101. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190924 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 11:07 pm

Comment #190923 by leigh on June 9, 2008 at 10:53 pm

I am really now at a loss, if I take all of your comments on board.

What you seem to be saying is that the notion of 'faith' is not really compromised, weakened or misunderstood at all in anything my fellow-debaters have been offering here.

You also seem to be saying that the interpretation I have set on the word faith (e.g. Frankus's comments) cannot and does not lead to the notion of 'reasonable faith' which I have condemned.

Your conclusion is surely, then, that I, MaxD, Steve Zara and Frankus are not at all in disagreement over the significance of the term 'faith'.

Is this your position?

Styrer

[Edit 7.12: I have to go to work now. Will catch up later!]

102. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190921 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 10:35 pm

Comment #190889 by Frankus1122 on June 9, 2008 at 8:10 pm

Most people will try to provide reasons as to why their faith is reasonable.

How is to believe this wrong?

As you request.

The above is probably the most brazen statement of such a contemptible notion as 'reasonable faith'.

Those other posts, with MaxD playing special part here, against which I have been entertaining my poor arguing skills, also prevail as proponents of 'reasonable faith', if you care to check them out.

Trusting this will suffice.

Styrer

103. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190915 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 10:18 pm

Comment #190914 by leigh on June 9, 2008 at 10:01 pm


p.s. Styrer.

What the fuck is wrong with you? Your concept of faith and it's importance is basically agreed with. It was simply pointed out that when a theist's belief is questioned they blindly, failingly and pathetically try and justify their belief with evidence. But they fail. Nobody gave this phenomenon any creedence or respect, just pointed out that it happens. You can't deny that it does. Read the article.

And you tell them to fuck off?

Tut, tut. You do those whom you are protecting against big bad Styrer no service at all. Poor show.

Take another look. Agreed concept of faith? Bullshit. See the propitiatory stance struck in respect of that 'reasonable faith', with which I continue to take issue.

Back? Tell me, precisely, what 'reasonable faith' is.

Any clue? Didn't think so.

A big fuck off for you too.

Styrer

104. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190912 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 9:54 pm

Comment #190911 by acs on June 9, 2008 at 9:50 pm

Undisciplined is too kind a word.

It is unscientific, irrational and, in terms of what this site is about, very dangerous.

I feel like I'm pulling fucking teeth here.

'Next'!

Good comment, acs.

Styrer

105. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190910 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 9:42 pm

Comment #190907 by MaxD on June 9, 2008 at 9:32 pm


A robust response. Unexpected. Good on you. I'm sure the idea of fucking off to your own blog, a la Zara, advertising it here first and then relinquishing debate here at the first sign of heat never crossed your mind.

You have failed, though, to provide me with a definition of the word 'faith' once you have submitted it to the most propitiatory demands of the very faithful for whom I thought, wrongly, we might agree should play no part.

Care to offer? Or have you stripped it so bare that you know not where to start?

Best,
Styrer

106. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190904 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 9:13 pm

Comment #190901 by MaxD on June 9, 2008 at 8:58 pm


This seems like a simplistic critique and misses a huge point. The faith minded don't think they are proceeding by faith alone, or even primarily depending on such a concept.

Ok. I state and hold that 'faith is belief without evidence' and you, MaxD, have the utter fucking gall to say, frowningly, that my definition is 'a simplistic critique and missed a huge point'.

The HUGE point I miss is: faithheads mean something different; by faith, they mean they are FUCKING EVIDENCE DRIVEN.

Fuck off, Max. Not a fucking chance.

I could not give a flying FUCK what the 'faith minded' - to whom you grant an extraordinary level of understanding and sympathy in their linguistic plight - think they are doing. OF COURSE they are proceeding by faith alone, and I am tiring of your consistent and despicable apology for them, while you deride MY thoughts here.

MaxD, you've really fucking made a mess on this one.

So what is YOUR definition of 'faith', if you haven't obliterated it entirely?

Styrer

107. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190899 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 8:57 pm

Comment #190892 by MaxD on June 9, 2008 at 8:28 pm


MaxD

For fuck's sake, man. What definition of 'faith' are you left with, after all your tortuous machinations to link it even slightly adjacent to reason?

You're nudging towards a point where we won't even NEED the fucking word, if we follow your logic.

(And fucking hell, you type fast. Do you have a team of secretaries inputting while you dictate?)

Shape up, man. Stop re-defining 'FAITH' simply to ignore its inherent irrationality. What the fuck else are we taking about?

Styrer

108. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190895 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 8:39 pm

Comment #190889 by Frankus1122 on June 9, 2008 at 8:10 pm

Stryer,
Could you make it clear as to what you are saying?
Faith is unevidenced belief.
Most faithful try to support their belief with evidence. They try to prove the truth of their god using the means available to them. Hence this article.
Most people try to come up with reasons for what they believe. Very few say only, "I believe because I have faith."
Most people will try to provide reasons as to why their faith is reasonable.

How is to believe this wrong?

Here we go:

Stryer,
Could you make it clear as to what you are saying?
Faith is unevidenced belief.

Faith - it begins and it ends here.

Unevidenced belief.

Some posters here are attempting to furnish us with a rationale of faith. This is no bad thing in itself, but it is leading some here to grant an inherent rationality to faith with which I take issue.

In terms of 'faith', all talk of 'supporting their belief with evidence', of 'coming up with reasons for what they believe' is utter nonsense if it holds no relationship in the first place with an acceptance of faith.

Otherwise, we are not talking about 'faith' as it is usually applied on these boards.

While most faithheads do not, as Frankus points out, say to themselves 'I believe because I have faith', most accept faith as implicit, on the basis of which implication they will take action, make comment, and render verdict on others.

Faith is precisely what you rely on when there is no evidence, logic and sense on which you might otherwise rely.

The notion of 'reasonable' faith, as Frankus risibly puts it, is as ridiculous as 'mad sanity', and I think that the promoting of such a nonsensical notion on a site devoted to clear thinking is a real fucking disgrace.

I am genuinely surprised that an otherwise intelligent member, whose posts I occasionally enjoy, has bought so heavily into the theistic proposition of 'reasonable' faith here.

You should feel fucking ashamed of yourself.

Sort yourself out, lad.

Styrer

109. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190885 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 7:54 pm

Comment #190873 by MaxD on June 9, 2008 at 7:24 pm

MaxD

I wish what you say were true.

But I do not think it is so.

I think you are hugely underestimating the value faithheads attribute to the notion of faith.

You are to be commended for your rational approach; but you are to be castigated for your lending of such rationality to the notion of FAITH: the unevidenced fuel which leads to most of the sorry, sad, despicable stories we check in here every morning to read and denounce.

You are painting a clear picture of your own mind onto those minds which delight in the tenets of a particular faith, who promote that faith as something which would, at a stroke, cut down your own liberal minded tolerance of a notion which will not itself be tolerated.

It surprises me that one of this site's most vocal and active members is really misunderstanding - to a most dangerous degree - the whole notion of faith and its wicked influences.

Styrer

110. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190878 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 7:33 pm

Comment #190868 by Ascaphus on June 9, 2008 at 7:15 pm

Styrer:

I think they were merely agreeing with me (and others) that, although the faithful claim to believe on faith and to value faith above all, what they actually do is try to twist any contradictory science and find formal logic which 'proves' god, as evidenced by this very article and many others like it. The end result is a severe devaluation of faith per se, to which they seem oblivious.

Matt

I understand the point.

But shine a light on WHY they do the following (your quote):

what they actually do is try to twist any contradictory science and find formal logic which 'proves' god

Is it not, in fact, to support that very notion of FAITH which I submit is at the heart of superstitious supernatural beliefs in the first place?

I do not accept the notion - and it's a dangerously appeasing one - here that FAITH is in fact manifesting itself in some kind of expression of REASONABLE INQUIRY.

I hope that this is simply a semantic misunderstanding. If it is not, then anti-superstitious supernaturalists everywhere have got even more work cut out for them than they ever fucking imagined.

Trusting this is not so.

Best,
Styrer

111. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190867 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 7:11 pm

Comment #190863 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 6:47 pm

Comment #190860 by MaxD

Perfectly expressed.

Styer-

Is it the hat or something, or am I somehow just fundamentally annoying? I really am not intending to be, but it is getting a bit tiresome to be picked on whichever thread I happen to be on.

Seriously, if I am being a total ass, I'll shut up for a while - better than winding people up without knowing why.

Believe this or do not - I read your post, became irate, copied and pasted it, started commenting and THEN realised that it was yours.

When I realised it was yours, I refrained from dumping it simply because I thought you might think you were being bullied. I cracked on, thinking you'd reciprocate with a view on my own thoughts.

Seems I've overestimated you, Steve.

May I ask, though - do you consider that your posts are beyond rational refutation?

Are my posts not rational refutations - and sometime endorsements - of the comments you make?

Fuck's sake, Steve. This is not on.

Styrer

112. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190864 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 6:55 pm

Comment #190860 by MaxD on June 9, 2008 at 6:43 pm

Stryer,
No The Zara is simply saying that most believers think they have reasons for their belief that don't require faith. And that faith is, in fact, not terribly sustainable in the long run.

Minds like evidence for expensive notions. Fundies, don't properly understand faith and if they looked squarely at what they say don't value it very much. What they want is proof. Many of them have convinced themselves that they have it. There is a certain amount of faith involved to be sure. But they want proof, this is why they foolishly chase after science and history with their selective eyes.
Faith cannot sustain itself.

MaxD

I understood Steve's point, in the same way I understand your endorsement and explanation of it.

But you are both on extremely dodgy ground.

'Faith' remains at the heart of both the Bible and the Koran as a notion to be revered, to be followed, to submit to, and to encourage in others. Both texts, including the Hadith, revel in unevidenced belief, extolling it and encouraging its propagation.

You and Steve will dismiss this at the expense of understanding the mindset of the 'faithful'.

You are both granting FAR TOO MUCH by way of unevidenced belief if you are willing to semantically offer a way out to faithoholic fuckers.

I implore you to keep at least THIS wall of semantic distinction high and proud.

Faith not only can, but IS sustaining itself, continuously.

What the fuck are we all doing here if not lamenting this very phenomenon most of the fucking time?

Best,
Styrer

113. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190855 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 6:26 pm

Comment #190853 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 6:11 pm

Are you talking only of that sweet Anglican voice? Does the tougher Catholic voice reflect what you say here?

Are Allah's followers simply following a 'warm fuzzy feeling' as they blow you, themselves and your loved ones to smithereens as they shout 'Allāhu Akbar?' paving the way to paradise for themselves and for their families?

Or could it be that you are foolishly trying to play down the notion of 'faith' and all of its manifest wicked effects in general, simply in order to make its incomprehensibility more comprehensible to a nice, easy-going bloke like yourself?

Of course not. You've paid too much attention to the articles posted here to fall into such a lily-livered position.

Well done.

Best,
Styrer

114. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190852 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 6:06 pm

Comment #190845 by Ascaphus on June 9, 2008 at 5:51 pm

I've not come across any theists who have said that 'faith is not necessary'. I have come across theists who exhort the virtues of faith at the same time that they have lauded the biblical miracles.

If they had read Sam Harris's compelling notion of 'betrayal of faith and reason equally', they would surely have prevented themselves from falling into such an inviting little trap.

Little cunts couldn't help themselves, though.

Fuckwits.

Best,
Styrer

115. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190829 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 4:45 pm

Comment #190826 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 4:29 pm

Comment #190824 by Styrer-

No rudeness intended, and no huff.

However you want to use the term creationist, one can surely consider as truly bizarre the idea that natural disasters are somehow a consequence of sin.

Well, I do anyway :)

Zara, you are showing your typical fucking...

Oh, we agree.

Indeed. I would love to learn the mechanism by which sin was inserted into this world.

Never will, I suspect. I weep.

Best,
Styrer

116. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190824 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 4:24 pm

Comment #190813 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 3:55 pm

Comment #190810 by Styrer-

Sorry, but I have neither the time or inclination for this discussion. You are welcome to call me what you like if you feel it helps the battle for reason in some way. It does not concern me.

How extraordinarily rude.

I do not share your catagorical (in my opinion, unevidenced) and dismissive notion as to precisely WHAT creed Robertson attaches himself.

And Steve gets huffy.

It MATTERS.

While you are of course free to disagree with my ideas and to take them to task as you wish, I urge you to relinquish your flat-out and high-handed dismissal of my thoughts, lest you seem...well, a bit unreasonable.

Ah well. Off again, no doubt.

Bonne chance, Steve.

Best,
Styrer

117. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190816 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 4:00 pm

Comment #190812 by Jack Rawlinson on June 9, 2008 at 3:52 pm

Good start, genius: an a priori assumption and a false analogy, bang, right out of the gate.

I guess I don't need to waste any time reading further. Futile to argue with people who aren't even intelligent enough to recognise the most elementary fallacies.

This comment conveys an outrageously arrogant and dismissive attitude.

I hereby second it.

Best,
Styrer

118. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190810 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 3:47 pm

Comment #190807 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 3:33 pm

You don't get off that lightly, Steve.:)

Look - you have ploughed ahead with this notion of yours that Robertson is a 'creationist'.

He may well be - but your assertion, by dint of his stated suspicion of evolution, does not make it so.

You surely understand this.

Your substantiations listed are NOT enough, sir. Many a protestant, catholic, muslim and mormon have uttered, a la Robertson, suspicions of evolution.

This does NOT render them 'creationists'. I fear that your easy application of the term to those who do not fall under the term's purview will lessen the impact our accusations of 'Creationist! Hah!' must retain.

As for my temper - thanks for the consideration. It will remain in good form if an eminent member of this site would stick to the 'reason' extolled at the top of this page.

Best,
Styrer

119. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190805 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 3:26 pm

Comment #190797 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Forgive, Steve, my 'occasional' lack of clarity.

To be clear: you are now on record as stating Robertson is a 'creationist'.

I submit that Robertson's anti-evolutionary stance in an earlier thread is not proof of your assertion.

To support your unproven assertion, you draw our collective attention to the notion that Robertson's (unproven) creationism is an evident feature which we have missed here, but to which you have been vouchsafed some evidentiary sense we lack:

(Your quote, sir): In hindsight, it has always been there.

When questioned about this ubiquitous and ever-present 'creationism', you finally admitted, without apology for wasting my fucking time, that your hindsight was focusing only on 'that article'.

Fuck, Steve. Stop pissing about with language. I really thought you had more there.

Best,
Styrer

120. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190794 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Comment #190752 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Comment #190748 by Styrer-

My hindsight is focussing on that article.

I am highly suspicious about this new, more overt creationism from David Robertson. In hindsight, it has always been there

So, Steve, not always there, in fact?

Your comment makes me think that there is a plethora of hitheto untapped 'creationist' comments by the cunt, revealed only to yourself.

But no. Only since you read the article today, in fact.

Robertson is a fuck of the first water. But let's show the fucker that we mean business when we lay a charge against him.

No need, sir, to exaggerate. He'll hang himself without it.

Agreed?

Best,
Styrer

121. Complex Synapses Drove Brain Evolution

Comment #190782 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Comment #190772 by Steve Crawley on June 9, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Not sure that what you're adding here is entirely apposite to the article and the stated findings it presents, but thank you nonetheless for an interesting lesson.

Best,
Styrer

122. Complex Synapses Drove Brain Evolution

Comment #190770 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Comment #190568 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 8:59 am

Yes.

I think that Irate did not mean this to sound as exclusive and condescending as it did...?

You don't need to be a mum or a dad to really appreciate the joy of kids close to you, and to experience vicariously all their happiness and pain.

I suspect Irate is vaunting something far more solipsistic here. Proud of his spunk, for example?

We know how difficult it is to produce that.

Best,
Styrer

123. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190760 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Comment #190754 by MPhil on June 9, 2008 at 1:56 pm

As a punishment - this guy has to read up on Plantinga's modal ontological proof and Mackie's refutation - and give a half hour talk on why the modal ontological argument doesn't work - including a formalization of all the arguments.

Since joining here, I have determined never to feel sorry for any fucking theist under any circumstance.

Your punishment, though...

Fuck it, it's not hard enough...!

Best,
Styrer (accidentally 'trolled' you, MPhil - hopefully to be ignored).

124. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190748 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Comment #190740 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Comment #190729 by Styrer-

Forgive me, I was not clear. Scottishgeologist has posted a link to an article by DR regarding the Asian Tsunami, written in 2005. It is distinctly creationist in flavour:
http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2005/jan05.htm

It implies that human sinfulness resulted in a fall, which brought death and natural disasters into the world.

I am not talking about hindsight in terms of looking at his postings here - this is about looking back at what we now know he has written in the past.

Yes, I read this shite earlier.

I am still not clear about your comment.

I am not after you on this occasion, Steve, you elitest sod (!) but I don't understand 'I am not talking about hindsight in terms of looking at his postings here - this is about looking back at what we now know he has written in the past.'

Are there other Roberston scriblings in the past which are not posts? Are you talking about his lamentable 'book'?

On what is your hindsight focusing here?

Your comment certainly indicates that we have missed something important which 'has always been there'.

Gotta be careful with the cunt Robertson, so your full clarity here will be appreciated.

Best,
Styrer

125. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190738 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 1:24 pm

A load of shit.

Josh - do better.

(Diacanu No. 13 - well done for getting your snout shitted to elucidate. Liked it.)

Styrer

126. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190729 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Comment #190680 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 11:21 am

Comment #190672 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

I am highly suspicious about this new, more overt creationism from David Robertson. In hindsight, it has always been there, but I do wonder what political motive there is for revealing it now.

(My emphasis.)

Where? Please be specific.

I am really not sure that Robertson's anti-evolutionary stance recently made on another thread (I think Steve is referring to this) is really evidence of the fucker being a creationist.

Confused, yes.

Let's be careful of our assumptions, Steve, lest they detract from the full weight of criticism you and we all have to make against the tosspot.

Best,
Styrer

127. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #190530 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 8:30 am

Comment #190512 by Diacanu on June 9, 2008 at 8:09 am

Yep, another couple of hits followed by a swift run.

He'll of course be back, but on a different thread.

What a disgrace of a human being he is. His fucked-up profferings should be enough to drive doubt into even the most faithful of faithoholics' ideas of 'faith'.

If reason can gain just a slightly larger foothold in the world's consciousness, such that its evidentiary nature could acquire a critical mass, then fuckwits like Robertson should, rather fittingly, simply take care of themselves as they impel themselves towards oblivion.

In the meantime, may our vocabulary remain robust enough to deal with such despicable cunts.

Best,
Styrer

128. Complex Synapses Drove Brain Evolution

Comment #190515 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 8:13 am

The big building blocks evolved before big brains

No scientist, I had often wondered what sparked the huge increase in size of human brains.

This fits.

To all you scientists - how controversial does this seem to you? See any holes?

Best,
Styrer

129. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #190487 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 7:33 am

Comment #190480 by irate_atheist on June 9, 2008 at 7:15 am

99. Comment #190473 by Styrer -

It is all sad but true. Some may think I too readily go on the attack when dogmatic theists venture here. But when a dog bites you every time you try to pat it, that dog needs to be put down.

Religion is that dog.

Indeed.

For the record, I have never thought you too easily go on the attack. How, precisely, could that actually happen, against theists who claim to KNOW - before and in spite of any discussion - that you, I and most here are destined to burn in hell for EVER?

No, my good man. Not possible to go on the attack too easily. The first strike has been made before you have even realised it.

The Hitch's 'we have to stamp out this virus, not permit a gentler version of it' reminds me of your dog analogy.

At the moment, and in my anger, I prefer your way of putting it.

Best,
Styrer

130. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #190473 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 7:02 am

Comment #190424 by irate_atheist on June 9, 2008 at 4:27 am

87. Comment #190420 by scottishgeologist -

Everybody on this thread, I urge you to read the link posted by scottishgeologist

This will give you a flavour of the wilfully ignorant fuckwittery spread by David Robertson et al.

Stone cold fucknuts.

Yes, Irate. It does.

It makes for sad and distressing reading.

Unfortunately I am finding less and less satisfaction in the wonderful taking to task by members here of Robertson and his ideas, I'm afraid. Would that I could get it back.

He is, quite clearly, utterly beyond reach, and is the quintessence of what this site seeks to condemn.

Though I still hold to Hitchen's notion that time spent debating theists is time never wasted, Robertson has delimited this for me to the debating of intelligent theists. Permit me to call a 'time of death' on any such debates involving semi-literate, specious and unpleasant theists such as Robertson.

For Robertson, lest he feel neglected, I will reserve only a well-deserved and heartfelt 'Fuck off, cunt'.

Styrer

131. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #190397 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 2:41 am

Comment #190347 by clearthinker on June 8, 2008 at 11:08 pm

Having attended thousands of prayer meetings

What an absolute waste of time!

Imagine all the terrifically useful things you could have done during these wasted hours - the science and spelling books you could have read, the museums of natural history you could have visited, all the Richard Dawkins videos you could have educationally digested.

It really is not only the wicked precepts of your unreasonable and unevidenced beliefs; not only the snide, unlettered posts you make here, repeatedly trying to justify the unjustifiable; and not only your mind-numbing ignorance and twisted solipsism of which you should properly be ashamed. It is also the downright and wanton waste of precious time, energy and resources you and your fellow faithoholics make a positive glory-fest in promoting as some kind of 'virtue', indoctrinating kids, the needy, the vulnerable and the lonely into your pernicious, nasty world of anti-reason and dangerous wishful-thinking as you proceed.

No wonder such tortuous efforts to cast all your appallingly wicked and offensive claims as 'virtuous' and 'moral' have made of you such a twisted, sneering little oik. Who knows what kind of decent human being you might become if you jettisoned all your mad, wicked and unevidenced beliefs, opened your eyes and took a proper look at this godless universe, seeing for perhaps the first time what a wonderful place it is and how lucky we are to be alive in it?

If I were you, it would be a constant sorrow for me to note with what little regard and with what hostility my posts were met by the decent, intelligent members on this site, every time I popped my head in for a chat. With such uniform and consistent responses, I would certainly take a good hard look at my own attitudes, ideas and resultant demeanour.

Is there any way in which you might persuade yourself to do the same? Unless, of course, you genuinely do not give a flying fuck as so often seems to be the case when you're around.

Styrer

132. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #186685 by Styrer- on May 31, 2008 at 3:06 am

Comment #186683 by aussieatheist_111 on May 31, 2008 at 2:58 am

Absolutely. I've reconsidered and now got over my churlish cynicism!

Sorry again and thanks for putting me straight.

Best,
Styrer

133. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #186652 by Styrer- on May 30, 2008 at 11:06 pm

Comment #186637 by jo5ef on May 30, 2008 at 10:11 pm

Points taken. Bad day at the office. Sorry.

Will try to do better!

Best,
Styrer

134. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #186398 by Styrer- on May 30, 2008 at 8:45 am

Comment #186281 by adamd164 on May 30, 2008 at 4:05 am

Styrer, why should the governmental determination exclude such empirical testing? It's all very well to say that they could make a decision under the assumption that these people genuinely do suffer the effects of WiFi exposure, but are we to treat all similar claims equally? What a mess that would leave us in!

I note that you live in Ireland, as do I. My company was two months ago invited to participate, in conjunction with the Department of Education, Department of Tourism, the Department of Trade and the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism, to discuss proposals in respect of a Dail-led discussion about 'Student Work Permits'.

Our company's rep went there, as did out industry body's spokesperson. The write up to me (I am the owner) was as follows: 'It's a fucking done deal. They didn't have to talk to all the different departments to know this was a good move'.

NONE of the proposed - and initially invited - stakeholders had any say whatsoever.

Fellow Irish friends laughed, over our mutual pint: 'What the fuck did you expect?'

My story is by no means unique. Name your country.

The idea that a fairly well-known Oxford Professor would have the kind of governmental influence to make a difference, of an order of magnitude more significant than that which I was trying to achieve in Ireland, here is utter wishful-thinking.

I hope Richard did go back to bed to have a good sleep.

Best,
Styrer

135. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #186206 by Styrer- on May 29, 2008 at 11:05 pm

Richard

Take a deep breath.

Hold it.

Exhale after realising your desire to make a difference will do no such thing, perhaps only to your heart rate.

This will draw down to a governmental determination.

What chance do you really think an Oxford Professor may have in making a substantive difference here?

Go back to bed.

Styrer

136. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #186175 by Styrer- on May 29, 2008 at 8:13 pm

Comment #186158 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 29, 2008 at 6:38 pm

Speaking of Wi-Fi

Here is Chomsky on Religion and Humanism etc

I've sent it to article submission but I seem to be consistently ignored.

I have now listened to all of this and cannot understand why this interview with Chomsky has NOT been added to the RD.Net store.

Chomsky is, of course, extraordinarily capable, as an 80 year old man, to make mincemeat of any who come before him. His ideas are continuously inflammatory and spark-filled; his views in your clips make only too much sense to me. But he possesses, as Dawkins does not, a nigh on encyclopaedic knowledge of past and modern history. He leaves, I am sorry to say, even Hitchens so very, very far behind here.

Chomsky's erudition is actually terrifying.

I will continue to reclaim my own conception of life a la Dawkins; but I will also do so for more of the latter simply because I suspect Chomsky will be there to answer me when Dawkins is lamentably not.

Best,
Styrer

137. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #186167 by Styrer- on May 29, 2008 at 7:30 pm

Comment #186158 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 29, 2008 at 6:38 pm

I am not sure why you are being ignored. This is probably one of Chomsky's last interviews, as he veers ever closer to death, and as such is an important aural document.

Chomsky's dismissal of the worth of evolution is a possible part of the reason; but this site should surely make a feature of this giant of intellect without delay.

His seminal work in linguistics should, in my opinion, have acquired him a Nobel Prize.

Intellectually, Dawkins slots in extraordinarily highly, but below Chomsky's range.

Chomsky thinks as no human has ever thought before. He deserves a place here.

Styrer

138. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #186161 by Styrer- on May 29, 2008 at 6:52 pm

The city attorney is now checking to see if putting up Wi-Fi could be considered discrimination.

I wonder if this comment will look as fuckwittedly, shit-headedly moronic in 2000 years as it does to me today.

I suggest that the city attorney be ripped, SAS-style, from any main drag he's walking, kicked into a van, flown to Afghanistan and thrust among the locals, dragged before imminent be-heading twats, pulled out just in time into living for at least one day with the locals, AND THEN be delivered to such a safehouse where his repeated enunciations of 'discrimination' would die only with his own drawn-out death.

This turd of a lawyer is surely worth no more than any of the above.

Fuck him.

Styrer

139. 1968 Supreme Court case of Epperson v. Arkansas

Comment #186137 by Styrer- on May 29, 2008 at 5:29 pm

We may all feel orgasmic that a Reverend is here better advocating the place of science in the classroom than his ID-protecting, ignorant opponent lawyer in this debate.

But this does not make him an ally in fighting the real war between faith/supernaturalism and reason.

While he is useful in condemning the idea that ID is a scientific endeavour (when, by the way, was this ever hard?) he is, like Eugenie Scott, Miller and all similar NOMA adherents, simply prolonging the movement our young learners may make to submitting their beliefs to scientific scrutiny.

I do not see NOMA as a 'strategy' in the war against superstitious supernaturalism; I see it as a propitiation to the religious and to the supernaturalists. As such, it deserves our contempt, as we recognise that it permits even full-blooded and even borderline theists to think that they can put their god in a separate little box, to be brought out whenever they see fit.

Some 'tactic', NOMA.

Fuck it.

Best,
Styrer

140. What is science for?

Comment #184130 by Styrer- on May 23, 2008 at 6:18 pm

Comment #184120 by MaxD on May 23, 2008 at 5:26 pm

Blake1i382003920293049238409293209,

You say:

Thank you, MaxD. That gave me the very best laugh of my fucking week.

Best,
Styrer

141. Tribute to a Beloved Mentor

Comment #183966 by Styrer- on May 23, 2008 at 10:25 am

Phew, can Richard write.

His mentor would surely have been moved.

Best,
Styrer

142. 16% of US science teachers are creationists

Comment #183904 by Styrer- on May 23, 2008 at 6:35 am

Comment #183896 by irate_atheist on May 23, 2008 at 6:07 am

Irate, no, I'm sorry, your usual comment eludes me at the moment.

Could you remind me (preferably in bold)?

Cheers,
Styrer

143. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #182932 by Styrer- on May 21, 2008 at 6:13 am

Good job.

Styrer

144. What is science for?

Comment #182927 by Styrer- on May 21, 2008 at 6:02 am

Comment #182853 by uncle tungsten on May 21, 2008 at 3:45 am

Styrer,

I don't know anything about you, but since you're on this forum I'd guess you're an intelligent and clear-thinking person. If we met I'd probably like you. So no, I don't have a problem with you. Calling people names is a bit juvenile though, you must admit.

No. Wrong. Entirely up your own arse.

How'd you like that? Cunting twat.

Now I say to you, in your longed for perfect and carefully enunciated, expletive-free and rather endearing language:

You are going to burn and suffer and experience continuous pain in hell for all of time. There will be no end whatsoever.

I challenge you to state with sincerity that you would not prefer a good old 'fucking cunt' rebuke instead.

And refrain from assumptions which have not been permitted you. I am neither clear-thinking nor intelligent.

And remember to shove my earlier profanities up your genteel and delicate arse. Keep 'em safe.

Styrer

145. What is science for?

Comment #182824 by Styrer- on May 21, 2008 at 2:46 am

Comment #182815 by uncle tungsten on May 21, 2008 at 2:25 am

I have not encountered ASMarques before, and my automatic response would be to take against his stance. But underneath all the juvenile name-calling - chiefly from the clearly angry but rather undignified Styrer - it is ASMarques who has the more interesting point to make.

If you have a problem with me, address me directly, you cunt.

I'm waiting.

Styrer

146. What is science for?

Comment #182819 by Styrer- on May 21, 2008 at 2:35 am

Comment #182790 by Peacebeuponme on May 21, 2008 at 1:18 am

I don't think anybody has "taken on" AS Marques properly here, except to point out that his (you have to say well presented) posts contain links to sites of dubious authority.

This is likely because most here do not have much experience in dealing with Deniers. Its not because AS Marques is occupying the most reasonable position.

For fuck's sake, Peace.

Is there a fucking course we should attend to give us greater 'experience in dealing with Deniers'?

Of course not, you dick.

Get a fucking grip, lad.

And why the fuck do you capitalise 'Deniers'?

So where the fuck have you been over the last few hours, you shit? What fucking right do you have to attempt to dictate how Gobshite ASMarques should be treated?

Whose fucking worldview do you support?

Twat.

Styrer

147. What is science for?

Comment #182730 by Styrer- on May 20, 2008 at 10:51 pm

Comment #182701 by ASMarques on May 20, 2008 at 9:59 pm

Said Styrer:

Can you edge slightly closer towards a reason for my silence?

Sure I can. You sound pissed off probably because you're smart enough to have noticed the dismal performance of the "erudite" faithful you mention (maybe you can quote one of those erudite bits, by the way).

And so the Holocaust denier dings his final ding.

You failed my little test.

The answer was: I wanted to listen and learn, not speak. I thought even an arsehole like you would get that.

I suspect that the above is a concept you really will never understand.

You really are the most despicable of denying cunts.

What the fuck is wrong with you, man?

Here you are. You have been here for a month. You have tried your dodgy ideas out on some of the most intelligent and erudite individuals to be found on the Web. You have been repeatedly and fixedly and robustly condemned for subscribing to beliefs which fly in the face of modern historical inquiry, and in the face of massive amounts of evidence showing that your ideas hold no water whatsoever.

And yet you cling, ever more desperately, to your pre-conceived notions of unevidenced negationism.

I, for one, do not trust the letter of any of your words. And you have no more to say.

Fuck off.

Styrer

148. What is science for?

Comment #182712 by Styrer- on May 20, 2008 at 10:32 pm

Comment #182707 by Teratornis on May 20, 2008 at 10:22 pm

I'll be shorter and terser still - I'm rather enjoying your peak oil-free posts...I fucking knew there was an ok guy under there somewhere...

For what it's worth.

Best,
Styrer

149. What is science for?

Comment #182705 by Styrer- on May 20, 2008 at 10:15 pm

Comment #182698 by Teratornis on May 20, 2008 at 9:54 pm

Teratornis

Did I just detect a...wait for it...sense of humour?

Without peak oil, you're becoming boring. Nothing with which I could possibly disagree in your last post.

Fuck me.

Best,
Styrer

150. Proving ID is Creationism

Comment #182696 by Styrer- on May 20, 2008 at 9:50 pm

Not sure why this stuff is being rehearsed, Josh and Wayne.

What am I missing? Is this for the newbies only?

No comprende.

Styrer