51. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169612 by Sargeist on April 26, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Steve: No of course not. But I did get called a "runt" quite a lot, which did get me very upset, and did lead to a (not very long lived, I admit) period of self harm. So, I'm afraid that I don't see your point at all.

Is it, basically, that the *history* of the abuse makes any current re-enactments more serious? So, it's not the mere abuse itself, but what we feel it might become? I suppose I can sympathise with this. But my being called a runt would never have got any interest from the police. And I just thought, this is something I shall have to get over. Maybe this has been good for me: I eventually managed to realise that those people's opinions didn't matter. But this could have been because I didn't have society on my side.

52. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169603 by Sargeist on April 26, 2008 at 11:46 am

When I was at school, I got bullied verbally and physically quite a lot for being:
bad at sport
tall and skinny
having bad glasses
bad hair
being top of my classes
and it always pissed me off that people could insult the lanky guy, and the red haired guy, and the fat guy, but god help you if you made any comments about a person's colour. Ooh, no, cos *that* would be really naughty. If the bullying still affects me to this day, as it no doubt has done for many many others, why should it be less serious than racism? Is it because I could have become better at sport, put on some weight, got a better haircut and tried hard to do less well in exams? Should I change so as to avoid their ridicule? Or is the difference simply one of degree? No one was murdered or persecuted on a large scale just because they were tall and red haired, so we don't have to watch out for a ginger pogrom?

Actually, I am no doubt answering my own question: it must be that, deep down, we know that we humans would mostly love to do away with certain types of people. And we're afraid of that. So we have to try really hard to avoid the temptation.

Similarly, there have been lots of comical parodies of George W Bush's facial expressions, comparing him to a chimpanzee. If Obama were to become president and turn out to be an imbecile, too, would we see similar humour being employed?

53. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #169561 by Sargeist on April 26, 2008 at 9:53 am

teratornis:

Great post. I enjoyed it immensely.

I do tend to shake my head in wonderment, though, at the (apparent) lack of any media interest in things such as peak oil, food price increases, house price increases (in the UK) and the absurd levels of credit being doled out to people.

"Shall we put these on the front page? Nah, there's some woman dropped a sausage roll and was fined for it, that's got *much* more human interest..."

Cretins.

54. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169407 by Sargeist on April 26, 2008 at 2:39 am

First Cradle of Filth, now Marduk! This is indeed a great occasion for lovers of black metal everywhere.

(even though CoF are not 'true' black metal, and are certainly not 'kvlt')

Marduk have a pretty good song on one of their albums titled "Christraping Black Metal".

55. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168994 by Sargeist on April 25, 2008 at 1:57 pm

I've had to skip 12 pages because of my not being able to keep up, but I am saddened to see that someone is still here. Someone earlier suggested that we should stop responding, and I am now seeing the wisdom of this suggestion.

56. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168971 by Sargeist on April 25, 2008 at 1:39 pm

3760. Comment #167797 by The Reverend Dark:

I have noticed a trend in your posts, much in the way that a Rhinocerous would notice if you rammed an arm ups its arse and then gave the St Crispin Day speach in sign language.

57. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #168961 by Sargeist on April 25, 2008 at 1:34 pm

j.mills:

"Jesus is a c*nt" is a t-shirt for the (so-called) black metal band Cradle of Filth.

I've seen another t-shirt around with "Jesus loves you... but I think you're a c*nt" on it.

I like that one, but I think I'd rather like a nice simple "There is no god" slogan.

58. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #167563 by Sargeist on April 24, 2008 at 7:02 am

Cartomancer:

Seeing as we're vaguely off-topic for a mo: I agree with you entirely.

59. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #167561 by Sargeist on April 24, 2008 at 7:01 am

irate,

I admit it, I am scared by even the *thought* of touching your dog collar.

60. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #167541 by Sargeist on April 24, 2008 at 6:41 am

Woo! I've just noticed that I was used as an example of atheist violence!

This is superb! Have at you, Diacanu and irate - you've been angry for longer than me, and it was me he mentioned! Hurrah! More exclamation marks! Me, me, me! Oh, how my life now has meaning!

Bollocks.

61. Judge orders La. school district to stop Bible giveaways

Comment #167366 by Sargeist on April 24, 2008 at 1:02 am

I'm with Avzen on this one. I appreciate that there is limited time in the school year to teach *everything* one might want to, but religion is such a prevalent thing that it seems odd to me that people can't be taught about it.

Is it perhaps the gung ho attitudes of the religious in the USA that would make it unworkable? By this I mean that a more secular environment might find it more straightforward to discuss a variety of topics without having to sneeze the word "bullshit!" every time a religion other than Christianity, say, was mentioned.

62. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166437 by Sargeist on April 23, 2008 at 8:46 am

I have not arise.
You will not arised.
I cannot arisen.
I should not have wished to be arisicated.
Who is he who seeks the house of Marcus Licus?

63. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166405 by Sargeist on April 23, 2008 at 8:15 am

This really pisses me off. None of it makes the blindest bit of sense!

Remnant: *what* is it that I am going to get on judgement day for my nonbelief in god?

64. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166360 by Sargeist on April 23, 2008 at 7:37 am

There are so many irritatingly smug bloody ways that the goddists can get out of any problems we-who-are-not-entirely-cretinous raise about the flood:

Oh the animals were vegetarians on the ark
Oh, God made it so they didn't need as much food
Oh, God made it so that they didn't need their usual habitats

So many excuses, really, that I am left wondering why God didn't just make all those nasty horrible humans just vanish into thin air. Why all this dicking about with floods, and pillars of salt, and volcanic blah.

One of the main troubles with the god-botherers is that, I think, they actually *lack* imagination. Their God is just a human with the power turned up a bit. cf. my usual comments about the banality of miracles. What's that Jesus? Liquid into liquid again?! Woopee-fucking-do.

65. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166355 by Sargeist on April 23, 2008 at 7:34 am

gr8:

There was a letter to one or other of the broadsheets a while back (sorry, cannot recall exactly) that said, essentially, that creationism makes one viable prediction: that the geographic distribution of land animals should be rotationally symmetric about Mount Ararat.

66. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166288 by Sargeist on April 23, 2008 at 5:07 am

One of the most infuriating things about (most?) theists is the way you can almost literally *hear* the ears shut, and the brain close off at the slightest hint of anything that draws attention to inconsistency in their thinking.

One of my girlfriend's friends is exactly like this. Quite willing to believe any old bollocks about Father Pio's spirit hanging around looking after her (said to her by her - surely - psychopathic father), about how people have been saved from tsunamis by making the sign of the cross. And just constant constant bullshit about faith this and faith that, and faith coming out of my fucking ears. Raaaa! It is all I can do sometimes not to smack their overly fucking smug faces in.

*deep breath*

67. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166270 by Sargeist on April 23, 2008 at 4:27 am

Barry,

Your comment reminded me of the bit in The Mummy, where the greasy sort-of-bad guy uses all of his lucky charms one after the other to protect himself.

68. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166261 by Sargeist on April 23, 2008 at 4:18 am

The title of this article is a trick question, right?

What's that? It's not? We're supposed to take the question seriously? Oh, okay then:

Yes.

(next!)

69. Resentment Over Darwin Evolves Into a Documentary

Comment #165713 by Sargeist on April 22, 2008 at 5:07 am

Steve,

I'm so glad you said tha, because I've been waning for so long o say i myself, and I wasn' sure if I would be able o wihou rying to make some ill-advised sarcasic remark.

hanks!

70. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163925 by Sargeist on April 19, 2008 at 9:42 am

Goodness, this cut and paste insanity does become rather wearing, doesn't it?

I confess that I find it rather hard to think myself down into the mindset that thinks that "ooh, organs must have evolved one at a time, in their modern forms" is meaningful in any non-retarded sense.

Can anyone reassure me that this cretinism is not contagious?

71. Flea of the week

Comment #163545 by Sargeist on April 18, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Diacanu,

Amazing! I was just looking at this:

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn13739-babelfish-to-translate-alien-tongues-could-be-built.html

72. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163367 by Sargeist on April 18, 2008 at 8:44 am

Vaal,

One of my favourite jokes:

It's easy to distract fat people.
It's a piece of cake.

73. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163344 by Sargeist on April 18, 2008 at 8:16 am

It's not about children being morons, it's about the fact that they cannot necessarily distinguish between truth and fiction. She worked out pretty early on that there is no Santa, but I think that the realisation that it was a made-up story might have been harder to come by if every adult she met had continue to tell her it was true.

Now, in my girlfriend's situation, she *did* scoff when taught about Muhammad's bargaining down from huge numbers of daily prayers to 5 a day by arguing with god (possibly an idea nicked from Lot?), and she did question the stuff about virgins, and ask what the women got out of it, and wasn't convinced by stories of Muhammad and the old goat producing milk - but her reward for questioning things was to be branded a trouble-maker, to get detentions and to get into trouble with her family.

74. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163328 by Sargeist on April 18, 2008 at 7:48 am

The reason why it is dangerous to tell children certain things is evidenced by the time I told my niece that the reason I am so tall is that I was stretched by the doctors as soon as I was born. Her unquestioning belief in what I was saying as a member of her family caused me to immediately tell her I was joking. But that was the occasion when I realised exactly how careful one has to be.

75. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163317 by Sargeist on April 18, 2008 at 7:39 am

Further to what I was just saying, but with all the necessary caveats about data collection and so on (and the warnings in the text itself) have a look at table 1.11 in:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/36496/0029047.pdf

76. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163314 by Sargeist on April 18, 2008 at 7:31 am

Bonzai, re: indoctrination:

I had always assumed it was because of the (apparent) fact that, e.g., almost all Catholics are the children of Catholics.

Likewise Muslims. And, I suppose, why religions are organised into blobs covering large areas, rather than there being a randomish mix in all countries.

77. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163301 by Sargeist on April 18, 2008 at 6:59 am

"power that is"?

78. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163281 by Sargeist on April 18, 2008 at 6:10 am

Brian,

Is that the Palle Yourgrau one? "A world without time"? I've got to get around to reading that.

79. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163276 by Sargeist on April 18, 2008 at 6:07 am

Cheers, Steve. I should have just wiki'd. But sometimes asking people makes me feel in touch with my past :)

80. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163269 by Sargeist on April 18, 2008 at 5:49 am

Steve,

In various books I have read about Goedel, there has been mention of how Einstein accompanied him to his American citizenship hearing, and there was a concern about Goedel being considered a bit crazy because he had come up with a loophole in the US constitution. This is a story I have read a few times, but there is never (annoyingly) any mention of what this supposed loophole is/was.

Any ideas?

81. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163264 by Sargeist on April 18, 2008 at 5:42 am

\begin{offtopic}
Given that I have been having the urge to go and redact history by removing my possibly ill advised posts from above, I was wondering what people thought about maybe having some mechanism by which comments and their edits could be tracked somehow?

It would probably not be fair to prohibit people from deleting their comments, but maybe a placeholder could be left so that we don't have the fleabytes syndrome of referring to comment 7508, say, when later on that is a different set of text.

I know we already have the #nnnnnn numbers, but these are not thread-specific. Also, an indication of when edits to a comment were made might be interesting (even if we wouldn't say *what* those edits were).
\end{offtopic}

82. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163254 by Sargeist on April 18, 2008 at 5:25 am

I wouldn't want people to think that I am as gosh-darnedly nice as I may well be implying - simply because this would be inaccurate. I am no doubt projecting my own fears of my own volatility on other people, for which I apologise.

83. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163237 by Sargeist on April 18, 2008 at 5:02 am

Allan:

My #163229 was replying to your #163225. I wasn't referring earlier to your #163212.

84. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163235 by Sargeist on April 18, 2008 at 4:57 am

clodhopper:

I probably shouldn't have said anything - I was typing before thinking. I think I just got a bit narked. I can see that people do indeed dodge questions etc, and refuse to engage in a sensible debate. It's just the way it had appeared to me.

85. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163230 by Sargeist on April 18, 2008 at 4:49 am

phatbat,

It's just an overall impression I've been getting. There have been a lot of "are you going to call it?" type of comments, which I had interpreted (maybe incorrectly) as "when are we going to say the time of death?" or "when are we going to label this person as a fucktard?"

It just occurred to me that, from where I'm sitting, this is not the most useful way to behave. Some people, with whom most of the commenters here disagree, appear and say things, and then maybe disappear off again for a while, not replying immediately to things that have been said to them. Some of them come back later, but before that they have already been assumed to be too afraid to return.

From my point of view, it seems that those people who are generally agreed with will come and go at their own speed, and people don't comment on how this means they have seen how stupid their comments are. They are merely doing other things with their lives. I don't get the impression that this is applied to those with whom the majority disagree.

Just my two-pennorth. Sorry.

[edit: typo]

86. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163229 by Sargeist on April 18, 2008 at 4:44 am

Allan,
I can see that it might often become very infuriating to see the same arguments trolleyed out again and again, but I am (currently) immoveable with my feeling that throwing abuse doesn't help anyone. Whatever happened to ridiculing the beliefs but not the person? Shouldn't we be aiming for that?

87. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163222 by Sargeist on April 18, 2008 at 4:33 am

Why is there this seeming urge to assume that those people with whom most of you disagree have to stay here for ever and ever, answering all your comments ad infinitum? Are people not supposed to take a break, go to bed, go and do something less boring instead? When Paula nips off for a while, people don't start declaring a time of death for that. Is it just pure and simple mean-spiritedness?

88. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163204 by Sargeist on April 18, 2008 at 4:13 am

Ah, now, Egomaniac does make a fair point here, I think. Religious ideas are specifically excluded from the list of delusional mental states that indicate schizophrenia (for example). Most of the rest of the world believes in spirity fairy things. So we're the heretics!

89. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163189 by Sargeist on April 18, 2008 at 4:00 am

And, furthermore, there are plenty of ways, especially in this internet age, of acquiring that quaint stuff called "information". Try going to find out what biologists think about abiogenesis. It's all very interesting.

Were you aware that people used to think that there was something special about organic compounds? That they could not be synthesised from inorganic compounds? That they needed the mysterious processes of life to make them? Oh, and then some guy went and made urea in a lab. Bugger, bang goes another idea - this time vitalism.

Now, I like speculative philosophy as much as the next guy (him, over there), but sooner or later we have to go looking for facts.

[edit: mention urea (silly fool I am)]

90. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163187 by Sargeist on April 18, 2008 at 3:56 am

Egomaniac: Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life.

91. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163179 by Sargeist on April 18, 2008 at 3:52 am

Philip #163170:

I'm *always* wondering how I can get hold of Alyson Hannigan!

92. Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

Comment #163058 by Sargeist on April 17, 2008 at 11:38 pm

Goldy said:

Indeed, there is no excuse not to know everything

93. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162652 by Sargeist on April 17, 2008 at 7:06 am

I would say that "no" and "there is no evidence that god exists" are not *necessarily* linked. But I just have a problem with the emphasis of the "no".

94. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162648 by Sargeist on April 17, 2008 at 7:04 am

meso: I shall see if I can find that book. I think it has appeared in my Amazon recommendations from time to time.

You reminded me of a conversation I had with my wonderful niece on her last birthday. She happened to say that "you know sometimes people dream about things and then they happen?" and I think she was asking what I thought about it. I said, "Well, it can happen. Last night I dreamt I was coming to your birthday party, and here I am!" She saw quite easily that this was not amazing at all, and I was quite pleased to see how she saw the point I was making about why someone might apparently be able to predict things.

95. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162639 by Sargeist on April 17, 2008 at 6:56 am

Sorry, but I didn't understand Brother John's post, and I know that I, too, can be so parenthetical (even though I do try not to be) that at times (or maybe most of the time) I am hard (impossible?) to follow.

Clodhopper: this is clearly a case where you have taken only the times when Marcus Brigstock is being funny and David Robertson is being frightening. This cherry picking of yours simply will not do! ;)

96. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162616 by Sargeist on April 17, 2008 at 6:19 am

I think that the reason I would be (and have been) very cautious in my answers to various questions like (but not actually) the god existence question is that adults would know to take what I'm saying as an opinion, but my niece might well assume that I know the absolute truth about what she has asked me. Of course, she will soon be getting to an age where she starts to think *she* knows best about everything, at which point maybe I'll change tack!

I am rather uncomfortable with the fact that she does go to Sunday school. But I managed to come out of that pretty ok, so maybe she will too. :)

97. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162606 by Sargeist on April 17, 2008 at 6:04 am

I know Steve's comparison wasn't perfect, but I just took it as meaning that not everything that is not universally harmful should therefore be encouraged.

But.. I don't think it means we should discourage it either. Pah, I dunno what I think.

These days I like to imagine how I would answer my niece if she were to ask me a question:

So, easy one:
"Uncle Mark, is the earth flat?" "No."

But:
"Uncle Mark, is there a god?" "Er..., um... well, a lot of people think there is, but I don't, but I wouldn't like to tell you that there isn't, er.., um ..., bluster"

On the other hand, to an adult I am quite happy to say: "You know, it's all bollocks really, and doesn't stand up to scrutiny."

I am just rather concerned about indoctrination in either direction, I think!

98. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162600 by Sargeist on April 17, 2008 at 5:52 am

Steve: once again, you present a nice counterexample!

Quetz: Yep, that's the post I was obliquely referring to earlier.

My feeling is that people who have something of substance to say at this site, who say it with care, are not generally attacked with abuse and ridicule. Even if what they say is not broadly agreed with.

[edit: made it clear that I meant at this site!]

99. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162589 by Sargeist on April 17, 2008 at 5:19 am

[Sorry for being so slow with this, but I've been reading some of fcos, and it (the stuff on which people have been commenting in this thread) doesn't seem very credible.]

I'm bothered by your reply, Roland_F: I know exactly where you're coming from with this, and Richard et al's comments about moderates leaving the way open for the extremists does kind of ring true with me. But I can't quite reconcile that with some of the people I know and love who, although they drive me crazy with their inability to see that what they believe seems a bit silly, are nonetheless lovely people.

100. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162556 by Sargeist on April 17, 2008 at 4:11 am

Thanks, Steve. You always manage to make it concise! :)

Well, I would say that it is not a good thing in general. But there seems to me to be a difference between believing in things for which we have good evidence of their non-existence or incorrectness, and believing in things for which we have no evidence of their correctness.

If you see what I mean.

Er... let me try: I believe there are solutions to x^n plus y^n = z^n for n != 2. I am wrong, because Wiles has shown that no such solutions exist. But you might believe there are odd perfect numbers. These have not been shown to *not* exist, so you are justified in believing it, even if your reason is just "I like the idea".


[edit: problem with plus signs]
??