Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by Storeo


51. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123007 by Storeo on February 6, 2008 at 10:55 am

Reading the chapter on Science, wow. Its certainly an insight into how his mind works.

52. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122997 by Storeo on February 6, 2008 at 10:41 am

He probably has a convoluted chain of logic which in which he sets up some kind of strawman and thus makes a witty play on words. Obviously it will only make sense in his head.

53. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122990 by Storeo on February 6, 2008 at 10:29 am

from Mr Day's blog,

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/02/red-queen-response-2.html

you get an honourable mentioned Diacanu, ;p

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

Comment #120248 by Storeo on February 1, 2008 at 11:03 am

Lovely to listen to.

Well played PZ.

55. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #120080 by Storeo on February 1, 2008 at 8:41 am

nattyadams:

http://nattyadams.blogspot.com/2008/01/hitchensboteach-debate.html
"In fact, it was rather like watching a lion tear apart a very shrill and incoherent jellyfish." Haha, lovely stuff.

56. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #120078 by Storeo on February 1, 2008 at 8:38 am

Theres a 5 minute one here if anyones interested; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDw5_fFIkf0

57. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #120076 by Storeo on February 1, 2008 at 8:36 am

Would be nice to see a video of the debate

58. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118463 by Storeo on January 30, 2008 at 5:15 pm

The best way to kill a troll is to starve it. G'night everyone,

Chris,
x

p.s. Not real Trolls obviously, that would be remarkebly inefficient

59. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118459 by Storeo on January 30, 2008 at 5:12 pm

argumentum ad hitlerum


I didnt know it had its own epithet, thanks Goldy.

60. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118450 by Storeo on January 30, 2008 at 5:08 pm

"You are accusing me of judging a book without having read it - when many of you here have already done the same - except that I am in a position to understand some of the big arguments that the book is comprised of, as I said earlier."


But we havnt made any definate assertions about the book now have we? We havnt told you how it 100% demolishes a vast array of anti-theistic arguments (like you have).

"But you should still read the best arguments leveled at your hero"


Ignoring the fact that this is a strawman, you havn't read the book so you have no basis to comment on their potency.

"Enough people are saying it, and certainly not just his fan club."


Argument ad populum?

61. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118444 by Storeo on January 30, 2008 at 5:02 pm

Ben Jennings, lol, well put.

62. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118442 by Storeo on January 30, 2008 at 5:01 pm

Yes Blacknad, but youve made claims and have failed to substantiate them, unless you provide some evidence for your prior assertions how can it be a stretch to say you have nothing left to add?

63. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118435 by Storeo on January 30, 2008 at 4:55 pm

Is it a stretch to say you have nothing of any substance to add here Blacknad?

64. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118427 by Storeo on January 30, 2008 at 4:49 pm

I think people will look upon what you say with skepticism because you have deceived people into thinking that you have actualy read Mr Day's material and were capable (or competant) enough to back up your claims by quoting but a section of the arguments you think are so damaging.

Look at this from the perspective of the people on this board...

edit: As Steve says, provide some real evidence and people will be willing to change their minds.

65. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118417 by Storeo on January 30, 2008 at 4:41 pm

"I'll pop back when people have read the book"

does that include yourself?

66. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118412 by Storeo on January 30, 2008 at 4:37 pm

You're recommending a book you havnt read and saying repeatedly how it puts forward a complete knockdown on everything Dawkins, Harris etc have said, you sir, are an intellectually dishonest prick, now piss off.

67. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118382 by Storeo on January 30, 2008 at 4:17 pm

Thankyou Blacknad you've added nothing.

68. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118340 by Storeo on January 30, 2008 at 3:49 pm

I am beginng to think (perhaps somewhat belatedly) that we have a bonafide troll on our hands.

69. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118337 by Storeo on January 30, 2008 at 3:46 pm

If you cannot post any examples about why the book you say delivers such a knock-down to atheism why do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

70. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118331 by Storeo on January 30, 2008 at 3:41 pm

posting a review by somebody else (which cites no arguments) wont suffice im afraid.

71. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118327 by Storeo on January 30, 2008 at 3:41 pm

If its so destroying just post a few examples, I don't really see what the issue is for you Blacknad.

72. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118321 by Storeo on January 30, 2008 at 3:37 pm

You can understand the impracticality of having to read every 300+ page theist tirade against atheism. So, just post your best arguments to save everyone the hassle reading the filler.

73. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118314 by Storeo on January 30, 2008 at 3:35 pm

Like Diacanu says, just put forward your best arguments that support your cause. In a few cogent paragraphs outline what makes you think that Mr Day has 'put [us] in our place'.

74. MySpace: No place for Atheists?

Comment #118114 by Storeo on January 30, 2008 at 11:08 am

Youtube has a lot of anti-atheist sentiments. Most of the youtube 'atheist-community' have had their videos removed from the 'most viewed' and 'most subscribed' lists in the recent months. Pat Condell's channel has been taken off such lists amongst others.

75. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117591 by Storeo on January 29, 2008 at 7:33 am

I didn't know John had written a book.

76. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116450 by Storeo on January 26, 2008 at 2:02 pm

Richard: "Go to a Museum"

John: ".....Ok"

pwnigde!

77. Minnesota Atheists Interview Richard Dawkins

Comment #113835 by Storeo on January 20, 2008 at 5:51 pm

Too many religion people (and people that think saying "agnostic" makes them neutral (*rolls eyes*)) think that atheism is an ideology religion, social or political movement, or movement of any kind. This is my opinion is why the polls always have so few people claiming to be atheists.


I understand your point. I constantly have to be correcting people who say 'Atheists are as bad as fundamental Christians,'....'Atheism is just another religious ideology' et cetera

Countering these ill-informed claims, (something which proves to be laborious & time-consuming), with rationality and reasoned arguments is the best remedy. Unfortunately it does not have the immediate effect of introducing a new positively connotated word, however its just the situation the minority always faces when trying to overhaul the status quo.

78. Minnesota Atheists Interview Richard Dawkins

Comment #113807 by Storeo on January 20, 2008 at 4:28 pm

Although there are certain difficulties with what people associate with the world 'atheist' I think its a price one has to pay. Looking back over history it is evident that when false, but vastly popular myths were predominent (racism, homosexuality being immoral, women being inferior etc), the people spearheading the campaigns to raise consciousness regarding those issues had to do it under a banner, ie the suffragettes, the gay pride movement etc. It was the case then that such banners were polluted with negative connotations by people who espoused ideas to the contrary. Unfortunately it is the case, and always has been, that when a group of people want to change the norm they have to do so under a banner, the effectiveness of doing so outweighs the negative connotations that invariably become attached to it.

79. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112814 by Storeo on January 18, 2008 at 6:07 am

"Darwinism, perhaps mixed with Imperialism, gave us Social Darwinism, a form of racism so vicious that it countenanced the Holocaust against the Jews and mass murder of many other groups in the name of speeding along the evolutionary process."

"Now, a few scientists are questioning Darwinism on many fronts. I wonder how long Darwinism's life span will be. Marxism, another theory which, in true Victorian style, sought to explain everything, is dead everywhere but on university campuses and in the minds of psychotic dictators."


Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhh! *Lunacy meter explodes*

80. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112812 by Storeo on January 18, 2008 at 6:04 am

From the website,

"Anyone willing to think for themselves and who can swim against the tide of popular opinion."

I don't think these people get it. It doesnt matter if 200million people were to believe that Oxygen is circumnavigated by only 3 electrons, this opinion has no bearing on the actual objective truth of it. The thing i don't understand is that if these creationists were to empirically prove their theory, beyond reasonable doubt, they would win the nobel prize. There seems to be this mentality in the field of creationism that science is hostile to new theories, true, but it helps if the theories are backed up by nothing more than a stone-age book.

81. Interview with Neil Shubin, author of 'Your Inner Fish'

Comment #112794 by Storeo on January 18, 2008 at 5:19 am

I think debating Dinesh is a problem purely because the amount of strawmen, irrationalality, and unintelligable ideas he espouses would take an awful long time to disect and fully refute. I think a written debate, preferably with Sam, would be the best way to conduct any future mode of dialogue.

With that said, I just watched Michael Shermer's debate with him from last week and he did a pretty good job. The Q & A session gives you a real insight into how Dinesh's mind realy works. For example on a question asked as to why 'doesn't god heal amputees?' Dinesh absolutely floundered and offered now clear answer, yet was remarkebly insistant that he had. Its interesting because i believe that he really thought he had when its evident to anybody watching that he didn't (especially somone in the audience who replied with some frustration 'What are you talking about?' lol)

Here's the link if anyones interested,

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=27490
(post 6)

82. Interview with Neil Shubin, author of 'Your Inner Fish'

Comment #112646 by Storeo on January 17, 2008 at 4:39 pm

Watching.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/17/colbert-nails-dinesh-dsouza/


That interview was great, thanks for posting, Colbert nailed him.

My love for Stephen has just gone up a few notches.

83. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112511 by Storeo on January 17, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Oh dear,

'Stein has written publicly to denounce the theory of evolution ("Darwinism," as he terms it), declaring it to be "a painful, bloody chapter in the history of ideologies," "the most compelling argument yet for Imperialism," and the inspiration for the Holocaust.'

Its interesting that a former-lawyer has the confidence to speak out about uprooting one of cornerstones of modern biology despite not having any qualifications in this field of study. How does America keep producing these kinds of people?

84. Dinesh D'Souza: Winner of the 2007 Bad Faith Award

Comment #112322 by Storeo on January 16, 2008 at 8:22 pm

This is just after the creation of the universe (4 quadrillion years ago)

In the "Assists" lecture of October 3, 1968, Hubbard described a surreal cosmological event said to take place shortly after Incident I (the creation of the universe): "There's the incident called "The Obscene Dog" with it's just a little bit later than Incident One. And sometimes actually by running it, why you can get the PC into Incident One. The Obscene Dog was a sort of a brass dog in a sitting position and anybody who got around to the front of the dog got caught in some electronic current and passed through the dog to the dogs rear end and spat out. Thetans didn't like this."

85. Dinesh D'Souza: Winner of the 2007 Bad Faith Award

Comment #112319 by Storeo on January 16, 2008 at 8:19 pm

I knew Scientology was fucked up, but Jesus,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_opera_in_Scientology_scripture#Espinol

Scientologies view of the universe-
70 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years ago (7x10^85 years): The Story of Creation Implants

all the way to,

AD 1150: The Espinol abandon our Solar System

86. Dinesh D'Souza: Winner of the 2007 Bad Faith Award

Comment #112312 by Storeo on January 16, 2008 at 8:00 pm

Now there's a novel torture method.

87. Dinesh D'Souza: Winner of the 2007 Bad Faith Award

Comment #112308 by Storeo on January 16, 2008 at 7:55 pm

How much would you pay to see D'Souza nail Anne Coulter?
Covered in mayonnaise to enhance the sticky noises?

And then how much would you pay for the ECT and lasik surgery to wash that out of your eyes and brain?


Perhaps a 3 way debate between all three. With the moderator dressed up like Xenu and every member of the audience dressed in Jesus costume.

88. Dinesh D'Souza: Winner of the 2007 Bad Faith Award

Comment #112300 by Storeo on January 16, 2008 at 7:41 pm

Just read this on his Wikipedia article,

"During his career, D'Souza picked up the nickname "Distort D'Newza" from his more vocal critics. Although not flattering, he actually finds the nickname amusing. "I think I'm the one who thought of it!" He told SPY magazine in 1989. "I can't remember the exact origins of Distort D'Newza, but I was very proud of it when it came out."[8]"

Made me smile, clearly his ability to create fields of straw-men and espouse such confused logic isn't a recent ailment.

89. Dinesh D'Souza: Winner of the 2007 Bad Faith Award

Comment #112299 by Storeo on January 16, 2008 at 7:36 pm

Try the link below. Cruise scares the bejesus out of me.

http://www.anorak.co.uk/celebrities/179436.html


How unsettling did you find his Maniacal laughing in that? I wouldn't mind it if somone had just told him a joke but it was completely random.

90. Dinesh D'Souza: Winner of the 2007 Bad Faith Award

Comment #112298 by Storeo on January 16, 2008 at 7:32 pm

I think i would pay £40 to see Tom Cruise Vs Dinesh D'Souza, come on Dinesh, give the people what they want.

91. Dinesh D'Souza: Winner of the 2007 Bad Faith Award

Comment #112152 by Storeo on January 16, 2008 at 1:18 pm

I would pay to see Cruise Vs Dinesh

92. Fish out of water: Your Inner Fish

Comment #111051 by Storeo on January 13, 2008 at 12:02 pm

really interesting article

93. The Moral Instinct

Comment #111013 by Storeo on January 13, 2008 at 10:47 am

Henri seems to be spouting more and more ad hom as this debate rumbles on.

94. Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists

Comment #110538 by Storeo on January 11, 2008 at 12:53 pm

very good article. A good refutation to the 'fine turning argument' may be to say, that given the singularity which formed our universe produced what it did, a marvellous array of elements, bosons, leptons etc, it shouldnt come as any suprise then, that intelligent life has come to evolve in the way that it has. Maybe when this universe collapses in on itself a new universe will be formed with a different set of natural laws as the result of the new singularity pruducing a different array of chemicals etc, perhaps this process continues ad infinitum, if so, it wouldnt be improbable that intelligent life would form at somewhere along this infinite chain of cyclic universes and inifinite singualrities.

95. Hook, line and rapture

Comment #109317 by Storeo on January 8, 2008 at 8:28 pm

Maybe god has a sense of humour and just wants to make Pat look stupid.

96. Hook, line and rapture

Comment #109281 by Storeo on January 8, 2008 at 5:59 pm

At the end of the video Condell says that Christians "can't wait to die". While I understand his point, when you look a little more closely, it doesn't really seem to be true. Christians will endure agonizing illness and even more painful treatments in an effort to remain alive. If they were all so eager to get into Heaven, why are we wasting precious health care resources on them so they can delay the inevitable?

Of course the answer is, when push comes to shove, most Christians are as reluctant to die as the rest of us. Promises of Heaven only work when their fate is inevitable. Anything short of that and they hold on to life as tenaciously as the staunchest non-believer.


I agree. I also use a similar line of argument which proceeds as follows. If all my Christian friends really truly believe the doctrine they claim to adhere to, it follows that they believe that after death i will be subject to eternal hellfire, punishment, torture et cetera for all eternity. Why is it the case then that none of my 'christian' friends have ever tried to convert me. I can only deduce two possible reasons. Either they are remarkebly callous and arn't really my friends, or when push comes to shove they dont actually believe the things they claim to.

A retort may be that, well, of course its not knowledge perce, and as believers they may have uncertainties. Which is fair enough. However even if i was 50% sure that some of my closest friends would have to endure unending agony after death I would do nothing less than make every conceivable effort in attempting to convert them to adhere to what i envisage as the 'true life.' Hell, even if i was only 20% sure, i wouldnt like to gamble with my friends destiny in such a wreckless manner.

97. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108784 by Storeo on January 7, 2008 at 3:13 pm

Lancashire, tsh

98. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108780 by Storeo on January 7, 2008 at 3:06 pm

RE: AnnaBanana

I live in Sheffield too, we even have a rather wonderful humanist society you should partake in if you are forced to move. Though we (the uni atheist society) had a few problems with the Christian Union the other week. We were doing a screening of the 'Is Religion the Root of All Evil?' documentary, so to publicise it we had put up posters around the uni with a picture of Dawkins with showtimes etc. Anyway, whilst my friend was putting them up in some of the uni halls, a member of the CU came over, ripped it down and told him to "Fuck Off".

We then noticed that a lot of the posters were being torn down shortly after we had put them up. One particularly clever christian had ripped everything off apart from the picture of Dawkins and the word 'evil' which i thought was quite funny.

I have probably inadvertanly disuaded you from coming, lol

99. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #100326 by Storeo on December 18, 2007 at 1:53 pm

lovely stuff

100. ...and another FLEA...

Comment #96629 by Storeo on December 10, 2007 at 7:16 pm

I think it's fascinating that in TGD, Dawkins, to be fair, didn't cover that much new ground. All the main arguments that were cited have been done before and not refuted by any theologian for centures. Yet we have all these books as though Dawkins is presenting a new range of arguments which require such mass attention. It's just a propaganda war, unfortunately they have a bigger audience and a lot more money.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 | Next