1251. Fleabytes

Comment #139052 by Quetzalcoatl on March 5, 2008 at 4:52 am

Man, there have been a lot of comments on this thread since last night!

I'm still angry about that Teapot.

1252. Bulldozers tear down giant religious teapot

Comment #138521 by Quetzalcoatl on March 4, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Steve-

Steve yells: Quetz! Philip1978!

But the religious authorities fully approve of the state's actions. Haji Mohammed bin Junoh, the imam of the largest mosque in the area, said: "Pin is a deviationist. It is possible that he is dealing with Satan

1253. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #138461 by Quetzalcoatl on March 4, 2008 at 11:29 am

Some of them went extinct to make our lives easier

1254. Church exhumes Padre Pio

Comment #138330 by Quetzalcoatl on March 4, 2008 at 7:49 am

"Right from the start we could see his beard,'' said Domenico D'Ambrosio, the archbishop of Manfredonia

1255. Church exhumes Padre Pio

Comment #138317 by Quetzalcoatl on March 4, 2008 at 7:33 am

Tyler-

it surprises me that this archbishop doesn't seem to realise that the corpse would have been neatened up before being interred. But then that wouldn't be a miracle.

And just precisely what would have happened if Padre Pio hadn't allowed him to say that?

1256. Church exhumes Padre Pio

Comment #138307 by Quetzalcoatl on March 4, 2008 at 7:26 am

"Have you been thinking impure thoughts?"
"Yes Father".
"Ha! I knew it !"

It's hardly rocket science.

1257. Church exhumes Padre Pio

Comment #138299 by Quetzalcoatl on March 4, 2008 at 7:14 am

Just one moment while I doff my Cynicism Hat (TM)-

He added, however, that it was not possible to see Padre Pio's stigmata, which were said to have disappeared just before he died without leaving any scars

A Catholic magazine once found that far more Italian Catholics prayed to Padre Pio than to any other icon of the faith, including the Virgin Mary or Jesus

Among the stories that surround him is one that he wrestled with the devil in his monastery cell.

1258. Fleabytes

Comment #138288 by Quetzalcoatl on March 4, 2008 at 6:35 am

al-rawandi-

thanks, that's fine now.

Philip1978-

I already pointed Artful to the post where DR used the death of a child to make a jibe at atheists- no response.

Artful also promised to provide us with evidence for objections to materialism. Hasn't done that yet either.

1259. Fleabytes

Comment #138282 by Quetzalcoatl on March 4, 2008 at 6:25 am

al-rawandi-

a staff and a white steed? Are you comparing Artful_Dodger to Gandalf from LOTR? If so, I must protest.

1260. Fleabytes

Comment #137899 by Quetzalcoatl on March 3, 2008 at 2:53 pm

Brian-

fine, revenge is no longer on its way, I've sent it home.

1261. Fleabytes

Comment #137887 by Quetzalcoatl on March 3, 2008 at 2:44 pm

Brian-

Take that Quetz! I had to cheat, but I got 3000th comment!

1262. Fleabytes

Comment #137872 by Quetzalcoatl on March 3, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Ha! I have the 3000th comment! In your collective faces!

- A hole opens in the floor, and Alastair McGrath hauls himself from the netherworld into reality -

Oh no.

Nooooooooo!

EDIT- great, someone cheated, and took the prize away from me. Bunch of sore losers.

1263. Fleabytes

Comment #137869 by Quetzalcoatl on March 3, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Paula-

"I'm afraid that first one would have to define precisely what the definition of "eat" is. In order to do that, one would first have to consider the root word from which "eat" was first created. Once one has done that, one would need to consider whether the so-called evidence provided by this thing known as a "menu" can truly be relied upon, given that it seems to be the product of scientific materialism that leaves no room for wider interpretation".

And so on...

1264. Fleabytes

Comment #137851 by Quetzalcoatl on March 3, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Prankster-

the prize is dinner with Alastair McGrath.

Watch the comments dry up.... ;)

1265. Fleabytes

Comment #137844 by Quetzalcoatl on March 3, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Brian-

Quetz. How does a deity, who's perfect, have a mind? Just interested.

1266. Fleabytes

Comment #137835 by Quetzalcoatl on March 3, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Steve-

that reads like one of those spam e-mails that always seem to come from Nigeria, offering you buckets of money if only you will pay a nominal fee.

So it's a good analogy.

EDIT- I see that Brian English has said the same thing. Great minds, and all that.

1267. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137829 by Quetzalcoatl on March 3, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Steveroot-

I don't think this bears on Iraq, Iran, Libya, etc., because they aren't "Mahometan" nations (what the heck *is* ;-))

1268. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137825 by Quetzalcoatl on March 3, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Annabanana-

since there isn't a word for addressing more than one person directly.

1269. Fleabytes

Comment #137621 by Quetzalcoatl on March 3, 2008 at 9:09 am

Frankus1122-

the Handbook says nothing about actually eating the Christians you barbecue.

MaxD-

you have to send away for the Handbook. Steve Zara has the address. :)

1270. Fleabytes

Comment #137600 by Quetzalcoatl on March 3, 2008 at 8:39 am

Steve-

now, now, you're well aware that on page 136 of The Atheist's Handbook it clearly states that you are required to barbecue at least one Christian every year. I expect you to rectify this immediately, or we'll have to take your membership badge away.

1271. Fleabytes

Comment #137582 by Quetzalcoatl on March 3, 2008 at 8:10 am

Richard Dawkins-

I was referring to Richard Morgan, who has deleted the post I was talking about, so my initial comment now makes no sense!

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

1272. Fleabytes

Comment #137575 by Quetzalcoatl on March 3, 2008 at 7:52 am

Richard Morgan-

LOL. You're entirely welcome.

1273. Fleabytes

Comment #137570 by Quetzalcoatl on March 3, 2008 at 7:41 am

Richard Morgan-

the smart thing would have been not to remind everyone about your secret shame. Now it can be used against you in the future.

1274. Fleabytes

Comment #137552 by Quetzalcoatl on March 3, 2008 at 6:27 am

Speaking of FCOS- after Robertson replied on his site last night another comment was made, which I now notice has magically disappeared, thanks to the wonders of moderation. Whether it will reappear again is anybody's guess. Fortunately, I took a copy just in case.

Robertson's response posted last night-

http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?topic=5.msg179#msg179

And the response to that-

DAR-

Thank you for responding to my comment so quickly. I must admit I was intrigued by your response, since much of what you said goes against my impression and experience of the site. So I looked a little further into the issue.

Firstly, it appears that the admins at RD.net were aware of who you really were from when you first started posting under the name "Clearthinker" around November of 2007. A poster on the Fleabytes thread has attested to that fact, admitting that she informed the admins when she realised who you were. Point being, you were allowed to continue posting without being immediately banned.

Your first comment on the Fleabytes thread was somewhat odd, if you will forgive me for saying so. After criticising the thread for not discussing the issues involved, you proceeded to say the following-

"Why is the Wee Flea not allowed to respond? If the official Dawkins website sees fit to post a whole article which deconstructs his book, then why ban him from responding to it? It only provides ammunition to the accusation that this is a closed minded site only for the true believers. And it allows the Wee flea (aka David Robertson) to tell people that the Dawkins website has banned him. And I am still unclear as to why he was banned. Invite him to return and respond. I'm sure Josh and others know how to get hold of him".

I am sure you appreciate that talking about yourself in the third person while posting under a different name could be seen as a little strange. Since you had not been banned, would not this initial post on the Fleabytes thread have provided you with ample opportunity to, as you felt you needed to, request the right to respond? Discussing yourself while acting the part of an impartial observer was a somewhat bizarre measure to take.

You mention that Dawkins himself wrote on the thread to state that you were unbanned. Here is the quote in question-

"I understand from Josh that he is happy to give David Robertson the right of reply to Paula's review. Contrary to Robertson's assertions, it was NEVER, of course, for propounding Christian views that he was banned in the first place. Plenty of others do that. It is pretty hard to earn a ban hereabouts, but the Wee Flea seems to court it so that he can boast about it. Anyway, he is not now banned from responding to Paula's review. She has given us a remarkably thorough dissection of Robertson's book and the others. Let him reply to THOSE ARGUMENTS without ad hominem / ad feminam unpleasantness, and he will be welcome to do so".

So contrary to what you have said in your comment, it does not appear that there was any deliberate refusal to let you respond to Paula's article.

Later in your comment you go on to say-

"In the course of which he called me nasty, mean-spirited, ungenerous and unchristian, as well as an unpleasant fruitcake! I guess the book got to him...."

I must also disagree with this. It would seem that his comment was in response to a comment of yours, specifically this part of it-

"PS. Just one question. Why is Paula's article not listed on the front page. It was after all written on the 19th Feb. Is this an oversight or is the webmaster slightly ashamed of it? Just curious".

Now while you may not have realised that Paula's article was in fact on the front page, but under a different column to the one you were looking at (a fact that was later pointed out to you), to insinuate that the reason for this was that people were ashamed of the article strikes me as remarkably mean-spirited, and certainly in a spirit unbecoming of a reverend. This comment strikes me as an attempt to manipulate the perception of the article rather than address its substance, which is all the more baffling since you have attempted to do that in separate responses. Considering the implied slight to Paula's hard work, it is perhaps unsurprising that the response you received was less than polite.

In addition, from the context of these comments it is clear that it is your comment that "got to him", rather than your book. I obviously cannot speak as to Richard Dawkins' opinion regarding your book, but to suggest that his response related to your book rather than the comment in question, is in fact incorrect.

I just have one additional comment to make. You have complained several times regarding intolerance and hostility demonstrated towards you by the atheists who frequent the site. I have noticed you use phrases such as "Followers" and "Atheist Fundamentalists" both on this forum and on RichardDawkins.net. You have been challenged regarding these phrases by a large number of posters, who have explained how they feel that such comments are inappropriate when applied to atheists and atheism as a whole.

My point is this. While you may think these terms are appropriate, it is clear that others do not. If it is true, as you have stated, that you are keen for reasonable and rational discussion on the review of your book, would it not be better to refrain from using terms that you KNOW are considered inappropriate and inflammatory by many atheists?

By avoiding provoking those that disagree with you, does that not increase the chances that a rational and productive discussion may be had? It seems to me that this would be a more sensible approach.

1275. Fleabytes

Comment #137011 by Quetzalcoatl on March 2, 2008 at 6:20 am

Everyone-

I notice that someone has posted a response to David Robertson's post on the FCOS forum-

http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?topic=5.msg178#msg178

It'll be interesting to see if it stays there.

1276. Fleabytes

Comment #136988 by Quetzalcoatl on March 2, 2008 at 5:08 am

Paula-

Oh. By whom, I wonder?

1277. Fleabytes

Comment #136966 by Quetzalcoatl on March 2, 2008 at 4:37 am

Just read the forum post- you've got to laugh. "Dawkins was forced to unban me"- Clearthinker if you're reading this, that's rubbish and you know it.

1278. Fleabytes

Comment #136667 by Quetzalcoatl on March 1, 2008 at 2:37 pm

MPhil-

excellent post.

1279. Fleabytes

Comment #136663 by Quetzalcoatl on March 1, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Okay, imposter, nobody is going to believe you're me. For one thing, my sentences are much more coherent. And my blog is better. Begone before I unleash my divine wrath upon you in the form of sarcasm and an expanded vocabulary. You have been warned.

1280. Fleabytes

Comment #136654 by Quetzalcoatl on March 1, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Cartomancer-

Happy sex life? I'd settle for any sort of sex life...

1281. Fleabytes

Comment #136644 by Quetzalcoatl on March 1, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Steve-

yeah, but any of us can do that. It's called suicide :)

1282. Fleabytes

Comment #136638 by Quetzalcoatl on March 1, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Hey, what's up with the clone of me? Has someone been dabbling in black genetics again? I'm looking at you, Brian English!

1283. Fleabytes

Comment #136600 by Quetzalcoatl on March 1, 2008 at 1:38 pm

It is very hard discussing with fundamentalists who tend to take every thing to its literal extreme.

1284. Fleabytes

Comment #136597 by Quetzalcoatl on March 1, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Brian-

the "death threats" thing was some kind of joke between NMcC and Scottish Geologist, I think, which he jumped on as something to complain about. No Sabbath day declared, since people work all days of the week, and I don't want anyone to feel like they are breaking my Law.

Paula-

I have to agree there, but I do feel a little guilty since a lot of my recent posts have consisted of trading animal names and sarcasm with other posters. :(

1285. Fleabytes

Comment #136587 by Quetzalcoatl on March 1, 2008 at 1:24 pm

Brian-

nope. Clearthinker's now decided he DOESN'T want to debate RD, which is strange since he spent most of his last thirty posts telling everyone how he wants to. Apart from that, no concrete evidence has come to light. Oh, and we've been chastised for off-topic posts (atheists in general, not just you and me).

1286. Fleabytes

Comment #136552 by Quetzalcoatl on March 1, 2008 at 11:50 am

Corylus-

Incidentally, with regards to charity in general I notice that there are two types of people. Those that give and say nothing about it and those that do it merely to brag about it. What category are you in?

1287. Fleabytes

Comment #136527 by Quetzalcoatl on March 1, 2008 at 11:07 am

Irate_atheist-

No. Technically, that would be a disaster

1288. Fleabytes

Comment #136513 by Quetzalcoatl on March 1, 2008 at 10:52 am

irate_atheist-

I lost a tenner out of my pocket last night. Is this a reverse miracle?

1289. Fleabytes

Comment #136496 by Quetzalcoatl on March 1, 2008 at 10:36 am

Clearthinker said-

Finally - I have no real desire to debate with Dawkins. It's not really high on my list of priorities. Someone who can speak so disrespectfully (and to be frank is not that good a debater) is not really high on my list of people to debate with.

I am always willing to debate with you. When you are ready let me know

Would you be willing to debate anytime? I know that you have the answer 'it would look better on your CV than mine', but that really will not wash. I have no interest in a CV. I am doing what I want to do and am happy to continue. You could on the other hand demonstrate to the world how nasty, mean etc I, and the kind of Christianity I represent, really are. Instead of taking cheap shots from behind your barricades using people like Fred Phelps, or 'debating with people like Bishop Holloway (by the way I assume you have seen the publicity for your 'debate' with Holloway in Edinburgh on April 1st - apparently you are going to talk about your very different views on religion and science - I wondered what those were - until I saw the date of the debate!), why don't you accept a challenge to debate me. I know I will never convert you, and I would never try to (that's God's job) but you could persuade me - then I would repent in public and convert to atheism. The offer is always there if you want it.

If I am such a fool, idiot etc as above then in debate Richard would be able to expose me and that would be the end of things. Of course there is always the risk (a small one) that he would lose.

And if that fails then they will swamp any thread with a load of meaningless posts which apparently are incredibly witty to this particular atheist sub-mindset

1290. Fleabytes

Comment #136184 by Quetzalcoatl on February 29, 2008 at 1:58 pm

Annabanana-

Hey, no one declared you the victor! I'll be back another day! But for now, I'm off of work...

1291. Fleabytes

Comment #136171 by Quetzalcoatl on February 29, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Annabanana-

No, no, no! You're supposed to be helping me, not him!!!!

*storms off in a huff*

1292. Fleabytes

Comment #136154 by Quetzalcoatl on February 29, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Annabanana-

[weary irony]Damn you, you wiley minx![/weary irony]

1293. Fleabytes

Comment #136150 by Quetzalcoatl on February 29, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Annabanana-

I'm afraid it isn't.

[Multiverse-sarcasm]Ha ha ha![/Multiverse-sarcasm]

1294. Fleabytes

Comment #136131 by Quetzalcoatl on February 29, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Annabanana-

I'll be across the pond in a couple months or so

1295. Fleabytes

Comment #136106 by Quetzalcoatl on February 29, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Annabanana-

[super-sarcasm]I am an equally formidable man, and we are roughly the same age. So unless you plan to cross the Atlantic to get me, I think I'll be just fine[/super-sarcasm]

Edit- I'll counter with my starfish.

1296. Fleabytes

Comment #136083 by Quetzalcoatl on February 29, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Annabanana-

[sarcasm]Oh, I'm so terrified, thinking of what you might do to me. However shall I carry on with my life???[/sarcasm]

1297. Fleabytes

Comment #136065 by Quetzalcoatl on February 29, 2008 at 12:56 pm

[sarcasm]What are you going to do about it Anna?[/sarcasm]

1298. Fleabytes

Comment #136053 by Quetzalcoatl on February 29, 2008 at 12:47 pm

I have returned, and I am not impressed by our various theistic contributors.

1299. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136050 by Quetzalcoatl on February 29, 2008 at 12:45 pm

If a Brit may stick his nose in-

Banning guns in the US would never work. Even if it did get passed into law, the only people who would give up their guns would be the law-abiding citizens. The criminals would keep theirs and have a good laugh.

If Britain had a similar "gun-culture" (pardon the term) as the US, I would suggest making it harder to acquire guns, and combine that with a major crack-down on gun-smuggling. Plus melt guns confiscated from criminals.

1300. Fleabytes

Comment #136040 by Quetzalcoatl on February 29, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Geoff-

I suspect you already know, but I was being sarcastic! I'll have to steal Annabanana's [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] thing, just so nobody can mistake me.

I'm going to make a new prediction:

Diacanu will return to this thread, and he will not be impressed by our various theistic contributors.