this is not a good thing for any child to do.

16. The argument from oranges

Comment #128503 by pkruger on February 17, 2008 at 8:53 am

What I found disturbing are the facial expressions of concurrence amongst the audience members throughout his speech--not looks of disagreement and ridicule.

17. US military accused of harboring fundamentalism

Comment #127486 by pkruger on February 15, 2008 at 10:39 am

"People make mistakes. There's probably been some instances where people have wrongly spoken," he added. "We'd like them not to, but that's life."

"As a soldier, many times you want to believe you're fighting on the right side. It's easy to kill someone if you believe that they're going to hell and that they are religiously opposed to you."

18. Battle of the Chambersburg billboards

Comment #124545 by pkruger on February 9, 2008 at 7:06 pm

Geez, the American public sure hates it when someone makes them think.

19. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #123448 by pkruger on February 7, 2008 at 7:41 am

A local newspaper writes:

Blogs blast snub of atheist club

MATHEW McCARTHY, RECORD STAFF
Email story
Print
Choose text size
Report typo or correction
View newspaper PDF
Email the author More Stories
• Blogs blast snub of atheist club
• Ontario: Paramedics allege patients ...
• AFGHAN SHOWDOWN
• Region OKs $54.5M bridge
• Afghan showdown
• Police used firearms more in 2007
• Tories demand Senate pass bill
• No election goodies, Flaherty says
• FBI agent posed as single mom in Internet ...
• Driver denies liability in deadly wedding ...WLU student who founded group 'sickened' by Internet response

February 07, 2008
BARBARA AGGERHOLM
RECORD STAFF

WATERLOO

The rejection of a group for atheists and other "freethinkers" as a campus club at Wilfrid Laurier University has touched off a firestorm on the Internet.

Angry e-mails and at least 19 blogs, some with international readership, are sizzling the e-waves.

Writers professing "atheism, agnosticism, humanism, or just general non-belief" are blasting WLU's students' union for intolerance toward people with no religious affiliation, said Anatolijs Venovcevs, co-founder of Laurier Freethought Alliance.

The writers are particularly incensed that religion-based groups, such as Laurier Christian Fellowship, have campus club status at Laurier.

"It has been so widespread, so rampant, so angry. Honestly, I did not . . . expect it to be blown up to this proportion," said Venovcevs, adding he's "sickened" by the response.

"Many of them started writing hate mail to people in administrative positions, which is insane."

However, both Venovcevs, 20, and an executive of the Wilfrid Laurier University Students' Union -- which oversees and funds campus clubs -- say it's all a misunderstanding.

Both sides believed, erroneously, that the other was showing intolerance, they said.

Now, it's agreed that if the group adds a line that says it's open to every student regardless of belief or non-belief, the campus club executive will reconsider, said Sanjay Ojjo, the students' union vice-president of finance and administration.

That's the crux, he said.

"The clubs are funded by the students' union, which is funded by the students," Ojjo said. "So clubs are open and accepting of all.

"I myself have attended a Ramadan dinner and I'm a Catholic."

Campus clubs receive benefits such as funding, space and the right to advertise on campus.

Venovcevs, a second-year international student, said his group resubmitted its application yesterday with the addition.

"We would be welcoming to everyone," he said."We envision the LFA to be an organization of people who profess no religious belief or maybe even mild religious belief, but who support the concept that they want to promote science and reason on campus.

"And (we) also believe that one can live a happy and fulfilling life without any belief in an organized religion."

He said he first raised the issue in his blog last week after the group was rejected as a campus club.

The campus clubs' executive, a part of the students' union, took issue with the group's goal to promote "a meaningful life without superstition or religion," he said.

"When we submitted the paperwork, they thought that it would be just an exclusive organization of people that professed no religion. We would be excluding people who have a religious belief.

"They then replied to us in a manner that we thought was being exclusively intolerant of us as people of no religion because they saw that we would be actively against religious belief."

The result is "the stir you're seeing right now across the Internet," he said.

The issue has attracted blogs with names like Canadian Cynic, A Creative Revolution, Pharyngula, Sandwalk, and Friendly Atheist.

Meanwhile, the university is confident its reputation as a diverse, welcoming community will stand up against "incorrect information" spread by bloggers, said dean of students, David McMurray.

Adam Lawrence, co-ordinator of Laurier's Office for Student Diversity, said he's satisfied students are handling the controversy well, but he'll be watching how the group engages Laurier's community.

Venovcevs said he thinks the Laurier issue became a lightning rod for some atheists who are feeling "oppressed" and under attack.

"The people who are non-religious, atheists especially . . . feel like a very repressed minority in very Christian-dominated societies like in Canada and the United States," he said.

"There have been many instances where they have been openly discriminated against. . . . They see this as yet another major attack."

Venovcevs said he hopes the controversy will die after his group is accepted as a campus club.

"Moderates and liberals like us say rational and peaceful discourse" get results, he said.

baggerholm@therecord.com

20. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #122084 by pkruger on February 4, 2008 at 3:50 pm

Sir Wilfred Laurier University is in Waterloo Ontario,( pop. 100,000) about 60 miles west of Toronto. I am very familiar with WLU as I grew up in Waterloo, only a few blocks away from the campus.
I am however, rather suspicious in they referring to themselves a 'secular' university. As Stephen Thrasher mentioned, they are highly esteemed as far as a business college is concerned, but they do have a lutheran seminary on campus, and a signifigant theology department.
The university was originally founded and funded by the Lutheran church, and it's name before 'Wilfred Laurier University' was 'Waterloo Lutheran University'. In the late 60's the Lutheran church could no longer support the college, and since their sponsorship evaporated, the university wanted to keep the initials 'W.L.U.' Fortunately, former prime minister of Canada, in the early 20th century ( Wilfred Laurier ) who had initials ( 'W.L.' ) could be substituted for 'Waterloo Lutheran'--even though he had nothing to do whatsoever with that campus.

21. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120511 by pkruger on February 1, 2008 at 9:23 pm

The lengths creationists will go to to attack evolution from different directions, and finding new sides of their mouths to speak from is becoming embarassing to witness. But here's a new twist: knowing they will be accused of only defending creationism simply because it says so in the Bible-- we now have the likes of Dr. Geoffrey Simmons allegedly having no vested interest in defending scripture! Horseshit!
He would have been far more convincing had he had
even a shred of knowledge of science. Again we hear the same weak;cliche arguments we have heard for decades.

22. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #120176 by pkruger on February 1, 2008 at 10:07 am

"His first and biggest problem with atheism, it seemed, was that it lacked the power to uplift,"

A false notion AND not an argument in favour of God's existence.
I am sure I am not the only atheist in the world who experienced an indescribable feeling of liberation/ecstacy when I realized that theism was
simply just not true, and removed myself from its shackles. That feeling was not due to the fact I no longer believed that God existed, but that I learned and possessed the epistemological tools by which I could make that move--and that includes not believing something is true simply because it makes you feel good, as Boteach would have us believe.

23. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118622 by pkruger on January 30, 2008 at 7:47 pm

Incredible. Blacknad comes waltzing in here trying to scare us all on how we will see RD' arguments be toppled once and for all after reading this most recent Dawkins flea--and he manages accomplish just the opposite.

Apart from his obvious taunting with the contents of Vox's book; subsequently being hesistant at first and then not offering any of its contents--due to the fact that he later implies( but does not admit outright ) that he hasn't read Vox's book at all. And even though he says he has, nor has he read TGD either.

He quotes 'atheist' Brent Rasmussen reacting to Vox's book saying things like: "It was actually painful for me [to] read"..and "..and completely disheartening take-down of some of the best arguments that the godless have put into print"...and.."."Amazing. And depressing."..and "Trust me, it wasn't pretty...."

Had Blacknad read TGD, he would have come across Dawkins describing how his colleaugues are in fact actually thrilled to be shown their previously held notions were falsified, and even go so far as to congratulate those who are able to do so. However, now Blacknad would have us believe Rassmussen reacts to Vox's book sounds morelike how a theist would envision himself reacting had an atheist convinced him a theistic position was shown to be false. And this is why I strongly suspect this quotation--apparently written by an atheist--was in fact written by a theist trying to somehow convince an atheist audience that an atheist position is incorrect.

24. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118253 by pkruger on January 30, 2008 at 2:09 pm

"A bit arrogant, don't you think, to name yourself Pretty Lady and assume that your logic is much better than all of ours?"

Worry not, I am sure few will dispute the fact that you catch the light far more effectively than she does :-)

25. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118245 by pkruger on January 30, 2008 at 2:02 pm

"Theists are statistically more likely to declare themselves happy, and to live longer and healthier lives"

So one is happier and lives longer when he lives a life of delusion?

26. Atheism and Violence

Comment #117858 by pkruger on January 29, 2008 at 8:53 pm

Oh the things people say when they know they're wrong.

27. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117593 by pkruger on January 29, 2008 at 7:36 am

Worthless; clownful yammerings

28. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115267 by pkruger on January 23, 2008 at 8:57 pm

Yes, Darwin did actually say those things, and I'm glad this author mentioned this. Of course these findings were eventually rejected--and perhaps not as soon as they should have been. This how science works--it rejects unsupported assertions. However, it's a slothful move on the part of this author to make no mention of this fact. It's a shameful example of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. But again, it won't be seen this way by the choir he singeth to--and he knows it.

Now if only theists would do the same and recognize ALL the unsupported sections of the ludicrous texts they revere--AS unsupported dogma!

29. King Me!

Comment #113873 by pkruger on January 20, 2008 at 8:43 pm

Rod-the-farmer:

she musta had little tits too.

30. King Me!

Comment #113460 by pkruger on January 19, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Arguing with a believer is like playing chess.

31. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110712 by pkruger on January 12, 2008 at 5:35 am

AfraidToDie--

Very well said, and very true. I've often compared that when debating with a theist, it soon seems like playing chess on a basketball.

32. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110401 by pkruger on January 11, 2008 at 5:47 am

It has been said that the one who learns the most is the one who loses the argument.

I hope ADH has taken this opportunity over the past few days to learn a great deal.

33. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110259 by pkruger on January 10, 2008 at 6:06 pm

But theists are not required to produce this kind of evidence, because we believe that God is external to the universe and therefore not subject to empirical investigation. If we did not believe that we would not be theists. At the most we would be pantheists.

34. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108431 by pkruger on January 6, 2008 at 9:19 pm

ADH says---right from the start...

"Two compelling reasons for believing in God:
1. there is sufficient evidence for belief in God to be plausible: the fact that that which begins to exist requires a cause external to itself, the anthropic principle, the implausibility of life having originated spontaneously from inert matter (etc )

Right from your very first words, it is obvious you are not even aware of the task at hand that awaits you. An attempt to demonstrate theism as a correct position would have to show the God as inconclusively true--not "plausible" as you state.
You assume the burden of proof, as you are asserting the existence of something--in this case a God-like entity. This means to provide compelling, inconclusive testable evidence just as any other serious claim is susceptible to.

On the other hand, in order for the atheist to show his position as the correct one, needs only to demonstrate your evidence to support your claim as insufficient

35. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108288 by pkruger on January 6, 2008 at 11:58 am

-.... the Israelites wandering through the desert would have exterminated one another long before they'd ever reached Mount Sinai to receive the commandments in the first place.

36. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106422 by pkruger on January 2, 2008 at 10:29 pm

RIGHTON:

My response would be something like:

The homo sapiens mind has evolved to point where it can evaluate, integrate and react from what it perceives from its senses. With it comes a wide variety of emotions--some being very intense--with love being one of them.

Peter

37. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104699 by pkruger on December 29, 2007 at 6:41 am

This reminds me of when I was kid living in southern Ontario and was a Chicago Blackhawks fan, while all the other kids cheered for the Maple Leafs. I wanted a hockey sweater one christmas and got a Maple leafs sweater as these were the only ones available. When I wore it to the rink, all the other kids then jeered me insisting I was now a Maple Leafs fan.
I am now 55 years old, live in Toronto, in fact I live NEXT DOOR to Maple Leafs Gardens where the Leafs used to play, and I STILL cheer for the Chicago Blackhawks, just as Richard Dawkins will be an atheist even if he enjoys and sings Christmas carols until his last breath.

38. Man and God

Comment #103660 by pkruger on December 26, 2007 at 12:37 pm

Yet again another series of really lousy theistic arguments presented as an attempt to keep their rickety boat afloat; that will surely impress the choir they are singing to--and keep the atheists snickering.

39. Huckabee Stands by Christmas Campaign Ad

Comment #102862 by pkruger on December 23, 2007 at 7:30 pm

Sometimes I wish I were a US citizen on their election day, just so I have that tantalizing opportunity of aggresively NOT voting for clownful types such as these.

40. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #99499 by pkruger on December 16, 2007 at 8:29 pm

Do the laws of God

( 'God' meaning ancient rules from a primitive society devised to FORCE intolerance and oppression for means of controlling a civilization, resulting from tyrants unable to devise a code of ethics based on reason, but rather their own fears and ignorance--and a committment, via their faith, to remain fearful and ignorant . )

trump those of man?

( 'man' here meaning laws developed and devised by informed reasonable men with a yearning for knowledge for centuries )

Why should there still be people asking this question?

41. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99376 by pkruger on December 16, 2007 at 1:39 pm

..good thing they weren't passing around a doob.

42. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99177 by pkruger on December 15, 2007 at 8:06 pm

This is by far the best video I have seen on this website, and on the internet--and my laudits extend to all those involved in its production.