601. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159686 by Styrer- on April 12, 2008 at 8:48 pm

996. Comment #159637 by bigcanuck on April 12, 2008 at 5:04 pm

Stryer,
What I see is someone who is so Antigod that it has clouded his scientific judgment. You did not answer my question as to whether or not a scientist must take into considerations all possibilities... You seem to be too concerned that young people are being taught something that you personally disgaree with.


There is absolutely nothing anti-scientific about leaving the door open to intelligent design. Science has not given an answer as to how life began and therefore you are presenting irrational, UNsubstantiated claims anytime you dismiss any possible answer.

Your answer to me shows me that you are concerned about propaganda given to youth and not following the scientific model.

What harm is there in saying... we don't know how life was created initially and then giving them some theories and let them go on there way and formulate their own opinions? I'm not saying that intelligent design is the answer...I'm saying a true scientist leaves all possible answers open.

You seem, sir, to at least be trying to engage with atheists and anti-theists alike here.

Many theists who come here simply wish to propound their views that 'God did everything' and then disappear.

If, sir, I may take you to be of the more engaging type, such that I am not wasting my time in responding to you, then I thank you.

May I ask, sir, if your notion of the existence of God is negotiable? Could you, by any evidence, be persuaded that your chosen deity does not exist?

If you insist, no - then there is nothing we can say to each other which will alter this. My offerings to you that you might as well, without evidence, believe in the Magic Mars Monkey who instructs all people to eat chocolate, and be nice to fellow chocolate eaters, can be justified only as much as you state your god is there, listening to all you hear, ignoring some, acting on other bits, or not, of what you ask for.

If you truly KNOW, without evidence being required whatsoever for your faith, then I am sorry to say that I find you not only a poor scientist but a human being to whom rational consideration must stop being given.

I wish I could persuade you of what you are missing out on by not seeing this world, and our part in it, as finite, beautiful, and more awe-inspiring than anything you can find in any holy text.

You are placing your whole life on the line, and that of your kids, and you are doing so on the basis that your lack of evidence for your god is evidence enough.

How can this be explained? My idea: it simply cannot.

Please stop being restricted by myths. They are to be appreciated as literature, not as truth.

It's a wonderful world and universe. Just take a real look. You don't need metaphor, or a sense you are 'sinful', or that you are in any way small, pathetic or needy.

You are your own best reason for being here. You and your genes have earned getting to where you are now.

Enjoy it.

Best,
Styrer

602. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159675 by Styrer- on April 12, 2008 at 7:15 pm

Whether you or anyone else agrees with Steve's findings, the manner in which you expressed your displeasure was both ignorant and rude at best. I would also point out that you asked. And you were a serious prick about the answer. If you aren't prepared to deal with an answer you don't like then you shouldn't ask the question. Whether or not you agree with Steve Zara, he stated his position politely (and at your request), for which you slapped him in the face. I for one, believe you owe Steve a most humble apology.

Well, Jon, your laying into me as a defence for my laying into Steve is rather nice, I must say.

Didn't think there were many of us left, going by the flat-out shite so many members tolerate until someone says 'enough is enough'. Good man.

But that you are totally off your little protecting trolly to jump in here and protect the eminent Steve shows only that you are not aware that the scientific fucker, whom I hold in highest regard, must be subjected as all others to questioning about their propositions.

Steve can amply defend himself against a presumptuous upstart like myself, and you should grant him the chance, before entering the arena, to do so.

Whereas you, sir, seem to me to be a self-seeking advertiser of his own occasionally worthwhile, verbose posts, for whom passion such as my own, one way or another, may prove useful to endorse your rather pedantically unengaging, perhaps correct, posts as an aside.

Trust me - you may yet require such!

Let it not be unsaid that Steve's approbation of your comments is of absolute irrelevance to the charges I've made against him. They speak to neither the veracity of your complaint nor to its substance. In the same way, your flouncing in here to protect the word of Steve against such a guttersnipe as myself holds no sway whatsoever in Steve's EMPIRICAL finding of my assertions, one way or the other.

To return to your dubious phrasing, Jon, and to the substance of your post - do think on, you rather endearing prick and fuckwit.

I await Steve's comments, as I did before you, Jon, ever made your almost imperceptible squeak. I regret that my ears are so formed that I heard it.

Best,
Styrer

603. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159657 by Styrer- on April 12, 2008 at 6:01 pm

Comment #159649 by Steve Zara on April 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm

However, I have never had any 'emotional' investment in Stenger's ideas other than that his ideas have lent some support in my engagements with theists that have shut them up.


I realise this, and I have found that rather worrying. It was why I was mildly concerned about some aspects of Paula Kirby's otherwise outstanding "Fleabytes" review.

There is no such thing as "atheist-friendly physics". There is just physics. We, as hopefully rational people, have to accept what physics in general shows us, not just what one or two atheist physicists write. We should not trawl the bookshelves of WH Smith for popular physics books that we agree with and assume that what is within those books is what most physicists believe.

If we pick books that support our beliefs and quote them, we are just as guilty of quote mining as those who pick bible verses to support their views of morality.

It's been a long time coming - the final recipient was not 'pre-ordained' - but it is you, Steve, who receives my carefully allotted 'TUSH AND FIE'.

You were WORRIED, sir, that certain findings may negate or confirm certain commentators' opinions? Oh fucking grow up.

Steve, I have enormous respect for your scientific acumen, but I am increasingly finding your acquiescent, 'don't upset anyone', 'I don't hate anyone, honest, cos I don't love anyone either' ethos behind your statements a real fucking pain in the arse.

You are absolutely correct that science is above any interpretations you fear twats like me may make; but you must also know that science shows that twattish, faith-drenched assertions are equally to be driven to marginalisation by their very utterance and questionable hold on notions of faith BY SCIENCE ITSELF.

When, sir, are you going to take a fucking side in all of this, and say what you fucking mean?

It was why I was mildly concerned about some aspects of Paula Kirby's otherwise outstanding "Fleabytes" review.

As far as I know, it is I who was the only fucker to express disagreement with Paula's writing of her piece on that thread. I received some flak for stating my opinion that, because Dawkins had already said it all, it need never have been written.

BUT - you, sir, made NOT A SINGLE CRITICLE REMARK, as I recall, apart from nauseating, sycophantic expressions of sheer approbation, of Paula's critique. If I am wrong, please re-direct me to your criticism on that thread. But to offer here, on an entirely different thread, your assertion above is to weaken your claim to asserting anything apposite HERE.

Come on, Steve. Persuade me I'm wrong.

Best,
Styrer

604. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159644 by Styrer- on April 12, 2008 at 5:19 pm

I am, at heart, scientist. I don't present scientific views based on popularity. If you have some emotional investment in Stenger's ideas, that, I am afraid, is your problem.

Yes, I agree, it would certainly be my problem. However, I have never had any 'emotional' investment in Stenger's ideas other than that his ideas have lent some support in my engagements with theists that have shut them up. Call that 'emotional', Steve, if you will; but I suspect that you, and very many other members here, would seek to achieve the same.

I suppose that I am a little irritated that while Stenger's views are the very cause of - as I requested - your investigations, you have failed here, on this thread, on this website of reason and rationality, to offer anything more than a 'he has provided no evidence at all for his idea' together with a promise that your denunciation of his ideas will appear not here, but on a 'blog', presumably your own.

If you wouldn't mind, please post your comments here, too. I asked you the question here, and so I'd like an answer to it here.

Unreasonable?

Best,
Styrer

605. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159633 by Styrer- on April 12, 2008 at 4:53 pm

My whole life revolves around science in the health care arena. What you are telling me now is that it is better to say there is no answer than to consider all posibilities.. Is that what you mean to tell me.

Bigcanuck, do you not see that your notion - brought to young, questioning minds in the classroom and elsewhere - that 'God' replaces all scientific methodologically acquired data is WHOLLY unscientific? Can you not see, sir, that Stein shares this view? Can you not see, sir, that insisting that a god who either is against or for evolution (if 'for', by setting it in motion and seeing over millennia his 'omnipotent' and 'omniscient' will; if 'against', by providing us with so much duplicitous evidence that evolution happened that the only conclusion is a lying god) is in fact ANTI-scientific?

How you can proceed to treat part of your life to the full demands of evidence as a scientist - including, I hope, those parts which require you to be a teacher and not a proselytiser - and another part to irrational, insubstantiated claims made without evidence but with only hope utterly and completely defies me.

Styrer

606. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159624 by Styrer- on April 12, 2008 at 4:37 pm

Comment #159618 by Bonzai on April 12, 2008 at 4:21 pm

Yes, Bonzai, I agree that it is up to faithheads to prove their point, but with Stenger came a whole new idea - that we can actually disprove the idea of god scientifically.

I liked it, as it was bold, 'greatly daring' (as the Hitch described it in The Portable Atheist) and I am reluctant to see this type of challenging discourse go. As Dawkins has now said repeatedly: 'A universe with a god is very different scientifically from one without'. I would like to see this scientific challenge to god and gods being relentlessly pursued.

(On the rudeness thing - don't worry, mate! I'm used to receiving abuse, and am ignorant enough simply to return it!)

Best,
Styrer

607. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159619 by Styrer- on April 12, 2008 at 4:26 pm

Actually, Steve, on re-consideration, I have to say I think you are being a bit of a twat about this.

Look - Stenger posits a universe where its own being is more likely than its not being, and goes to some considerable degree to support his notion.

That you would, sir, seek to dismiss it by means of a 'blog' entry seems to me to be the height of arrogance.

Is this man not a world-class, world-renowned scientist? Would you not expect his findings to have already been found in error if he is simply wrong?

For you to suggest that he presents 'no evidence at all for his idea' is surely a smack to the head of someone whose entire academic career, and hence CONCLUSIONS, have been wholly evidenced driven.

Is your own view, leading to your denunciation of a 'one-universe' guy like Stenger, not simply that there are multiple universes, a view which requires similar levels of evidence as those of Stenger's ideas to support?

I perceive a double standard here, and I am very displeased with you, Steve, as a result.

Best,
Styrer

608. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159610 by Styrer- on April 12, 2008 at 4:02 pm

Comment #159605 by Steve Zara on April 12, 2008 at 3:50 pm

Bugger.

So all of the theists - against whom I've been tentatively arguing that we NOW have understanding of precisely how something can emerge from nothing, thanks primarily to Stenger - will be quite entitled, following your research, to shout loud and clear 'I TOLD YOU! Something CANNOT come from NOTHING!'

Come on, Steve. Leave me with something a little more persuasively NON-GOD-like!

Best,
Styrer

609. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159600 by Styrer- on April 12, 2008 at 3:33 pm

Comment #159591 by Steve Zara on April 12, 2008 at 3:17 pm

Some while ago, Steve, you said you'd check out my interpretation of Stenger, to the tune that 'nothing' is inherently unstable, so permitting quantum mechanics to do its stuff and create 'something'. The whole idea was, if I recall correctly, that 'something' is a more likely state than that of 'nothing'.

Did you get anywhere with your investigations?

Thanks.

[Edit: and sorry if this is a digression! It's still so much on my mind, I'm afraid.]

Best,
Styrer

610. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159592 by Styrer- on April 12, 2008 at 3:21 pm

Comment #159579 by bigcanuck on April 12, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Ben Stein is not trying to damage anything scientific. This is what I'm having a problem with. He quite distinctly states that since Darwinists have no answer for how life began, there is obviously large holes in their theory.

He is concerned (as I am) that discussion is not encouraged on alternate theories that could explain the very lynch pin of any theory... if life evolves without intelligent design of some type... how did it begin in the first place? Ben stein is a very intelligent man and I don't think you'll find anywhere that he discredits science... he is discrediting those who would shut down discussion. When Dawkins tells those who disagree with him to just "shut up" it is simply arrogant and not productive.

Bigcanuck, do you not see that introducing into science, and into science lessons at school, the notion that 'God did it, and there's your answer' is 'damaging' to science?

Are you, sir, at all acquainted with the very same scientific method which delivered us from the idea that illness is a punishment from god. and granted us the ability to see germs for what they were? Do you not realise that your whole life depends on the scientific method having proved, on the basis of evidence, and a million times over, that it has better and more productive answers to what were once the most mysterious workings of nature, but attributed to 'gods'?

Ben Stein, sir, is attempting to refute ALL of this. His (shamefully unspoken, in this film) notion of Intelligent Design is PRECISELY - 'God did it.'

How can you possibly assert that Stein is NOT 'trying to damage anything scientific'?

And please, do us all a favour, including yourself, and tell us when Dawkins has ever - except perhaps rhetorically - said 'shut up' to anyone who disagrees with him.

You amaze me.

Styrer

611. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159575 by Styrer- on April 12, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Enjoy whatever delusion you wish, my friend and have a lovely vacation from reality. Let us know how it was when and if you ever return to us.

Dangerous invitation, AllanW. It is precisely the superstitious supernaturalists' eternally posted postcard during that vacation stating 'I wish you were here' that is the PRECISE problem.

I know you said what you said with some levity, in the same way I have used some to respond here, but I do ask you to let the letter of your word reflect the seriousness of the dangers we really face when confronting the insane tossbags of the faithful.

Same goes for all of us. Watch and be proud of your lexis when used to denounce the faithheads. It means too much to be thrown lightly around, such that the next fucking faithhead trolling here uses it to 'endorse' their position.

The approach we adopt and the language we use in fighting the forces of irrationality are more important, I think, than some here recognise.

Best,
Styrer

612. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #159561 by Styrer- on April 12, 2008 at 2:04 pm

Comment #157748 by AtheistJon on April 9, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Does RD really need somebody to throw him softballs (pardon the americanism) like you did?

AtheistJon - to develop, just a touch, what Henning rightly says, I think it would be a HUGE mistake to think, just because WE have become familiar with some of these responses, and hence welcomely comfortable with them, that they are thereby rendered unimportant or easy to grasp for all.

They are NOT.

Dawkins et al are incalculably enormous forces against superstitious supernaturalism PRECISELY because of their unabashed repetition of the key arguments which seem so pedestrian to us all now.

Don't bite the hand that fed you in the first place, man.

Best,
Styrer

613. Fleabytes

Comment #159556 by Styrer- on April 12, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Any sign, by the way, of that cowardly shit for brains Robertson answering my now FOUR times repeated question?

No? What a piece of work this guy is.

I'll check in when I can, just in case...

Travelling at the moment, subject to iffy wireless connections, so you will let me know, any kindly member here, won't you, if the faith-ridden turd frees itself of enough repeated flushes to attempt a response?

Thanks and best,
Styrer

614. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158518 by Styrer- on April 10, 2008 at 4:45 pm

Folks who defend Richard Dawkins in the face of criticism worship him as their idol, their substitute diety.

I really do wonder - again - why blockheaded faithheads such as yourself, D.I.Ogenes, employ terms from your own superstitious supernaturalist sphere to denigrate us atheists and anti-theists.

Do you really think that you are intimating some kind of wise, ironic commentary and criticism?

Way off the mark, you twerp.

You are actually - unwittingly, of course, but nothing new there - expressing suspicion and criticism of those very terms themselves on which you state that your own screwball claims to veracity lie!

A rather tasty irony, don't you think? And one which shows up your sheer ignorance and short-sightedness even while attempting - uselessly - to be your most calculatingly clear-minded!

It would all be rather entertaining in a rather perverse fashion if you lot weren't so dripping with duplicity, propagating shite that just keeps on shitting.

You're unlikely to stop, though, I suppose, so just keep on with your mad digging, you utter lunacy-drenched twat of humanity, the better we can ALL see the huge, gaping hole of sheer vacuity you're intent on creating for yourselves.

Styrer

615. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158500 by Styrer- on April 10, 2008 at 4:08 pm

Comment #158493 by Goldy on April 10, 2008 at 3:53 pm

The article makes for genuinely distressing reading, Goldy. Sickeningly, though, there is little new here.

The very force behind these atrocities - so evident EVERYWHERE once one is minded to see it - is, of course, the very same destructive, irrational faith that the ridiculous, callous, mind-numblingly ignorant anti-rational 'members' on this thread persist in endorsing oh so desperately and ridiculously against the beautiful, awe-inspiring clear-sighted view of life that Dawkins has spent his life and career trying to show us all.

D.I.Ogenes and his fucking twisted ilk would have us all hastening with them towards a supersitious, life-threatening abyss.

WHEN will enough finally be enough?

Styrer

616. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158488 by Styrer- on April 10, 2008 at 3:34 pm

Alan

With such comedic efforts as D.I. Ogenes has strained to piece together, they do indeed seem to be of one 'mind' (permit a generous definition here). They are an absolute hoot!

Though not, I suspect, in quite the way D.I. Ogenes might think...

Best,
Styrer

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

Comment #157545 by Styrer- on April 9, 2008 at 8:44 am

Well, Al-rawandi, Annabanana has actually rested it for you.

Thanks for the explanation, Annabanana. Not pleasant for you, not at all, and I wish I had known.

I was obviously wrong here. Sorry, Al. You could have been a bit clearer with the evidence, I think, in which case I wouldn't have taken such a forceful stance, but you do have my apologies.

You're still a belligerent fucktard, of course.

Best,
Styrer

618. Fleabytes

Comment #157470 by Styrer- on April 9, 2008 at 6:16 am

Comment #157451 by Incredulous on April 9, 2008 at 5:45 am

Very thoughtful comment. The poor fella is clearly going through a tough time at the moment, and I extend to him as you do my very best wishes.

But I hope he realises that it would be a huge mistake to think that Robertson and his clan can help him and provide him with the companionship he seems to be longing for. That lot will simply have the poor fucker for lunch.

I wish him well.

Best,
Styrer

619. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157330 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 11:41 pm

Thank you for doing this, Richard.

Best,
Styrer

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

Comment #157303 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 9:45 pm

Hang on a moment, MaxD and Goldy.

You say take my defense of Richard Morgan to PM?

But you must surely know that fuckwit Al made entirely public, without recourse to PM whatsoever, his despicable statement that Richard Morgan is a 'PERVERT'.

Why should a public calumny be treated to private discussion?

No. Al rawandi made this issue public, for all members to see, to read, to worry about, to laugh about, to ignore, to contemplate just before going to bed.

I will not permit his vicious, unsubstantiated claim that Richard Morgan is a pervert to slink silently to PM.

When Al confirms that he has apologised, in the very same public arena to which he introduced his libellous statement, then I will withdraw.

Best,
Styrer

621. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #157300 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 9:33 pm

It's things like tune, melody, rhythm, harmony, beat, polyphony and so forth I have no idea where to start on.

Whereas all of these things, I now note, are not unusual to your posts here, and to the crafted way you make your point.

I think you might find a new area of reality to explore if you take your heart to some of the most emotional singers, as a start.

Give Tim Buckley a shot, and move on to his son Jeff if you acquire even the smallest of taste.

I really cannot imagine a world without music. And a world without the Buckleys is a rather tough proposition for me.

But that's just me.

Best,
Styrer

622. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #157295 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 9:22 pm

Richard

I haven't seen you this on form for a while.

Superb, sir.

When you stand up and talk, even the tossers take note.

Keep standing and talking. You're getting through.

Fuck, we're going to miss you when you're dead.

Please crack on while you can. There is no-one waiting in the wings, as far as I can see.

Best,
Styrer

623. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #157271 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 7:54 pm

I'd have preferred a little more conversation, a little less reaction, maybe...

(Note to self, stop paraphrasing Elvis lyrics)

Now, Cartomancer, the fact that you can even conceive of such musically-related humour makes me dubious about your protestation of a music-absent life...

If I add in your self-composed 'Model of a Major Modern Atheist', I begin to wonder about the veracity of e-life...and if you even knew what I meant by 'Bops'!

Hmm.

Styrer

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

Comment #157253 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 7:15 pm

7. Comment #157241 by Diacanu on April 8, 2008 at 6:56 pm

YES!!

One of the posters in the other thread sent this in to Olbermann, and it worked!! You did it, buddy!!

*Goes to look up who it was*

That's right, I remember, the member said s/he had put it in to Olbermann.

IF it was our resident RD.Netter - fucking fantastic and thank you!

Best,
Styrer

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

Comment #157234 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 6:39 pm

Many hours later I now look in, to see where al rawandi's apology to Richard Morgan lies, for attempting in most duplicitous, shitty, arrogant, twatting, stupid, ignorant and unfair manner to state, unequivocally, that Richard Morgan is a pervert.

And I find nothing.

Al rawandi, you are the most cowardly, lying, unpleasant floating turd I have encountered on this site so far.

Put this right, you utter shit. APOLOGISE TO RICHARD MORGAN FOR STATING TO ALL ON THIS SITE THAT HE IS A PERVERT.

I AM holding my fucking breath, you utter horror and shame of humanity.

Apologise as you should, and all this can go.

Styrer

626. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #157223 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 6:16 pm

Da Hitch is absolutely pissed! Out of his tree.

But wins hands down regardless.

What a player. And what a tragedy to have to own up to being brother to that utter fuckwit Peter. Did he ever say more than 'er...we need god...er or we'll kill each other...er... hoodies in UK kick shit out of granny...er...get god...er...er...er...FUTILE!'?

Christopher pissed is better than most folk sober. Including his anal-retentive, unevidenced, pro-faith twat of a bruv.

What an utter disgrace.

Glad my bruv is a fellow atheist.

Best,
Styrer

627. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #157214 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 5:45 pm

Oh Paula. You overwhelm me.

Not only were you yourself a magnificent, professional and genuinely engaged interviewer, but you also brought out some of the very best of Richard that I have had the pleasure to see in quite a while.

Please accept my most sincere thanks for doing this.

For Richard - what a privilege it always is to hear him speak about how we arrived here and how we should really consider ourselves so very lucky to be reflecting on our origins at all.

Hyperbole and special pleading be damned - this is one of the best Dawkins interviews I have ever seen, and that Paula, fellow RD.nettist, was its driving force simply adds to the pleasure.

Thank you so much.

Styrer

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

Comment #157160 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 3:42 pm

343. Comment #157111 by Quetzalcoatl on April 8, 2008 at 2:58 pm

Styrer-

no offence, but it really is time to let this "debate" end.

'But sir, but sir, he started it, sir! Tell him off, sir, I didn't do nothink, sir, honest!'

Nearly, Quetz. I will acquiesce as soon as Al retracts his accusation that Richard Morgan is a pervert.

As neatly and as quickly as you seem to wish this issue to go away - no, sir. In the absence of either apology or retraction of his charge, made in complete absence of evidence, al rawandi remains a disgrace to this site.

Think on, Quetx. This is no small issue, nor especially for Richard Morgan.

We can call this closed, as you wish it to be, once al rawandi relocates his balls, admits he went too far, and apologises to Richard Morgan.

Styrer

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

Comment #157100 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 2:52 pm

326. Comment #157074 by al-rawandi on April 8, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Styrer,



All my comments are on record.

I, unlike some others, do not delete my posts.

Whatever I post, remains for all to see. I have taken a position and defended it successfully. You have made a total fool of yourself.

I am sick of repeating myself for the benefit of intellectual halflings such as yourself. Richard Morgan made perverted comments, in my mind that makes him a pervert. You may have a much more narrow definition of pervert, sort of the converse of your untraversably wide definition of truth.

And yes you are a liar for trying to sell the "My english is bad" nonsense. Like anyone would actually buy that load of shit.

This ends our correspondence. I refuse to continue to debate a liar.... it is too much like punching a jellyfish.

It is with sorrow that we must announce the departure from reason to daftness of a member of of Richarddawkins.net.

Attempts at resuscitation to reason were made, but enunciations of 'god help me' and 'is that you, granny? indicated systemic breakdown.

At 2.36, it is reported that the patient uttered the phrase 'punching a jellyfish' before a painless and peaceful passing on to inanity.

All donations to go to RDFRS.

Styrer

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

Comment #157067 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 2:28 pm

322. Comment #157064 by al-rawandi on April 8, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Styrer,




Your determination, sir, to portray a collection of Richard's comments - entirely your own, selective list of comments - as indicating authorship by a pervert is utterly contemptible.




I did not say it was indicative of authorship. I said it was a window into character.


Please stop lying.




After your apology to Richard Morgan has been issued, then I may decide to hold you here in a little more regard than I currently do.




You have mistaken me for someone who gives a shit about what you think or what you say. And you stand alone in your assertions.


You have been exposed as a liar as well. And now you engage in paragraph after paragraph of substanceless drivel. I have shown how Richard was "innapropriate", how he was dishonest, and now how you are pedaling the same dishonesty.


The jury is in, you are out.

And so the spirit of Clearthinker lives on...

Why a liar, al?

Are you, you utter arsewipe, calling Richard Morgan a pervert or not?

If you wish to retract your verminous and duplicitous accusation, I stand by.

In anticipation,

Styrer

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

Comment #157058 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 2:13 pm

297. Comment #157029 by al-rawandi on April 8, 2008 at 1:50 pm

As I said,



Despite the attacks, ignorance of evidence, purposeful dishonesty, and ignorance of popular opinion and testimony, I am still willing to let it go. So long as an apology is issued.

And so the worm continues to contort...

You, Al-rawandi, are an absolute disgrace.

I have noted it several times, but was prepared to let it go, on the basis that your views on Islam coincided with my own.

But you have truly gone too far this time, no matter how much vicarious confidence you may feel from members not ready to step up to the mark here.

Your accusation that Richard Morgan is a pervert is backed up, from you, by comments made which, if pressed, could really only be interpreted as 'inappropriate'. Your determination, sir, to portray a collection of Richard's comments - entirely your own, selective list of comments - as indicating authorship by a pervert is utterly contemptible. That you remain in apparent ignorance of your rotten interpretation would, under normal circumstances, show YOU as the individual harbouring worrying tendencies; but because of the nature of sporadic posting, you have acquired somewhat of a support group.

Good for you.

But your consequent, ensuing confidence in requesting an apology from me is really the height of hubris.

You, sir, are, on this issue, simply undeserving of the notion of proper engagement, let alone of enough engagement to result in an apology which you most curiously, perversely and unjustifiably request from me.

After your apology to Richard Morgan has been issued, then I may decide to hold you here in a little more regard than I currently do.

Styrer

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

Comment #157035 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Look, naysayers - the word 'PERVERT' carries serious baggage.

Al-rawandi, and the rest of his supporters, have failed entirely to show me evidence which could even APPROACH formulating such a view.

As for apologies - I await Al's to Richard Morgan.

Styrer

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

Comment #157028 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 1:49 pm

I must say that I must be the slowest typer here - I post, and a dozen posts have sailed by.

I'll try to do better.

Best,
Styrer

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

Comment #157020 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 1:44 pm

280. Comment #157001 by al-rawandi on April 8, 2008 at 1:23 pm

Styrer,



You must be mentally retarded.


Richard Morgan deleted all of his posts!

Styrer, you are a pathetic toad. You simply can't stand the fact that I dish it out evenly. I have never spared anyone on this site, and have been fair in my application of invective. I don't single people out, unless they single themselves out.

You are incapable of rational thought at this point. You are on an angry rant and have selected me for some reason. Either because:

1) You have some attachment to Richard Morgan (which makes the combination of the deletion of his posts and you attacks suspicious)

or


2) You have a personal vendetta against me, which makes you a pathetic person, but that much was already obvious.


You, like your doyen Richard Morgan, have been exposed as a petty, dishonest, fucktard.

And so your award for shittest of the shit is delivered, in hand, with your post above.

Scooternyc would be more than proud of your 'You must be mentally retarded. '

You don't dish it out evenly, you hateful worm. You splatter it without control, in copious amounts, hitting anyone who happens to be passing your pathetic cerebrum, unwittlingly, by.

Your pathetic attempts at justifying your charge of PERVERT against Richard Morgan show further that, unless you are on the subject of Islam, you are a hopeless, lily-livered opportunistic cunt, self-regaling in vacuous attempts to show off...well, very little.

Apologise for your irrational, venomous attack claiming Richard Morgan is a PERVERT.

Or choose to remain the wholesale, full-blooded, hot air-blowing dickhead you would surely prefer not to be.

Styrer

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

Comment #157005 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 1:29 pm

277. Comment #156996 by Quetzalcoatl on April 8, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Styrer-

I don't like the way this is going. The comments Al posted were only a sample of what was said. Richard did make sexist comments. I saw them. I saw Al's responses calling him on it. Others responded as well, and I'm sure when they're online they'll vouch to that.

There's no need for insults on this. While the comments might have been taken as jokes individually, they were persistent.

It is through PM exchanges with RM that I have learned that he is a thoroughly decent man, who, having lived in France for the past 25 years, is rather nervous about his use of English and about how he is perceived.

That al-rawandi has come up with some of the most vile epithets for our - let's be honest - colleague in matters anti-faith has disgusted me to the core.

While al's hatred of religion, of Islam and of the faithful is a match for my own, I think he has seriously fucked up here.

Styrer

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

Comment #156998 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 1:20 pm

Your constant attacks along with the deletion of certain posts is starting to look quite suspicious.

Let this be clear immediately, fuckwit: I have never ONCE deleted a post on this site.

That you are hanging, ever more desperately, with pitiful evidence, to the notion that Richard Morgan is a PERVERT shows up your own bizarre fucking make-up of a psychological hang-up.

Your have gone so far over the line on this one, sir, that it is no longer visible.

Fucking sort yourself out, apologise to Richard and get back to the main score.

Styrer

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

Comment #156987 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 1:10 pm

269. Comment #156971 by al-rawandi on April 8, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Styrer,



Take these comments and shove them up your ass. And don't ever call me out like that again, especially when you are dead wrong!



Comment #122909 by Richard Morgan on February 6, 2008 at 9:13 am



Please do NOT edit this comment to correct this little error. Your Freudian slips are as delicious as your avatar, and your contributions a real joy to come across.




Comment #134866 by Richard Morgan on February 28, 2008 at 9:19 am

annabanana : I'll see your......whatever you're willing to show me. At my age, one can't be too picky.
EDIT : I do not recommend hymen restoration surgery : I couldn't sit down for weeks afterwards.



Juxta Monkey :

Jesus, you should see me walking down the hallways! It is one humorous sight. ;)


You can walk down my hallway any time you want. But stop calling me "Jesus" - it makes ne nervous on this site.




Here are a couple of samples.



Where is my apology you fucktard? Now stop wasting my time.

And this is...what? Your foul interpretation of what constitutes fucking BANTER on this site?

Shove it back up your own ass, you duplicitous, self-righteous fuck.

Styrer

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

Comment #156973 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 12:56 pm

257. Comment #156948 by al-rawandi on April 8, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Styrer,


I posted the verbal sexual abuse against Anna before. You can look through his past posts and see it for yourself, assuming you can spare the time.

As for the lies, there was private correspondence in which I was accused of being a right wing fanatic. I will ask permission of those involved if I can post it here.

The rest is on the "anti-Quran" thread.

I spent the better part of 2 days having people lie about what I was saying and making false accusations. RM was part of this cabal of hyenas. I will look through that thread and see if you were as well.


I could give a fuck what you think. When you spend the better part of two days being targeted with lies and abuse then you can come and fucking type in bold letters, pontificating your sensitivities to all of us.

Thanks for your, once again, enlightened commentary.

So Al gives me THIS? What a fucking reply.

You call on ME to find evidence against YOUR CALUMNY by trawling through Richard Morgan's posts? Fuck off. Present it all HERE or apologise to Richard.

As for your accusation of Richard lying - you refer all your support for it to PRIVATE POSTS? And you expect me, if not others, to endorse the foul criticism you've made of a fellow member on this basis? What a fucking joke.

Giving one slight nod to your PM evidence - 'I was accused of being a right wing fanatic' is not LYING, you tool. It is an ACCUSATION, anticipating a reponse from you TO REFUTE IT.

Look up the definition of 'lie'.

2 days having people lie about what I was saying and making false accusations. RM was part of this cabal of hyenas.

So have you subjected those other 'people' to the same hateful, vile, shit-filled lexis to which you have subjected Richard Morgan? Pah. Have you fuck.

It seems that it is precisely YOUR sensitivities which have been piqued by Richard Morgan. Certainly not mine, you verminous twat.

Styrer

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

Comment #156952 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 12:32 pm

256. Comment #156946 by Peacebeuponme on April 8, 2008 at 12:25 pm

styrer
You had better have some fucking terrific evidence for this claim.

Be very careful here, al-rawandi. Not only is your continued abuse against Richard Morgan pissing me off; you are on extremely dangerous legal ground.
Dodgy legal ground - on a web threat. Hmm let me see

Prince Phillip had Diana killed
Tom Cruise is gay
John McCain touches children.

The liar accusation is easily proved by the Diogenes2008 posts. The pervert one...well maybe that's a bit strong, but he did make some untoward comments to at least one female poster, from memory.

After his post on the FCOS he has shown himself to be duplicitous, so I call cunt on him.

After all the deletions that have been made on this thread, I'll admit that I am not up to speed. (I really fucking wish that ALL members would let their posts stand, death-threats excepted, in the interest of some fucking COGENCY.)

But Al surely has gone too far here. I demand that he either retract or substantiate his claims.

Immediately.

Styrer

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

Comment #156943 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 12:20 pm

215. Comment #156815 by al-rawandi on April 8, 2008 at 9:38 am

Quetz,




Richard Morgan is a habitual liar, and a pervert.

I have exposed him as both on this site.

Al-rawandi

You had better have some fucking terrific evidence for both these claims.

Be very careful here, al-rawandi. Not only is your continued abuse against Richard Morgan pissing me off; you are on extremely dangerous legal ground.

Back up WITH EVIDENCE your currently despicable comments immediately, or consider yourself marginalised by at least THIS member.

Styrer

641. 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

642. 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

643. 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

644. 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

645. 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

646. 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

647. 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

648. 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

649. 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

650. 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