51. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71445 by captain underpants on September 18, 2007 at 7:41 pm

revcort wrote:

On my office desk at this moment, I have these books...

Just out of curiosity, do you ever read normal books - you know, novels, biographies and the like, or does everything you read have to be religious? And why do you need so many different renditions of the same fairytale?

52. Argentine Church Faces 'Dirty War' Past

Comment #71017 by captain underpants on September 17, 2007 at 2:12 pm

It will be interesting to see whether devolved, bizarro and the others post comments here.

53. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70595 by captain underpants on September 16, 2007 at 8:15 am

Yorker wrote:
atheism is now a movement, the strength of this movement will be drawn from the masses or it will fail.

In another thread I stated my belief that the counterattack needs to be as broad-based as possible, and I think it needs to be emphasised that counterattack is what we are about here. It's not an exaggeration to say that everything that humanity has achieved since the Enlightenment is under threat. There have been precedents - think of the Library of Alexandria, think of the so-called "Golden Age of Islam" - and the more people who publicly state their opposition to religious superstition and cruelty, the better. Liam Gallagher is an unpleasant little shit, but I'm glad that he publicly declared himself to be an atheist. I'd never heard of Kathy Griffin and I have no idea what her merits as an entertainer might be, but I applaud what she did.

As for the RRS: It's not my style, but I'm not 19 anymore, I don't live in America, and I didn't grow up being cowed, bullied and indoctrinated by religionists.

54. Enough religion. Stop shoving it down my throat

Comment #70506 by captain underpants on September 15, 2007 at 7:18 pm

To my knowledge this is the first time that someone in the mainstream media has been critical of religion's privileged protection against criticism. A sign of progress?

55. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70503 by captain underpants on September 15, 2007 at 6:53 pm

In an ideal world, adults wouldn't believe in fairytales, wouldn't be inspired by fairytales to do vile deeds and say vile things, and books like TGD wouldn't be necessary.

56. We need a more intelligent religion debate

Comment #68800 by captain underpants on September 8, 2007 at 4:53 pm

Aitchkay -

OK, we're both argumentative sods, so I'll address your comment.

The term "creationism" is generally understood to refer to the belief that every species of living thing came into being through an individual act of creation by some kind of deity. From this initial premise a number of moral precepts are then derived, e.g. eating ham is wrong, it's better to die of AIDS than to use condoms, communities that tolerate homosexuality will incur divine punishment in the form of natural disasters etc etc. "Creationist" is generally understood to mean somebody who adheres to and organises his life around these precepts.

With the exception of occasional lapses, such as the Right Rev. Happy-Clappy Bishop of Carlisle, the mainstream churches are on the whole somewhat less nutty and are not creationists in the commonly understood sense of the word. And here's my point: if the explanatory role of God is reduced to one of being some kind "prime mover" and the moral role of God is reduced to one of being some kind of vaguely benign, non-interventionist "presence" in the universe, the notion of God is thus rendered meaningless. Theology, sophisticated or otherwise, has nothing useful to say on any issue that matters.

Deekay

57. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68783 by captain underpants on September 8, 2007 at 2:44 pm

pewkatchoo wrote:
They are at it in the bloody Daily Telegraph now. That idiot Christopher Howse is blathering away there even more inanely than Bunting.

Oh my god (so to speak), the crap just doesn't stop. I'm afraid I can't be arsed to spend hours wading through the comments, but I gather that with the recent spate of comment-is-free articles the comments have been predominantly unfavourable towards the respective twaddler.


Northern Bright wrote:
it would appear that this new work has signally failed to hold the attention even of those reviewers keen to endorse its message

Brilliant!

58. We need a more intelligent religion debate

Comment #68775 by captain underpants on September 8, 2007 at 2:13 pm

Aitchay wrote:
*All* Christians are creationists.

That's not entirely accurate. Remember that Kenneth Miller, who so effectively demolished intelligent design, is a practising Catholic. The mainstream Christian churches have - albeit reluctantly - accepted evolution and the big bang. On a side note, I've often said that religion can be made compatible with science, by redefining God to such an extent that the word becomes meaningless. Indeed, much of what McGrunt and other "sophisticated" theologians write is entirely devoid of meaning.

Deekay

59. 'Incredibly lucky' find yields important fish fossil

Comment #68767 by captain underpants on September 8, 2007 at 1:36 pm

It's striking, is it not, that the god squad goons never comment on articles relating to new scientific findings.

60. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68757 by captain underpants on September 8, 2007 at 1:06 pm

fides_et_ratio wrote:
... he might challenge your strongly held beliefs

For the umpteen millionth time: Atheism is not a belief. It is nothing more than the refusal to take something as given that is not supported by evidence. Which part of that don't you understand?

61. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #68672 by captain underpants on September 8, 2007 at 4:29 am

irate_atheist -

Could you, for the benefit of the vocabularily challenged, explain what "fiduciarily" means?

62. Polling Data on Science and Religion

Comment #68535 by captain underpants on September 7, 2007 at 1:10 pm

devolved wrote:
OK so my last comment on this

And hopefully also your last comment on anything else here. You have not given any indication that you have even the remotest idea of what you're talking about or indeed, that you are even interested in understanding anything. Please please please fuck off and take your disgusting ideology with you.

63. Bible Belter

Comment #68516 by captain underpants on September 7, 2007 at 11:39 am

Prettygoodformonkeys wrote:
Surely there's room for us all?

I agree. I think the counterattack needs to be as broad-based as possible.

64. Bible Belter

Comment #68513 by captain underpants on September 7, 2007 at 11:30 am

Northern Bright wrote:
Hitchens refused to shut up, refused to let the other side be heard ...

Maybe he goes a bit too far from time to time, but one of the things I like about Hitch is that he won't let himself be cowed or shouted down by the likes of O'Reilly and other red-faced blustering lunatics.

65. Polling Data on Science and Religion

Comment #68028 by captain underpants on September 5, 2007 at 5:24 pm

Devolved -

Please either

(a) go away and stay away

or

(b) provide evidence for the thesis that a man was fathered approximately 2000 years ago by a supernatural being without the aid of sexual intercourse, and that this man possessed magical powers. And it wouldn't be bad if you could also provide evidence that said man came back to life after he died and then ascended to the sky to join his father, that is to say, that he was his own father.

Shouldn't be too difficult for you.

66. Like any half-decent atheist, I'm fond of a bit of religion

Comment #68004 by captain underpants on September 5, 2007 at 2:46 pm

aitchkay -
Thanks, Harry. I had not hitherto been familiar with that acronym.

67. Like any half-decent atheist, I'm fond of a bit of religion

Comment #67986 by captain underpants on September 5, 2007 at 2:04 pm

Steve -
Sounds plausible, but there are also other possibilities, e.g.

Who Will FSM Defrock?

68. Like any half-decent atheist, I'm fond of a bit of religion

Comment #67974 by captain underpants on September 5, 2007 at 1:25 pm

aitchkay -
I'm a bit intrigued as to what WWFSMD might stand for (the FSM part is obvious). Could you elucidate?

Regards,
deekay

69. Polling Data on Science and Religion

Comment #67511 by captain underpants on September 3, 2007 at 4:10 pm

devolved wrote:

can you please give me one piece of evidence to support ....

Since when have you religionists been interested in evidence? You expect us to believe a dubious story about an apple and a talking snake, you expect us to believe that a man was fathered by a supernatural being without the aid of sexual intercourse. Worse still, you consider the ability to believe these things in the absence of evidence to be a virtue.

70. The New Atheists

Comment #67483 by captain underpants on September 3, 2007 at 3:06 pm

On the whole I found the article rather weak. For such a long article, it didn't really say very much. The idea of a "coalition" with "moderates" is not new but with a very few exceptions, the "moderates" do not show the slightest interest in combating fundamentalism.

71. India to charge writer Nasreen with 'hurting Muslim feelings'

Comment #67463 by captain underpants on September 3, 2007 at 2:02 pm

Several lawmakers and members of a conservative Muslim political party threw flowers and other items at her and called for her death ... she writes about the poor treatment of Hindus in mostly Muslim Bangladesh, and rape and mistreatment of women in Muslim societies.


From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taslima_Nasrin:

In 1994, organised groups identified with Islamic fundamentalists demanded her execution by hanging after she was quoted in The Statesman stating that "... the Koran should be revised thoroughly."

And we atheists have to put up with being called fundamentalists for criticising such divinely inspired hatred.



Here is an online petition to defend Taslima Nasrin:

http://www.petitiononline.com/Taslima1/petition.html

72. In God we doubt

Comment #67397 by captain underpants on September 3, 2007 at 9:10 am

John Humphrys writes:

... if, like me, you cannot accept that we exist in order to worship God. It is very hard to see any purpose in a world where an accident of birth determines whether a child leads a long and healthy life or dies an early death in grinding poverty; a world of hunger and war and disease ... But however much he may appeal to our reason, Sartre's conclusion is too bleak for me.

I.e. "reason compels us to this conclusion but I don't like it, therefore it must be wrong".

73. Christopher Hitchens and Bill Donohue on Mother Teresa

Comment #66489 by captain underpants on August 30, 2007 at 5:52 am

Can we offer a prize for the first person who has actually heard the well known saying "an Englishman has to be quiet when an Irishman speaks" before.

I got zero hits in google.

74. Fallen Pastor Seeks Aid to Pursue Studies

Comment #65970 by captain underpants on August 27, 2007 at 3:58 pm

Northern Bright wrote:
Here, in return, is my favourite Not Quite Ted Haggard clip.

Who's the bloke who plays Haggard? He reminds me a bit of Rik Mayall.

75. Fallen Pastor Seeks Aid to Pursue Studies

Comment #65922 by captain underpants on August 27, 2007 at 11:36 am

Maybe the real problem is that so many people are so eager to give their money to somebody who so obviously holds them in contempt.

76. Shop targets U.S. hunters with camo Bibles

Comment #65595 by captain underpants on August 25, 2007 at 3:17 am

Please tell me that the article is satire.

77. Rational Atheism

Comment #65200 by captain underpants on August 23, 2007 at 6:45 am

Does the fact that Shermer is not scheduled to speak at the Atheist Alliance Convention have any relevance in this context?

www.atheistalliance.org/conventions/2007/index.php

78. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #65145 by captain underpants on August 23, 2007 at 2:37 am

I wrote "You presumptuous little twat. What qualifies you to assert that scientists who do not believe in a higher power lack a truly comprehensive and accurate understanding of science?" to which bizarro replied And what qualifies you to assert otherwise? It is a mere difference in belief. You believe ...

Typical religionist tactic. I did not assert anything, I simply asked you qualify an assertion that you made. You have thus far failed to do so. You'll have to do better than that, twat.

79. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #64966 by captain underpants on August 22, 2007 at 1:59 pm

More words of wisdom from Bizarro

"... numerous cases involving those who doubt certain other so-called "scientific" paradigms being forced, not under threat of death but rather of academic homicide, to keep quite about their intellectual convictions."

Concrete example, please.


"... rather than being burned at the stake, those who doubt evolution are simply ridiculed into silence or risk losing their careers at the hands of bullies such as Dawkins and friends."

Concrete example, please.


"... it is my conviction that a truly comprehensive and accurate understanding of science ultimately leads one to the conclusion that the physical world is a contingent entity, and could not exist without the force of will of a higher power."

You presumptuous little twat. What qualifies you to assert that scientists who do not believe in a higher power lack a truly comprehensive and accurate understanding of science? And you and your ilk have the gall to accuse atheists of being arrogant.

80. Poll: Which religion do you associate with?

Comment #64917 by captain underpants on August 22, 2007 at 11:21 am

I just voted, and I'm not even a Murcan. If seeing such a statistic encourages a couple of atheists to "come out", why not?

81. Rational Atheism

Comment #64871 by captain underpants on August 22, 2007 at 6:28 am

I have to confess that I've never been overly impressed by Shermer, but I think what bothers me the most is that he wrote the article as an open letter to the Gang of Four, thereby - whether intentionally or not - lending support to the tedious atheists-are-fundamentalists brigade.

82. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #64680 by captain underpants on August 21, 2007 at 9:25 am

sane1 & irate: Yes it can be fun to take the piss out of such a slaphead, and it's interesting to see what kind of gunge the human mind is capable of dreaming up. But the entertainment value has worn off, at least for me. Aren't you just a teensy bit annoyed by his overweening presumptuousness? He comes with this cack-brained mix of theology and junk shop mysticism that he's cobbled together, this absurd fatuous confidence that he is privy to a deep truth that the rest us are too blind to see, this preposterous certainty that he's going to "enlighten" us. You can point out that the stuff he twaddles is illogical and incoherent until you're blue in the face, as a number of people here have done, and he won't listen to a single thing that anybody says to him. There's a limit to how much entertainment mileage you can get from arguing with a piece of cardboard (but writing all that was fun).

83. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #64620 by captain underpants on August 21, 2007 at 2:59 am

Darwin2 has stated that he intends to continue posting here. I proposed that he be banned from doing so. It has become abundantly clear that attempting to engage him in any kind of dialogue is an exercise in futility.

84. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #64246 by captain underpants on August 19, 2007 at 12:11 am

Darwin2 wrote:
"and that is why we must learn, obey and master the laws of physics."

I was unsure whether it was worth bothering to respond, but (a) what precisely to you understand the laws of physics to be? (b) how is it possible to both obey and master something at the same time? You are guilty at the very least of sloppy thinking. In fact very little of what you write displays any logical coherence, and one has to wonder what you hope to achieve by posting on this site. Do you seriously believe that atheists/sceptics are going to be convinced that your deranged fantasies are the Ultimate Truth?

85. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63835 by captain underpants on August 16, 2007 at 11:12 am

pewkatchoo wrote:
"His lunacy is bordering on comic genius, which gives me a sneaking suspicion that he is actually just a very clever piss-take."

No, it's not a piss-take. The gentleman in question is seriously out of his trolley. After he (apparently inadvertently) revealed his real name I did a quick google search and found, among other things, this:

http://www.tmatp.com/script/book.pdf

86. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63249 by captain underpants on August 13, 2007 at 4:38 pm

darwin2 wrote: "I agree with Hawkins that organized religions are divisive, dangerous, superstitious, illogical and extremely annoying at times."

Could it be that you're confusing Richard Dawkins with somebody else? Were you homeskooled?

87. Amnesty to defy Catholic church over rape victims' abortion rights

Comment #63103 by captain underpants on August 13, 2007 at 5:51 am

There's certainly something nauseating about a maladjusted elderly virgin (copyright C. Hitchens) assuming the authority to dictate sexual morality to the rest of us.

There seem to be quite a few amnesty international members here. By sheer coincidence I'm also a member of AI and by even sheerer coincidence our local group meets this evening. One of our group is a practicing Catholic; it will be interesting to see what she makes of the Poop's latest fatwa.

88. God Answers Prayers Of Paralyzed Little Boy: 'No' Says God

Comment #61669 by captain underpants on August 6, 2007 at 8:37 am

Here's another one from the Onion:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/various_deities_still_sorting

89. God Answers Prayers Of Paralyzed Little Boy: 'No' Says God

Comment #61103 by captain underpants on August 3, 2007 at 3:37 pm

If something like this were to actually happen in real life, if, say, an amputee prayed to God to give him his leg back and God actually turned up in person and said "No!", the religionists would say "God is great, God works in mysterious ways, all praise be to God. Give God all your money".

In the case of religion, truth is indeed stranger and more absurd than fiction/satire could ever be.

90. In Games, an Insight Into the Rules of Evolution

Comment #61094 by captain underpants on August 3, 2007 at 3:09 pm

"Selfless altruism presents a major challenge for the evolutionist," Dr. Francis S. Collins, the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, wrote in his 2006 book, "The Language of God."

91. In Games, an Insight Into the Rules of Evolution

Comment #61084 by captain underpants on August 3, 2007 at 2:38 pm

It transpires that Nowak is a member of the Board of Advisers of the Templeton Foundation.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Nowak

92. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #61031 by captain underpants on August 3, 2007 at 11:34 am

I have a wee question for Reverend WeeWee:

There are other "holy" books whose claims conflict with those of the bible. How can you be certain that your particular collection of fairy stories is authoritative?

93. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60335 by captain underpants on August 1, 2007 at 4:03 pm

Thank the Lord that poetry is not yet dead.

94. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60328 by captain underpants on August 1, 2007 at 3:32 pm

Comment 14 by The Wee Flea:
"my main aim was actually to write for atheists and agnostics."

Does the Reverend Weewee seriously entertain the notion that he can convince atheists of the veracity of a 2000 year-old fairy story?

95. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60322 by captain underpants on August 1, 2007 at 3:20 pm

aitchkay:

are you by any chance the same aitchkay that I know, that is, my little brother?

96. The Out Campaign

Comment #59997 by captain underpants on July 31, 2007 at 11:55 am

Yorker wrote:
" ... I also gave her "Carl Sagan: A Life" by Keay Davidson."

Here is a review of said book by Carolyn Porco:

http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/biography/0,6121,105529,00.html

97. At a Theater Near You ...

Comment #54104 by captain underpants on July 5, 2007 at 11:33 am

35. Comment by pewkatchoo

"The problem is all the schisms within Islam. The Shiite and Sunni are just the most well known of these, but there are also the Suffi and Bahai and other sub-groups."

Actually Bahai is not a subgroup of Islam but a completely different religion. To my knowledge, it's the only monotheistic religion whose scriptures do not contain any passages that could be interpreted as condoning or calling for violence. And it has no concept of hell.

98. God Hates the World

Comment #51903 by captain underpants on June 25, 2007 at 2:20 pm

Reverend Wee Flea wrote:

"6. captain underpants seems to see a conspiracy of 'funding'. They are funded by themselves and live off the publicity that people like you give them."

I merely wondered who pays for the website, video cameras, recording equipment etc etc. I'm somewhat puzzled as to how, on the basis of a simple question, you could impute that I "see conspiracies".


Since you do not and cannot know the slightest thing about me, what precisely do you mean by "people like me"? Please explain how we" (whoever "we" might be) give the lunatics publicity.

99. God Hates the World

Comment #51873 by captain underpants on June 25, 2007 at 12:51 pm

Who the hell funds these people?

100. The courage of their convictions

Comment #51022 by captain underpants on June 21, 2007 at 7:11 am

"We are opposed to cultural relativism and the tolerance of inhuman beliefs, discrimination and abuse in the name of respecting religion or culture". That point is absolutely imperative.

Grayling mentions the existence of a German counterpart. Does anyone have some info on that?