101. Fleabytes

Comment #148855 by mikejswalker on March 24, 2008 at 6:06 am

Pathfinder,
You rogue.

102. It looks like Man crucified

Comment #148829 by mikejswalker on March 24, 2008 at 2:50 am

Spinoza,
Great posts. Thanks.

103. The death-of-god debate

Comment #148629 by mikejswalker on March 23, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Keith,
you missed the question mark at the end of Richards wonder?

104. Fleabytes

Comment #148627 by mikejswalker on March 23, 2008 at 12:34 pm

Nope, still pretty quiet. taters notwithplantin'.
Green and blacks have much to answer for.

105. Fleabytes

Comment #148586 by mikejswalker on March 23, 2008 at 10:59 am

Vadjong said,

You can shoot me at dawn, Dr. Benway.

106. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #148413 by mikejswalker on March 23, 2008 at 3:09 am

if some guy comes up and slaps your wife in the street you're not gonna count his teeth before you knock them out!!

107. Fleabytes

Comment #148366 by mikejswalker on March 22, 2008 at 6:35 pm

gently does it now reverend!!

mixmaster,
for some wierd reason your lovely post kept blurring into one block of information. I mean really, it was a solid mass of reason.
Im hogging again.

108. Fleabytes

Comment #148355 by mikejswalker on March 22, 2008 at 5:47 pm

yes vadjong, but can you stay with it so it makes sense? I am a little tipsy so with each sip it makes either more sense or less sense i'm really not quite sure!!

109. Fleabytes

Comment #148339 by mikejswalker on March 22, 2008 at 4:54 pm

i gotta better one,
People who think that people think that people believe people believe everything they hear at sermons are miss guided.
That actually actually makes sense!!

110. Fleabytes

Comment #148335 by mikejswalker on March 22, 2008 at 4:49 pm

I'm arguing against arguments over the content of belief

111. Fleabytes

Comment #148317 by mikejswalker on March 22, 2008 at 4:05 pm

AlanF,
brilliant post. Thank you.

112. Fleabytes

Comment #148232 by mikejswalker on March 22, 2008 at 12:03 pm

Steve Zara said

This is not about "softly softly", it is, to me, about manners. I can disagree with someone profoundly, and make it clear that I do, without losing friendships, or causing major offence.

I simply don't believe it is either paternalistic or condescending. It think it shows respect for other people as fellow fallible humans.

113. Fleabytes

Comment #148092 by mikejswalker on March 22, 2008 at 3:15 am

Richard
thanks for the reel. I have to listen to the other compositions each time i visit the site. I do this when i should be having quality conversation with my parole officer. Your bad.

114. Fleabytes

Comment #148086 by mikejswalker on March 22, 2008 at 2:32 am

David,
I have looked and looked and i cannot find anywhere where Professor Dawkins says teaching religion is as bad as sexual abuse.
Can you give me the page number etc? This would help me greatly.

Regards.

115. No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist Film

Comment #148084 by mikejswalker on March 22, 2008 at 2:09 am

'listen boys we got r-selves a chance here. We gotta get dis publicity see? we needs it see? We gotta be de tark a de town see?
How bout when dees two shmucks Dyers and Mawkins turn up we give em de hi-hat uh? yeah we slap one o' dare scrawny ate-eeistic asses outta here.
waddya say you creeps? are ya WID me?"
'YEAH!!'
'ARE YA WID ME FOR JESUS BOYS? SAY YEAH!!'
'YEAH!!'
'well alright den, dat dares a big amen'.

Regards.

116. Fleabytes

Comment #147864 by mikejswalker on March 21, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Dr benway said,

Get Robertson to play by ordinary rules of evidence, get him to accept the parsimony rule, and then you can referee for fairness. Until then, any conversation with the man will never rise above the level of S&M

117. Fleabytes

Comment #147842 by mikejswalker on March 21, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Get Robertson to play by ordinary rules of evidence, get him to accept the parsimony rule, and then you can referee for fairness. Until then, any conversation with the man will never rise above the level of S&M

118. Fleabytes

Comment #147836 by mikejswalker on March 21, 2008 at 11:58 am

Get Robertson to play by ordinary rules of evidence, get him to accept the parsimony rule, and then you can referee for fairness. Until then, any conversation with the man will never rise above the level of S&M

119. Fleabytes

Comment #147712 by mikejswalker on March 21, 2008 at 6:34 am

Dr benway,
You go right ahead. However, it's the onlookers, the fence sitters,
that really matter. Not kind. Not applause seeking. Just Fair.

120. Fleabytes

Comment #147700 by mikejswalker on March 21, 2008 at 6:20 am

David,
The christian friends nodding was a joke. Just my cynicism. It often falls on deaf ears i'm araid so i need to curtail it. The image in my mind was funny at the time. But i can see how it doesn't translate on the page. I find this happens often in cyber discourse don't you?
I was not attacking you. I'm sorry if it came over that way.
I have many christian friends who are part of gospel churches here and there. We argue about this debate. Their word was 'slippery'?
I cannot repeat what they have said about the atheist debate so it isn't as one sided as i might have inferred.
I hope that makes things clearer.

121. Fleabytes

Comment #147683 by mikejswalker on March 21, 2008 at 5:54 am

Sometimes after the shouting, a new perspective evolves.
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it could be our duck sensors are way too high. We have taken a cyber duck, and made it more real than the perceived duck.

A stupid statement is not necessarily a vindictive one. Or a blatant lie.
An idea can travel (in the right circumstances) like an attractive person at a party, atoms on the back of electrons.

I walk into a pub, that is not my usual, and the locals start laughing at me, (let's hold back the confessions awhile) and i go to the bar and order a drink. I stand at the bar, and slowly i am accepted into the conversations. The next 'newbie' comes in. There is a pressure to 'laugh' with the regulars.
Automatic acceptance. I don't even know what the joke is. But there is pressure. It is so difficult not to act on that first , gutteral feeling.

So is it really a surprise that up close the duck ain't a duck?
We cling to our thought-duck. Safer. Accepted. No matter what the reality is. A lie is blatant. It is not a human error.
Not when the the liar is a cyber duck. Cyber ducks dont make mallardian errors. They 'lie'. We make 'errors'. Step back. For fucks sake.

I feel there are so many things to be learned from these debates.
Steve leaves, but comes back with his usual considered discussion.
Brian leaves in another language but he'll be looking from the corner of a wily eye. Paula hands on the baton.
Groups with such divergence hold onto their respective children with their lives. It is beyond belief. Literally.
When i read the death threat 'joke' I was disappointed to say the least. Not by the joke, that was just lame and immature, but by our collective apathy to it. I know a couple of us expressed regret but if the same 'joke' had been made about any of the well respected posters here, there would have been absolute outrage.
We absolutely must be careful of double standards. I include myself here without doubt. It simply puts us all into a primordial cordial, blurring definitions. We can say on and on that so and so deserved it, but that still adds more jungle to the density.
History runs deep. Especially in conflict. Trying to formulate strategies for discussion and possible understanding is exhausting as i am sure the peace negotiators in the irish question, the middle east saga, kenya, etc etc have found.

Unlocking the history chains is a tough one. It needs wisdom and intellect and courage because the peace is at the top of a long bracken covered hill.

At the risk of repeating myself, it's easier to debate someone if we make them into a fool. We can ignore those that don't fall into our own perspective of who we are and how we influence others. Outward exasperations are often fuelled by fear and a collective 'understanding' of the situation helps combat that fear. This happy breed indeed.

It does not matter that 'most of us' know the history. Because 'most of us' are a part of that history and are, therefore, a party
to it's reading, or interpretation.
The irish question would never have been resolved if the negotiators cemented themselves in such a history.

We have just had 6000 pages of argument, rebuttal, etc. Both felt the need from a position of holding the winning cards, to 'leap in'.
In religious matters, I don't agree with David. I agree with Paula.
But I feel that sometimes we are painfully close to hypocrisy in the debating of 'the debate'.

122. Fleabytes

Comment #147478 by mikejswalker on March 20, 2008 at 2:53 pm

2nd time lucky.


David,

I am an extremely open guy. I want to see and get the best from people without trying to manipulate, court favour, or control them.
I can handle anger, mundane blatherers, showboatists, mendacity, even when it's droll, and when i get corrected, I, along with everybody else on this site, stand corrected.
To stand. Corrected. Doesn't that give you the tickles?
I want you to know many of my christian friends are finding it difficult to follow your slippery, confusing, (their words) interlocution. I pointed out that interlocution didn't seem to be your goal. They agreed. Things are not adding up to them. It's the re-interpretation of your previously made points that is frustrating them.
Without pointing them in the direction of your website for 'real' debate, they implore you to be cogent without the smarm, ungoadable, less concerned about book sales, a slave to brevity, More trusting, less suspicious and generally more interested in fine debate with fine people. They all nod once as i finish this sentence ; )
I draw your attention (without a trace of conceit) to the dicourse that is developing between epeeist, mlearnedfriend, Al, and others. There might not be a conclusion as such, but to see it happen, is reason, and edification enough that it takes place.

123. Fleabytes

Comment #147474 by mikejswalker on March 20, 2008 at 2:38 pm

reverend,
can one be eruditely profane? Nonchalently cutting? Smiles and an odd laugh out loud. Thanks.

124. Writer Arthur C Clarke dies at 90

Comment #147441 by mikejswalker on March 20, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Pathfinder said,

Then publicly executed by burning at the stake

125. Fleabytes

Comment #146691 by mikejswalker on March 19, 2008 at 9:25 am

The sexinchrist things gotta be a set up right? I feel sullied. I read words i never expected to see again. Whtever happened to slowly moving toward each other, pretending to be Daleks, then kissing?
Whatever happened to puckering and blinking fast?
Thanks Quetz for the notes.
David,
I am an extremely open guy. I want to see and get the best from people without trying to manipulate, court favour, or control them.
I can handle anger, mundane blatherers, showboatists, mendacity, even when it's droll, and when i get corrected, I, along with everybody else on this site, stand corrected.
To stand. Corrected. Doesn't that give you the tickles?
I want you to know many of my christian friends are finding it difficult to follow your slippery, confusing, (their words) interlocution. I pointed out that interlocution didn't seem to be your goal. They agreed. Things are not adding up to them. It's the re-interpretation of your previously made points that is frustrating them.
Without pointing them in the direction of your website for 'real' debate, they implore you to be cogent without the smarm, ungoadable, less concerned about book sales, a slave to brevity, More trusting, less suspicious and generally more interested in fine debate with fine people. They all nod once as i finish this sentence ; )
I draw your attention (without a trace of conceit) to the dicourse that is developing between epeeist, mlearnedfriend, Al, and others. There might not be a conclusion as such, but to see it happen, is reason, and edification enough that it takes place.

Epithets, the mass murderer type. Fuckin borin'. I will slightly revise my post on waving the flag for discussion.

126. Fleabytes

Comment #146172 by mikejswalker on March 18, 2008 at 5:49 pm

shuddent that bin noobile. What kwestion mark. I don't see one?
Oh there it is? oh Shit? aaaaaaaaahh?

127. Fleabytes

Comment #146165 by mikejswalker on March 18, 2008 at 5:42 pm

Billy started it.

128. Fleabytes

Comment #146160 by mikejswalker on March 18, 2008 at 5:40 pm

Frankus,
To be honest, even if it was i wouldn't know. I was in short pants when this behemoth began.
I can't give up on the hope of a reasoned argument. But perhaps it's a naive hope when one side has so much invested in a legend they built their life on. Nevertheless i do hope he eventually engages the people here, who are far more qualified than i, in a discussion that at least doesn't warrant a roll of the eyes.

129. Writer Arthur C Clarke dies at 90

Comment #146149 by mikejswalker on March 18, 2008 at 5:18 pm

Dazzlious! Thank you Arthur.

130. Fleabytes

Comment #146144 by mikejswalker on March 18, 2008 at 5:08 pm

Considering the 'to discuss or not discuss' question, part of the problem seems to be the method, that, i must say, feels engineered, of wading in with mammoth posts that lightly brush the less important points made by the members here, whilst ignoring the most salient. The 2/3 hours spent on these mega posts would be better spent in honest debate. Mylearnedfriend seems to be going down this route and it's much more interesting.

131. Fleabytes

Comment #146115 by mikejswalker on March 18, 2008 at 4:15 pm

No it isn't.

132. Fleabytes

Comment #146075 by mikejswalker on March 18, 2008 at 3:19 pm

Discussion is never pointless if there is a chance to show others the rules of civil discourse are being broken. Not for us, but for those who are undecided. We serve a purpose beyond the obvious pictures that are painted and subsequently scrawled on by certain parties.

133. Fleabytes

Comment #145991 by mikejswalker on March 18, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Great post Reverend.

Mike.

134. Fleabytes

Comment #145731 by mikejswalker on March 18, 2008 at 4:03 am

Turning over rocks to expose what is underneath to the view of others is always useful and Paula seems to do it par excellence.

135. Fleabytes

Comment #145726 by mikejswalker on March 18, 2008 at 3:50 am

Path,
Ease on up there fella, you name drop all manner of gods then try to tell us you don't really know Thora Hird!!?? If the Benway of many Dr's was here, you're arse would be on the front of your body.
I have seen the light. And it were beefy.

136. Fleabytes

Comment #145716 by mikejswalker on March 18, 2008 at 3:24 am

This thread is a new lifeform.

Immanent memetic.

An astral avalanche.

Primodial cordial.

Pugilistic felidism.

It thinks by itself when we're all in slumber.

A corpulence of dirginal dearths, merginal mirths and virginal births.

A coffee house. A kwaffee cafe.

A bungee jump from 3ft.

A disguise in sheps clothing.

An intentional spelling mistake.

ITMA, the goons, It ain't 'alf hot mum's do av em, Q8
Ripping yarns, West wing, Dance coming.

A boil in the bag feast. Unopened.

It's a place where the enemy knows where the action is.

A confessional.

We died, and ended up here. Choose your 'H'.

137. Fleabytes

Comment #145345 by mikejswalker on March 17, 2008 at 1:51 pm

Lissen peeple,
Letts knot bee two kwik too comdem thiss blowke. Afterawl hees in tutch wiv a luv soupream. Trust me pathfinder, quit while you're behind.

138. Fleabytes

Comment #145318 by mikejswalker on March 17, 2008 at 1:27 pm

I have to add that considering the background and experiences of some of the regulars here, the scorn is understandable.

139. Fleabytes

Comment #145186 by mikejswalker on March 17, 2008 at 10:50 am

Paula,
I suppose my 'sympathy' lies with religionists in general, and that spills over into the Robertson debate. The sympathy is one that, by turns, could be construed as naive, or arrogant and patronising. It's a real human empathy. Someone is trying to rip the children from the mothers arms. The battle to keep hold is a painful one to watch. The mockery is disappointing. I have a distrust (as you might have guessed) of generalised statements, especially my own. I like to dig a little deeper to corroborate the 'evidence'. Please don't misunderstand me here, I get the David thing. I'm talking more generally. If you sift thru some of the threads the scorn is quick to kick in and often unwarranted.
I am disappointed in David. Disappointed that he scorns your admirable efforts for genuine discourse. He also does not do any favours for the more genuine debaters because he leaves us with our guard up to allcomers. Sometimes one simple word can
redefine our past. I'm truly sorry that he has got you to a place where you genuinely despise him. You do not strike me as one who despises very easily. Still hoping for a simple word. No, Irate, not that one!!

140. Fleabytes

Comment #145123 by mikejswalker on March 17, 2008 at 9:29 am

paula,
I'm just not so sure about these things. That's why i ask these questions. This is not an easy place (for some) to pose these kinds of questions. I was here when David signed in as David Robertson and there wasn't all this bullshit with using different names. I didn't agree with what he said or how he said it. But i do feel making statements that allude to his despising of us, or talk of his spewing 'bile' might be themselves anger fuelled and construed as a much needed daily detox.
You might say 'what do you expect'? But he will say exactly the same thing. If you're book was shredded paula (yes i do mean shredded David) on a religionist website, you don't seem the kind of person that would take it with a pinch of salt.
You would give every dodgy point a good slap around.
Whether we feel he is not addressing the points, is not my point here. Things are not so black and white.
In print mistakes are seen as malice, omissions are
devious, mild banter as ad homs, direct criticism as insults.
We have all got the wrong end of the stick, even without the frayed religionist arguments, on these forums. As i type this now their is not one angry bone in my body. No contempt. No smarm. And if i said this across a table over a pint of leffe (or cuppa bovril) you might hear and feel it differently, and so respond differently. Ridiculing pictures from otherwise eloquent posters, unverifiable accusations, and our own splenetic 'bile' don't cut it for me.
I have to disagree. I am glad this thread exists, and glad it has opened up opportunities to discuss some of the fundamentals of life. Literally. It's the oppression we must eradicate. That is why this debate must thrive. Rolling one's eyes at a perceived lame comment adds nothing. This thread could be re-named 'I didn't mean that' or 'i didn't say that'. And that's what i mean.

141. Fleabytes

Comment #145028 by mikejswalker on March 17, 2008 at 7:32 am

Playing devil's advocate. This is probably easier to answer after the perfidy, but, would we be a little teary had the target not been provided by the siphons for this unbelievable thread to exist?

I did feel David had a slim chance of salvation. But the bovril comment was outta line, way outta line.

142. Fleabytes

Comment #144968 by mikejswalker on March 17, 2008 at 5:44 am

Bovril, hats, queens, assorted cheeks, the stuff of Shakespeare indeed. Surely this is the positive aspect of religion and why we need it so? It's a creative instigation. A clawsharpener. If it was eradicated, wouldn't we miss it a teency? Aren't we just a little disappointed when the siphonaptera's stop suckin'?

143. Fleabytes

Comment #144732 by mikejswalker on March 16, 2008 at 4:53 pm

I cannot, nay shall not stop speaking like this, for that is what i must do as i type boldy and surely not like a surly knave (crossing my eras here) but as a king of kings of kings of.
And here, www.spurgeon.org/~phil/marmite.htm - 39k i produce the unfortunate effects of the abomination that is mite of many mars on a knave who turned to mite of many mars for comfort and solace at a lowly time. And now, i will take my leave and soar with the earth daddy of music. Bovril is the light and the way despite it's dark constant.

144. Fleabytes

Comment #144718 by mikejswalker on March 16, 2008 at 4:35 pm

Marmite only deals in toast. I know it well. A sickly concoction of
yeastiness that lands on the chops of babies and pug dogs. This is where it suffered a lowly blow. www.marmite.com/ - 3k -
Resist this imposter and all the infinitillions of other base and churlish beverage falsities.

145. Fleabytes

Comment #144697 by mikejswalker on March 16, 2008 at 4:01 pm

In the beginning there was Bovril. And lo, it were beefy.

146. Fleabytes

Comment #144684 by mikejswalker on March 16, 2008 at 3:26 pm

'It is good. I have spoken, so it was, is and shall be'
ya know....I kinda like that....yeah....it is god....i have spooken...so it was is......and shall be.....i see i see....what about something like
i am big. bears are bigger. No... no... bears are wider.. yes that's it...wider....suet wars...isambard K.?? what dya think Mr puppa?

147. Fleabytes

Comment #144670 by mikejswalker on March 16, 2008 at 2:57 pm

I have just found out that suicide bombers try to make sure their genitals are intact by protecting them from the blast. This part(s) was pretty much all that wasn't burnt when the Glasgow airport terrorist doused himself in petrol and set himself alight after the failed suicide attempt. This is presumably to keep things 'servicable' in anticipation of the 72 virgins. This is true consideration and forward thinking.

148. Fleabytes

Comment #144326 by mikejswalker on March 15, 2008 at 3:51 pm

Just looked out my window.....guy in raincoat.....hat.....in doorway....just lit cigarette.....hang on....harry??......harry??

149. Fleabytes

Comment #144041 by mikejswalker on March 15, 2008 at 1:01 am

Words are like sharp swords here. Pics of ridicule make me feel uneasy. Easy targets an' all. FWIW.

150. Fleabytes

Comment #143920 by mikejswalker on March 14, 2008 at 3:58 pm

Richard,
That boy's got some technique!! Does he improvise? bloody ell on a stick!!