Comments by Styrer-

Comment #133816 by Styrer- on February 26, 2008 at 10:04 pm

Oops - I forgot the key word in that first sentence!

I found the unfavourable comparisons....

"...I'm sorry but I don't think cosmos can be beaten."
"...but I simply can't conceive of Cosmos being outdone, though I hope for that day that it is. "
etc.
Thanks for pointing that out to me, Styrer!

Er, ok.

The fact that even a mere snippet of Richard in action can bring Cosmos to mind for some is surely something to welcome, in any case.

Not quite sure what your point was, nor still of what your PM would have contained.

Best,
Styrer

752. The Giant Tortoise's Tale

Comment #133809 by Styrer- on February 26, 2008 at 9:30 pm

I found the comparisons with Cosmos to be in rather poor taste, here, on Richard Dawkins' site.
I was going to start PMing people, then I realised one of the posters was somebody who needed the evolution of life explained to him more than 36 times.
Enough said.

While the poster may indeed require multiple explanations of how evolution works, I do not understand why any comparison of Richard's performances, anywhere, with the groundbreaking, extraordinarily successful 'Cosmos' should be considered 'rather poor taste'.

Is such a comparison not, in fact, an enormous compliment to Richard?

And I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what your PMs in this regard would have said.

Please explain.

Best,
Styrer

753. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133804 by Styrer- on February 26, 2008 at 8:41 pm

AND read Robertson and creationist literature without getting dizzy.

And you'd nearly persuaded me, as a hater of heights.

Lying bastard.

Best,
Styrer

754. Sharia fiasco

Comment #133801 by Styrer- on February 26, 2008 at 8:33 pm

Oisha

Thank you for your full reply.

While I agree that 'you and I perhaps share a lot of common ground', your post indicates to me that such common ground is not on the most important issue of 'non-propitiation'.

You are entirely wrong that there is no right or wrong answer to the questions we've been discussing. It is entirely wrong to withhold our condemnation of Islam as a religion in its entirety for simple fear of 'offending' or of being 'politically unsavvy'.

You insist on making common cause with my ideas. But your equal insistence that political considerations must inform the way in which my ideas can/should be presented renders your common-cause-making redundant and, may I say, insincere.

Until you can state that Islam is intrinsically a doctrine, for moderates and fundamentalists alike, of conversion, subjugation or death; until you can state that all faith is in potentia lethal; until you are prepared to forgo your political, appeasing, propitiatory approach; then I fear any common ground you wish us to share will prove extremely elusive.

Best,
Styrer

755. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133776 by Styrer- on February 26, 2008 at 6:54 pm

Yes Styrer you are right. It seems right that resources that are scarce, i.e not available to the majority, should be disallowed.
I believe that would be an acceptable compromise.

No, you don't get off that easily. Certainly not by simply agreeing with me.

I delimit at dope - what is your delimiting factor? I have been specific here, stating that all but drugs is fair and equitable. What on earth are you saying? The 'acceptable compromise' you mention is precisely the status quo! So do you have a point or not? Do you repudiate your claim that dope should not be considered 'against the rules'? Do you simply want to reduce the scope of your argument by claiming 'it seems right that resources that are scarce, i.e not available to the majority, should be disallowed' or do you have the backbone to see through your original endorsement of the inclusion of dope in competitive sport?

And you have still not answered my question: 'Where else, sir, would you make a cutting-off point?'

Stop wriggling and/or sucking up and answer the question.

Best,
Styrer

756. Fleabytes

Comment #133770 by Styrer- on February 26, 2008 at 6:16 pm

...*sigh* okay, Styrer, I'm done.

No need to sigh, Diacanu. Your brilliantly incisive profanities are simply better directed to areas where they don't inadvertently and unjustly aggrandize gobshites undeserving of them.

Best,
Styrer

757. The Giant Tortoise's Tale

Comment #133768 by Styrer- on February 26, 2008 at 6:08 pm

I recall that Richard, in a recent interview, explained that his love of biology did not begin with love of animals themselves, and their habits, but with the explanatory power he thought they held, intellectually and evolutionarily.

How wonderful it is to see him here, a la Attenborough, becoming so physically 'up close and personal' with some of those creatures he has not hitherto been such close friends with!

Always a joy to hear Richard pour forth on the evils of religion; always a greater one to hear him share his wonder of the natural world with us all. From such, his refutations of religion acquire even greater and more persuasive force against those seeking to set rationality on its head.

Heartwarming and educational stuff, Richard. Thank you, and more, please.

Best,
Styrer

758. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133761 by Styrer- on February 26, 2008 at 5:27 pm

In reply to comment #133720 by ThoughtsonCommonToad:

Actually just a question for everyone. Can anyone give a coherent reason why drug doping is against the rules?

I think it's a futile rearguard-action attempt to preserve the genetic inequality on which the entire elite sports industry rests.

Once science enables every human to be as athletic as he or she wants to be, the average person will probably lose interest in worshipping our current genetic anomaly sports heroes.

Then all the people making money off pro sports will have to find honest work.

I don't buy the rationale that anyone cares about the health of the athletes. Granted, the current performance-enhancers are dangerous. But so are some of the popular sports. The richest sport in the U.S. is American football. Look at the human wreckage churned out by the NFL. An NFL lineman has a life expectancy of about 50 years. Many players are crippled after they hang up their cleats.

It would be nice if science could find safe, cheap ways to increase human performance. The industrial world is about to experience a decline in petroleum. This will make life physically harder for many people. It would be helpful, for example, if everyone could ride a bicycle like Lance Armstrong. Then it would be much simpler for society to adapt to the coming shortage of fuel for transportation.

Way to go, Teratornis!

You made accessible sense!

Keep 'em shortish and sweetish, and you'll be read!

Don't you dare forget this, ok?

By the way - bought a fucking book yet? :)

Best,
Styrer

759. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #133758 by Styrer- on February 26, 2008 at 5:16 pm

This is a common theme among believers these days. Rather than defend their positions, they suggest that truth is "relative" or depends on context, to the point that one can actually believe anything one chooses. All claims are equally valid, evidence or no. If propositions supported by evidence can be doubted and disbelieved, then propostions which have no evidence or which contradict the evidence certainly don't fare any better.

A wise comment. Only too very true.

McGrath is a case in illustration of your point. His notion that it is not so much the historical fact of the Resurrection as its interpretative value that is important speaks directly to your notion that 'All claims are equally valid', when granted metaphorical or symbolic weight.

Fucking scary stuff, and as pseudo-rational an idea as you can possibly find anywhere.

Dismiss, and proclaim your dismissal as loudly and as relentlessly as you can.

Best,
Styrer

760. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133750 by Styrer- on February 26, 2008 at 5:02 pm

Well the point of the falsity of inequality was exactly the one I was making with my examples. Either you force all training to be equal, under laboratory controlled conditions to ensure perfect equality, allowing for differences in effort, or you cannot scream inequality when talking about drugs.

Yes it's true drugs cost money, but so do high-tech training facilities and other performance enhancing techniques.

I'd advocate a universal budget to stop inequality based on wallet size.

It's something that has always bugged me. It could come under the heading of Double-Standards I suppose.

Worthwhile points, ThoughtsonCommonToad.

But until that budget universality day comes, can you recommend anything as practical as my suggestion that we simply maintain a cutting-off point which explicitly disallows drugs?

If not, I fear I do not understand what practical use you could possibly be in this issue.

By the way - you did not answer my question: 'Where else, sir, would you make a cutting-off point?'

Best,
Styrer

761. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #133745 by Styrer- on February 26, 2008 at 4:41 pm

I think we can get too hung up about this natural/supernatural business. Our concept of the supernatural may be more like the Wittgensteinian concept of a game rather than being best defined analytically as "what is beyond nature" where "nature" includes the entire reality that we can we investigate. On the latter definition, the supernatural does not exist, but this becomes a trivial truth with no empirical content: it leaves open that there are ghosts, angels, etc., etc., as part of "nature".

The kinds of things that we think of as supernatural may have no single defining characteristic, but rather have various family resemblances to each other.

The "supernatural" things include gods, ghosts, devils, angels, the planetary influences described in astrology, etc, etc. I'd say that we've reached a point where we can be confident that none of those things, or things closely analogous to any of them, or resembling them in impressive ways, exist in our universe. But the evidence could have been otherwise ... and could still be if a whole lot of new, unexpected evidence comes in.

Admittedly, if the evidence of spooky things came in we'd have a larger view of our total reality, but I suspect that we would indeed continue to distinguish between nature and supernature.

God, of course, is not just supernatural; He's actually something that supposedly transcends the universe, unlike spooky things within the universe such as ghosts. But it's important to be confident that the latter don't exist. If we had actual experience with disembodied spiritual intelligences, it would greatly alter our attitude to the idea that there is a very powerful one existing outside the observable universe. This would become a much more plausible hypothesis.

So almost complete is my agreement with the tenor of your post that it may seem almost churlish of me to say: your post and its conclusion absolutely contradict your questionable assertion that 'I think we can get too hung up about this natural/supernatural business'.

But it is in such fairly bog-standard and rather careless posts as yours that we can occasionally see the fatal trap-door through which we do not wish theists see us stupidly fall.

Do not your post and its conclusion show, catagorically, that we can never become too concerned with what constitutes the 'natural' and the 'supernatural'?

To this end, I really do not follow your statement 'God, of course, is not just supernatural; He's actually something that supposedly transcends the universe, unlike spooky things within the universe such as ghosts.'

How is it that you are able to make a differentiating qualitative statement about two non-entities, without conceding that you have, at least for one, bought into the notion that those non-entities (ghosts, here) can be given a place within which to hypothetically exist?

Have you not, sir, also all too easily bought into the theistic idea, and of course without any evidence whatsoever, that god must reside outside the 'ghost' sphere you posit as equally implausible?

I fear you're being inconsistent and perhaps a touch foolish.

Best,
Styrer

762. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133729 by Styrer- on February 26, 2008 at 3:55 pm

Big league sports are all about the green.

No doubt. But he only wanted a 'coherent' reason, not the right one.

Yours will do as well as mine.

Best,
Styrer

763. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133724 by Styrer- on February 26, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Actually just a question for everyone. Can anyone give a coherent reason why drug doping is against the rules?

If I'm an athlete and I stick to a calorie controlled diet, and another athlete eats high fat, 'unhealthy' foods the former gains a 'performance enhancement' which is the alleged offence.

If I'm a British athlete with access to cutting edge technology to monitor my running style, oxygen levels etc I gain a massive advantage over an athlete training in the foothills of Nepal who has himself and his running shoes.

To aspire to the idea of equality, in answer.

Your calorie controlled diet, your high fat 'unhealthy' foods are deemed the cutting off point, assumed as they may be to be accessible to all, rich and poor alike.

Drug doping is different - the 'best' only available to those with money on the hip.

Where else, sir, would you make a cutting-off point?

Or are you indifferent to inequality?

Best,
Styrer

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

Comment #133721 by Styrer- on February 26, 2008 at 3:38 pm

I used it once in an argument here. Stopped that line dead, I can tell you. As I recall, my words were that Hirohito was not only religious, he was a god.

Why 'stopped that line dead'?

My wife is Japanese and not only concurs with the idea that Hirohito was seen as bestriding heaven and earth but has gone further than I have in denouncing him.

In terms of condemnation, I have now caught her up, of course...

Resurrect that line, sir.

Best,
Styrer

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

Comment #133713 by Styrer- on February 26, 2008 at 3:19 pm

Fuller is simply adding his voice to the most contemptible imperative: 'Blame the fucking victim'.

His liberal, lily-livered shite is a disgrace.

Reading Harris and Hitchens was enough for me to wake up to the idea of dangerous propitiation. Reading Andrew Anthony's 'The Fall Out' is simply a wonderful re-inforcement. I commend it to you.

Fuck Fuller, the unthinking man's spokesman.

Best,
Styrer

766. Fleabytes

Comment #133701 by Styrer- on February 26, 2008 at 2:49 pm

My dear fellow atheists

What on earth are you doing?

No-one will endorse your witty bantering more than I will. It's fun and clever, and I learn stuff.

But your continuous reference for posting on this thread, your nigh on adhesive insistence on clinging to it, is your almost obsessive quantification of Robertson.

Please - stop.

Re-direct your (mostly) good sense to other threads which require you. Do not waste it for one more second on a self-serving, irrelevant, faux-humility coated solipsistic charlatan such as David Robertson.

You are doing yourselves an immense disservice by granting him an anticipatory audience entirely unworthy of anything he has ever yet said.

Best,
Styrer

767. How he was sentenced to die

Comment #132724 by Styrer- on February 25, 2008 at 6:57 am

Al-rawandi

Almost farcical, having to witness in the example you mention the assistance of one superstitious, immoral institution in overcoming the evil actions of another.

But when people's lives are literally on the line, it's simply morally correct expediency to allow such 'diplomacy' to do its work.

It's at times like this that I'm reminded that we really haven't a moment to lose in proclaiming loudly and relentlessly that faith simply has to be eradicated if we're ever to see, as the Hitch put it better than I can, ' humankind reach something like its true height'.

Best,
Styrer

768. How he was sentenced to die

Comment #132702 by Styrer- on February 25, 2008 at 6:28 am

I spoke to a friend in the Afghan government. He seems convinced that this guy will not be executed. That they are going to make an example of him and quietly shuffle him out the back door. Probably for rellocation in the west.

Impressive source, Al-rawandi. All possible pressure should of course be maintained, but this information at least hints at some hope.

Best,
Styrer

769. Fleabytes

Comment #131248 by Styrer- on February 22, 2008 at 5:37 am

Still, I don't think Styrer's a fuckwit.

Good to know, fuckwit.

Ok, that's it, I'm out of puerile quips now - let's pool strength for the probably not so wee battle ahead... :)

Best,
Styrer

770. Fleabytes

Comment #131240 by Styrer- on February 22, 2008 at 5:23 am

You really think you're it and a bit.

Well, I did. It seems a long time ago, now. But you've set me straight, BAEOZ. I thank you.

A few minutes with you will no doubt set many others straight, too. They can at least hope.

Kudos.

Styrer

771. Fleabytes

Comment #131229 by Styrer- on February 22, 2008 at 4:57 am

It's not about you Styrer. Peace.

Er, so why mention my name here?

Get a grip, sunshine.

As well as a dictionary which includes the word 'irony'. It may throw llght on my previous comments for you.

Won't hold my breath, though.

Last time I try a joke out on you.

Peace off, humourless git.

Best,
Styrer

772. Fleabytes

Comment #131209 by Styrer- on February 22, 2008 at 4:04 am

Great, let's put on an in-house bickering session for David's attention.

Never a true more true pronoun* assigned. :)

Yes I know what a pronoun is, it stand in for a noun. It seems that Styrer and some others would name me a fuckwit, thus it's a fuckwit for Baeoz. Let's not get into Russell's theory of descriptions, because my description doesn't live up to the pronoun fuckwit. :)

Superb uptake of my invitation to put on an in-house shindig! Didn't understand a single inflammatory note!:)

Could I possibly ask you to change just one tiny aspect of your comment? The words? (Ok, best back to Baldrick, knew I couldn't pull it off...!)

Best,
Styrer

773. Fleabytes

Comment #131196 by Styrer- on February 22, 2008 at 3:44 am

I believe I did. He was the one who proudly termed himself WeeFlee Styrer.

Great, let's put on an in-house bickering session for David's attention.

Fuckwit.

Best,
Styrer

774. Fleabytes

Comment #131185 by Styrer- on February 22, 2008 at 3:32 am

The inimitable WeeFlea says:

Come on, folks - let's call him David and see where we get.

Fair?

Best,
Styrer

775. Fleabytes

Comment #131181 by Styrer- on February 22, 2008 at 3:25 am

But given the assurance you have stated I will not go on to respond to Paula.

Surely you mean now, not not.

Hope this isn't an indication of illogical negativity to come...!

Best,
Styrer

776. Fleabytes

Comment #131176 by Styrer- on February 22, 2008 at 3:19 am

Also, there are other purposes to a review like this, and one thing Paula handled well was to point out issues to do with the style of writers, especially Robertson's "all about me" approach.

Oh, I have little doubt of this.

But it is surely not an overt purpose, and as such, is hardly relevant to my point.

Best,
Styrer

777. Fleabytes

Comment #131170 by Styrer- on February 22, 2008 at 3:10 am

ad feminam

Hope this was a joke, Richard. Ad hominem is entirely neutral, in terms of gender. If not a joke, tut, tut, Professor!

Good to know David is back on, anyway - if he was ever off - as our teeth would otherwise feel deprived of a bite or two.

Edit - I note a bite into your Latin has already been permitted to BAEOZ. Point remains, though.

Best,
Styrer

778. Fleabytes

Comment #131135 by Styrer- on February 22, 2008 at 2:12 am

Taken to its logical conclusion, your argument would mean that none of us should ever criticise the work of a "flea".

Well, of a Dawkinsian flea, you should add, as this is the only type to which Paula's piece responds.

Logical conclusion? Yes, indeed, as I indicated in my comment:

But I remain unconvinced that such an arduous undertaking was ever necessary, when Dawkins' book speaks so magnificently and so profoundly eloquently to all of the issues you felt in need of clarifying on his behalf.

You have, inadvertently perhaps, simply re-iterated my point.

Best,
Styrer

779. Fleabytes

Comment #131121 by Styrer- on February 22, 2008 at 1:50 am

Oh dear, you're sounding like my ex-wife. (LOL)
But I understand your point.
I was having an emotional, un-reasoned reaction to your daring to criticize everybody's-darling's hard work.

No doubt my profane language added to your reaction.

I will delete my original post tomorrow.

You'd better fucking not.

Best,
Styrer

780. Fleabytes

Comment #131115 by Styrer- on February 22, 2008 at 1:32 am

The same Styrer writes :
The texts you chose to attack in rather pedestrian manner (their own texts being possibly wholly pedestrian in presentation does not enforce you to respond likewise!

AND
...your godforsaken god is a load of shite....
unalterable, irrational crap.
...fuck off.
Well, at least you're consistent!
But frankly, Paula, in her "pedestrian manner" is the better communicator here.

You would do Paula an enormous disservice and grant her very little respect if you do not offer her every conceivable dissenting point you can think of.
So your criticism was motivated by respect and the desire to "do her a service"?
If you say so.

I am not absolutely sure what little game you have decided you wish to play here.

Is it mixing the import of one post with that of another? Is it taking the tone of one post and mixing it or contrasting it with another? Is it - I'm grasping here - a matter of taking the style of one post and comparing it to an unidentified list of 'what's ok, what's not'?

The rules seem a bit complicated, as I've tried to discern them. Perhaps you would like to clarify them?

Perhaps you could include - off the top of my head - some requirement that argumentative gobshites be compelled to spell out clearly any point of disagreement they may have?

Just a thought.

Best,
Styrer

781. Fleabytes

Comment #131091 by Styrer- on February 22, 2008 at 12:32 am

So for my part I've had it as far as this site is concerned.

Thank christ for that. Goodbye.

Afore ye go - you've been granted more insight on this site into why your godforsaken god is a load of shite than you'll ever be granted elsewhere.

Don't come back until you've discovered there is more between your evolutionarily-developed ears than earwax and dogmatic, unalterable, irrational crap. And how you may use it.

Now, be as good as your word (for once) and fuck off.

Styrer

782. Fleabytes

Comment #131089 by Styrer- on February 22, 2008 at 12:11 am

But, my dear, respected Styrer, my feeling is that Paula was motivated by the wish to do us all a favour, (and have a lot of fun in doing so, I'm sure) "us" - here on RD.Net
Her pals.
More power to yer elbow, Paula!
Styrer - try not to over-dramatize, ok, chum?

Not ok, chum.

You would do Paula an enormous disservice and grant her very little respect if you do not offer her every conceivable dissenting point you can think of.

Do think on.

Best,
Styrer

783. Fleabytes

Comment #131087 by Styrer- on February 22, 2008 at 12:05 am

I realise that every time I try to defend myself it seems as though it irritates and annoys some people more and I apologise for doing so again. It's difficult enough to have to deal with the gross exaggeration (ie. Fedler stating that my book is filled with quotes from this website - there are a handful in the whole book), the bile and the continual ad hominem, but what amazes and saddens me is how so much hatred can turn even the clearest situation round, so that words mean whatever you want them to mean. It is a fact that I have been banned (at least four times), it is a fact that those bans remain in place and that a considerable number of my posts and many other people's were removed months after the event. It is also a fact that I did not post my Dawkins Delusion article (and I did not use that title). I did not even know about this site but Josh apparently posted it, resulting in the OTT reaction that followed.

Of course I know that my views are offensive to many people on this site - and I know that I express them in a robust way - but then I would argue that many people here do far worse (I have never for example made remarks about people's mothers, sexual innuendo etc) and it is allowed to stay. I would also suggest that Richard Dawkins is equally if not more robust in his own writing. But I am not convinced that my style, language or the fact that my views cause arguments should be a reason for banning me.

And yes I am banned. I would love to respond to Paula's review of my book, but until I know that I am unbanned and that my posts will not be removed, I see no point in wasting hours writing up a response. The fact that I am allowed to post as 'clearthinker' just now is irrelevant. Given my previous experience I have no faith that I will be allowed tomorrow. Let me post under my own name and I will be happy to respond.

By the way I don't often visit this site nowadays - there are some occasionally good articles but the lack of debate and the constant self congratulation and abuse do depress me.

The only reason I caught on to this one was the following letter

- If you haven't heard, an official response to your book has been put up at http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2285,Fleabytes,Paula-Kirby,page1#comments

Why don't you come back on to the Richard Dawkins website and post a response? I know it isn't written by Dawkins himself however it represents what everyone thinks. You criticise for Dawkins for not addressing his critics however you don't address yours. You ran away from Dawkin's website and most people think you should come back and respond to this outstanding demolition of your book.

James

P.s - We've discovered that you make up the quotes for your book as well(http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=35893 <http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=35893> <http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=35893> )

I find it interesting that James talks about 'what everyone thinks'. If this were true it would confirm my fear that this website is really for a group herd mentality? Is there no original thought? I am sure that there are at least some on this website who are not part of the 'everyone thinks' mentality.

I was accused of running away (when I had been banned) and of lying by some atheist supersleuth who because he found that some of the posts were no longer on the website, immediately concluded that they were never there. It apparently never crossed his mind that they might have been removed. Thankfully I have a record of all the posts, and many other people saw them as well. But it is really sad that some people are reduced to such depths.

Personally I have a lot of time for people like 'J' - but they do seem to be a minority here. At least he is prepared to listen and engage and present a rational and well thought out case for atheism. But not many are like him. Let me share with you another e-mail I got from an atheist this week - it's sadly too typical of the kind of drivel and emotion that seems to inhabit far too many atheists (and again I stress - by no means all).

I post it too you as received.

David Robertson smells of poo
I flushed his book down the loo
Dawkins is much cleverer than him
Oh Robertson is so, so dim
For it is the season
To laugh at Robertson's lack of reason
The day Robertson and Dawkins debate
Will be Robrtson's very fate
The Dawkins Letters is crap
and thats the end of my rap

this site is actually outstandingly open, liberal, and transparent in allowing posters the freedom to directly post a wide variety of opinions without filtering by moderators. Your own website "www.freechurch.org" only presents comments that have been inspected individually by moderators - effectively "banning" every post they don't approve of. t

Donald, you know that this is not fair. Firstly our own website puts on plenty posts we do not approve of. Most of the recent ones have been by atheists. The only reason we have a moderated board is to prevent the kind of language and nonsense that our good friend Billy delights in. And you also know that this site does not allow a wide variety of opinions without filtering etc. The proof of that is seen simply in the fact that my opinions are banned and in the missing 300 posts from the original thread. Whether you have filtering before or filtering after does not make much difference.

I have no wish to waste any more of your time. Nor to try to engage in a debate which you clearly do not want. There is no need to ban me - I will do my best to remain silent. Unless you are willing to let me respond to Paula. All I need is an assurance that my response will not be removed, before I write a full reply. Meanwhile I apologise for any offence caused and hope that one day you will all find the One who is the way, the truth and the life. (and that is not meant as a wind up!)

David

That was quite a post for a banned member, would you not agree?

Would you not also agree that you could have used a good deal, if not all, of it to offer your riposte to Paula's piece?

But you took no such chance to do so.

Is the reason for your failure to seize such an excellent opportunity to infiltrate this pernicious site with your return thrusts not perhaps your continuous insistence on playing victim to us all?

Quite how you manage to marry supremely insincere humility with grotesque and overt solipsism here requires a thread in itself to work out.

Surprise me. Go on. Tell me something to convince me your god is alive, thinking of me.

My heart is open and is waiting for your contribution.

As long as you've not been banned meantime, of course.

Best,
Styrer

784. Fleabytes

Comment #131078 by Styrer- on February 21, 2008 at 10:21 pm

Then whose is?

Mine. Only mine. And not yours. Not anyone's. :)

Do stop ignoring my idea that Richard's like or dislike for Paula's piece is, precisely, the opinion I cite as being of no consequence whatsoever in saying 'yay' or 'nay' to my post.

Bloody amateur.

Best,
Styrer

785. Fleabytes

Comment #131075 by Styrer- on February 21, 2008 at 10:01 pm

Oh, that's just dumb.

This is Richard's site, and he has a posting account, and often uses it, if he objected to Paula's stuff he can speak up.

You taking offense in his stead is as presumptuous as you're accusing Paula of being.

Diacanu

Offence? Rubbish, man.

No such talk ever passed my e-lips, if you'd care to re-read. Richard may love Paula's piece; he may hate it; but his opinion is absolutely of no importance whatsoever in either endorsing or gainsaying the import of my post.

Wake up and make sense before I fall asleep.

Best,
Styrer

786. Fleabytes

Comment #131057 by Styrer- on February 21, 2008 at 8:31 pm

Paula

What a whopper to get through. Just finished.

I hope you won't mind if I place my head above the parapet by making a few naysaying comments. They may at least serve to remind you that this site is capable of escaping wholesale sheep-nodding 'yays' from my fellow atheists, as we've unfortunately seen throughout this thread in response to your piece.

The texts you chose to attack in rather pedestrian manner (their own texts being possibly wholly pedestrian in presentation does not enforce you to respond likewise!) are all responses to Dawkins' most recent work, TGD, and it is from him that most readers of the books you critique will expect a response.

To illustrate: I might read a book by McGrath and seek a decent rebuttal to his naysayers, but I would not be happy for an unknown McGrath apologist to take on the task of supporting his points in his stead. I would not countenance anything less than a rebuttal from the author himself.

It is this notion - that you are placing your own rebuttals to Dawkins' detractors over his own possible responses to them - that leads to the idea that you are indicating that Dawkins' book was not good enough to stand alone in rebutting each and every one of Cornwell, McGrath, Robertson and Wilson's books' so-called 'arguments'.

It is this latter point which concerns me most. While your desire to write a robust critique of Dawkins' fleas is not in question, your reasons for doing so most certainly are.

It is largely well-written - a few parts would need excision/condensing for publication purposes - and you are to be applauded for having such a good go at the four fleas you selected. But I remain unconvinced that such an arduous undertaking was ever necessary, when Dawkins' book speaks so magnificently and so profoundly eloquently to all of the issues you felt in need of clarifying on his behalf.

Best,
Styrer

787. DLD08 - Life: a gene-centric view

Comment #130646 by Styrer- on February 21, 2008 at 4:39 am

Brockman, with his 'laymen' perspective, although quite intellectual, grounded the discussion. Brockman was an asset to the scientists' chat.

I disagree with this. I really couldn't quite follow at times what Brockman's 'contributions' were really adding here - more often than not, they simply slowed down or side-tracked the fascinating to-and-fro between Richard and Craig. I wish he had simply let them get on with it!

The whole of this presentation - except of course for the exchanges between Richard and Craig - had a slightly surreal quality to it, I found, probably a combination of Brockman's slightly off-key offerings and of various journalists addressing Richard but asking about Craig's views and vice versa!

A bit of a disappointment, sorry to say, as I would simply have liked to hear more from the speakers, and especially from Richard.

Best,
Styrer

788. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #128900 by Styrer- on February 18, 2008 at 8:10 am

It is nothing of the sort!

You really are too kind - I am aware only of what I've read in all too few books written with nincompoops like me in mind.

Still - I do want to know and I thank you for your tolerance of me in trying to explain.

Best,
Styrer

789. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #128887 by Styrer- on February 18, 2008 at 7:07 am

Well, the fact that the appearance is followed soon by the vanishing kind of implies that nothing is pretty stable, as it is the state things return to. Perhaps sooner or later to get a big enough fluctuation that you end up with the very small seed that is needed to start a universe. That seed only has to be small because the total energy of a universe like ours is pretty much zero (the energy involved in gravity is negative, and counterbalances the energy in the mass).

So in terms of the 'nothing' being unstable stuff, Stenger is wrong? The science could not support his idea that 'nothing' could give rise to 'something'?

Your 'big enough fluctuation' giving rise to the 'seed needed to start a universe' could not have been a fluctuation between nothing/something?

Forgive my infantile and pedestrian questioning - this is not my field and I'm in way over my head. :(

Best,
Styrer

790. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #128877 by Styrer- on February 18, 2008 at 6:41 am

Cheers

Arguably the best bit.

'Feculent'? That's me all learned up today.

Keep it coming.

Wonderful stuff.

Best,
Styrer

791. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #128873 by Styrer- on February 18, 2008 at 6:29 am

Well, yes, but that sort of seems to me to be begging the question. We take all this from nothing because nothing is unstable. But it does not say why nothing is unstable.

I think what Stenger was saying was that our idea of 'nothing' may not be all that it should be. I admit it's almost baffling to me. But if quantum fluctuation is really the sudden, unpredicted appearance of something followed swiftly by its vanishing, as quantum theorists witness, I do not see why 'nothing' cannot be unstable without explanation.

In any case, it makes more sense to me than a great big overlord whose creation must surely be the penultimate (!) 'reductio ad absurdum'.

What do you think?

Best,
Styrer

792. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #128866 by Styrer- on February 18, 2008 at 6:03 am

Actually, on the snowflake thing, didn't Stenger make an interesting point?

That, given the absence of thermal influences from bodies such as the sun and earth, H20, a simple combination, necessarily moves towards complexity (snowflake 'design')? Does this not indicate movement from simple to complex in devastating rebuttal of wooter's et al idee fixe?

Stenger also posited that 'nothing' is inherently more unstable than 'something', thereby allowing quantum mechanics in all of its incomprehensible glory to take 'nothing' to something.

Have I got this right?

I remember being excited by the idea, anyway. :)

Best,
Styrer

793. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #128863 by Styrer- on February 18, 2008 at 5:48 am

How about:

Flag as [Offensive] [Troll] [Spam] [Wooter]

?

Nearly did meself an indignity reading this. Fantastic.

Oh, but would not such a list be endless...? :)

Best,
Styrer

794. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #128858 by Styrer- on February 18, 2008 at 5:41 am

The "Other comments by..." helps a bit in this regard, but it is still a pain to track it all though. It would be good if you could flag your comment as a response to another comment, as in some others websites.

I was a member of catstevens.com for six years until its demise and John Gibbons (the site's frankly wonderful webmeister) had a useful little addition - a 'quote' button (here we must use 'blockquote' etc) you press to bring up the reply box. Loved it.

Sadly catstevens.com was bought out by... Yusuf Islam, and his fandom declined in measure with his new, shite, no-members, no-forums permitted site.

Still love Cat's music above all others', though. What a loss - another reason to hate religion and its effects.

Anyway - back on-topic - Josh could handle anything we throw at him, if Richard is prepared to pay!

Best,
Styrer

795. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #128848 by Styrer- on February 18, 2008 at 5:05 am

I have arranged to set up some web pages with "quick rebuttal" links, I thought it could also be a sort of "FAQ" for some of the questions that often get asked.

I realise there are some good pages out there, but there is such expertise on this site that I am sure something could be put together that is rich in information and also based on dealing with the specific questions we are frequently asked.

I did have another idea, which was to keep track somehow of who has asked what and when. Some of the worst offenders in terms of irrationality "thread hop" - they will give up on one topic, then start again on another as if no-one had answered. I think it would be quite effective to be able to say "As has been pointed out to you 5 times before in the following messages...".

As long as such FAQs are included on this site, I'm in favour.

Links to outside websites for such issues as have been raised here should not be permitted, of course. This website is also a business, let us not forget, and encouragement to seek advice elsewhere would equate to a shop-owner advertising in-store his competitor's shop next door!

I'd be extremely reluctant to go down the 'anti-thread hop' idea you propose. Those 'sinning' can quickly be recognised and thence ignored, quite without creating an e-surveillance camera watching all our moves. Let's do it for ourselves.

Bring 'em on!

Best,
Styrer

796. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #128842 by Styrer- on February 18, 2008 at 4:44 am

Steve

Smugness and self-satisfaction be damned. You're thinking far too much about possible irrational responses from this website's visitors.

Let anyone coming upon this site make his or her own way through it. Whether they decide to stay and learn or leave in ignorance of what's on offer is of absolutely no concern.

See off with alacrity those you discern as unwilling learners, and those armed with anti-reason agendas. They are wooterly clear. What I like about this site (as distinct from some others which I come across) is its relative lack of formal 'moderation' from an on-high administrative 'e-Big Brother'.

Within limits, we are our own moderators.

At some point last year I suggested setting up a resource which would contain quick rebuttals. For example, if someone says "the appearance of order in the universe must indicate a designer", we could provide a rebuttal that was as brief as "see this link", "see note 100 on this page". Instead, this seemed to morph into "general discussions on how to respond to the religious", which, although useful I am sure, was not what I felt necessary.

I am not quite sure either why such a marvellous proposal was not acted on. There may be constraints we're not aware of (Josh and Wayne could clarify) but the principle remains - quick dispatch of old, well-worn, untenable positions serves the ethos of a site whose aim is the very opposite of support for well-worn, untenable positions, fallen into obsolescence.

However it pans out - come back to those who value you and tell the Wooters to fuck, swiftly, off!

Best,
Styrer

797. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #128834 by Styrer- on February 18, 2008 at 3:41 am

It adds nothing to the argument, except for encouraging people to back away slowly from the speaker.

May I ask you, Steve, why you repeatedly fail to follow your own great advice here, and simply 'back away'?

You are consistently fuelling the Wooter fire by granting him your time in replying to him.

I am a member who values your educational responses to those here who genuinely want to find out more about this world, and I hence resent the amount of time you are spending rehearsing, repeatedly, legitimate arguments on an irrational, illiterate imbecile fanatic such as Wooter.

Best,
Styrer

798. Defying Gravity in Science Class

Comment #128787 by Styrer- on February 17, 2008 at 11:47 pm

22. Comment #128779 by Steve Zara on February 17, 2008 at 11:23 pm

There is no other advantage.Wisdom reminds me of the fact that one must remain humble ...it is the most difficult skill to learn for any knowledge seeker.

I don't consider believing you know far more about physics and the nature of gravity than people who have been studying this for years as being humble. I am only an amateur in this, but even I can see that you are just putting vague ideas together with little understanding.

Perhaps you could explain how God is supposed to fit into all this?

Steve

What the hell are you doing?

Please stop giving the likes of wooter and dkv reason to perpetually come back at you with vacuous inanities.

If, Steve, you would distill all your possible retorts to the illiterate, innumerate, inconsequential numbskulls as you provide them, these may form, independently, nuggets of information worth reading.

But do not expect me to go through the pain of sifting your gold from their shite.

Think on, good Doctor.

Best,
Styrer

799. Sharia fiasco

Comment #128718 by Styrer- on February 17, 2008 at 6:46 pm

Much interesting comment has taken place since I last visited - some of the stories have been a valuable education, for which I'm grateful. I was excited at several points, believe it or not, that I might be encouraged to change my mind on some of my earlier comments. The informed comments of Oisha, Al-Rawandi et al gave me pause.

But I haven't. I could almost accuse you of being 'unpersuasive' if I did not think you would throw the word 'unheeding' (or 'stupid', if you wished to be crueller!) right back at me.

Was I really attempting a re-definition of the term Islam and of Muslim? Or does not my use of the terms simply follow axiomatically from an adherence to the 'holy scripture' which is mandated by Islam itself? Perhaps the nomenclature idea of Sauveture carries weight, but Oisha's idea that my ideas are in some way letting the moderates off the hook by permitting them to 'shirk.. responsibility all too easily' can surely be seen as the precise opposite of my words 'Moderate, fundamentalist, mere 'nodder-towards'; I remain fearful of them all. They are all, in potentia, life-threatening conditions.'

Some here seem to think I was simply reserving the word Muslim for those of Islam's adherents who take the Koran and the Hadith as infallible indicators of the word of their supernatural deity, in the most diligent and closely-followed readings of these texts. The basis for this seems to be the comment I made ('those adherents whom you have decided to separate from the tenets of Islam are not, in fact, Islamists or Muslims as we usually understand') relating to the excellent Steve's apparent appeasement technique of divorcing Islam's tenets from its more moderate adherents. This was, you may recall, a point on which I took the good Dr Zara to task.

No. I define even the 'nodder-towards' as a Muslim, and urge as strong and robust a condemnation of this, more 'moderate' believer's selective acceptance of the Koran and of the Hadith as I would ask us all to reserve for the so-called 'fundamentalist' reading of these texts.

Mine may be a 'zero-tolerance' approach (is this not really what my liberal naysayers here cannot accept?) but it is one which I think is intellectually honest, and which refuses to fall through the dreadful and dangerous trapdoor of propitiation, which some here seem to be creeping ever more towards.

Best,
Styrer

800. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #126460 by Styrer- on February 13, 2008 at 9:35 am

I hope that it will one day become as socially unacceptable to say you believe in gods as it is now to say that you keep a slave.

Let us pray. :)

Not sure you entirely got my point. But the above comment drags you somewhat back from self-inflicted marginality.

:)

Best,
Styrer