301. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159779 by Styrer- on April 13, 2008 at 6:11 am

Comment #159776 by Peacebeuponme on April 13, 2008 at 5:45 am

Styrer

Its also a place where we can suggest to people different ways of approaching an argument that mught reach out to more people. A place we we can speak up if we see a post that annoys us. A place we can listen to on another and modify our viewpoint and approach. Where we can learn and understand different people and their emotional reactions. Where we can tolerate or not tolerate.

If you post something and someone writes back and takes umbrage with your style, you make the choice between taking on board what they say and telling them to fuck off.

I would suggest both reactions are justified from time to time, but that defaulting to one every time is not.

You know, Peace - your above comment adds precisely nothing to my proposed list apart from a shitty call to me, personally, to moderate my stance.

I say fuck you.

The Great Peace speaks:

Where we can tolerate or not tolerate

Thank you for your permission. I choose not to tolerate your lukewarm, hand-wringingly pathetic idea of what this site can be.

If you have a direct problem with me, Peace, and one which does not properly belong to me and another member I might be addressing, then let me know.

Otherwise, you are simply stirring to include yourself in some notion of self-righteousness.

Please refrain.

Styrer

302. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159773 by Styrer- on April 13, 2008 at 5:16 am

Comment #159769 by Roland_F on April 13, 2008 at 4:54 am

Jon_Sociologist and Styrer

Gentlemen - thank you very much for your outburst of personal insulting attacks.
Beside the small minority of active posters out of > 25,000 registered bloggers here, the RD.net has the third highest audience in the (Uk ?) blog scene as was stated last month.

Here is also a place where notorious spin doctors, distorters and liars like D. Robertson are quote mining, and you just filled his arsenal to "prove the bad atheists mindset' for the next year.

Roland

'Here is a place':

Where learning takes place

Where you can say what you fucking want to say

Where you can say it without suppression

Where debates turn explosive

Where debates turn cold at the drop of a hat when evidence dictates (Don't believe it, fuckwit? See Al rawandi V Styrer, April edition)

Where reason battles with supersitious crap and wins

Where your shit idea is equal to my shit idea

Where intelligence and compassion are lauded

Where we argue

Where Richard Dawkins pops his head in

Where irrational is beaten down by rational

Where we see ourselves as humans trying

Where apologies are optional and not mandatory

Where atheist and anti-theist can escape background

Where there is joy and pity

Where there is shared pain at the evil doings of the faithful


Are you, ROLAND, getting the fucking picture?

Now join in on at least ONE of the above before I set David Robertson on you.

Styrer

303. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159756 by Styrer- on April 13, 2008 at 3:23 am

Now, why the fuck will none of you listen and just piss off so Jon and I can get down to some SERIOUS argumentation.

Jesus Fucking Christ, where does an atheist have to go these days.

In Disgust,
Styrer

304. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159741 by Styrer- on April 13, 2008 at 2:53 am

Thanks for the link, Quetz.

The first thing that strikes is: poor Richard Morgan. He's in a fucked up state at the moment, and I wish him my fondest in getting over his loneliness.

Second - the soothing words of David Robertson. Lovely.

Lastly - well, yes, there are arguments here.

Thank Dawkins for that.

If there weren't, I'd know I was in the wrong place.

Bicker on, people. As much as we can try, we'll never in any case emulate the enormity of fighting which the religious community can muster all on its own.

But I'll give it a good fucking go.

Best,
Styrer

305. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159732 by Styrer- on April 13, 2008 at 2:31 am

Spewing such evidence free hypocrisy, and then following it up with a snotty little "Best, Styrer" is "help" that I can do without, so kindly fuck off.

Is it, Jon, really beyond you to delimit yourself to this?

Thank you, in any case, for such a longwinded, trite, semi-banal (there was a hint of good sense re. Stenger) post.

You simply illustrated my point.

Do mind the step on your way out.

Styrer

306. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159723 by Styrer- on April 13, 2008 at 1:30 am

Comment #159719 by Steve Zara on April 13, 2008 at 1:02 am

You know, Steve, every time I think that I am getting rather too hot under the collar because of the sheer faith-driven shite that is taking place out there, because of wise men who will not speak, as I see it, strongly enough against it, I begin to think that I am all hot and bothered for very little.

Until the next second brings me another view of the world, being driven to the abyss by superstitious supernaturalists continuing UNABATED and WITHOUT any of the lily-livered notions of peace to all that have stepped in my way to be noticed.

It is a constant battle, for which I harden myself on hearing of the latest faith-driven atrocity. They are all around, when you've a mind to see them.

And so you come along, with your formidable arsenal of scientific know-how, insisting that members like me are rather too hard, that we do not understand enough, that we should condemn rather less.

And then I learn that you had a point - EVEN ON THIS FORUM - which you decided you needed to 'retract'. In this instance, it was to do with Paula's piece. You REFRAINED from adding your real view on a topic because 'it seemed rather crass to nit-pick so quickly after Paula had put so much work in.'

This attitude, and this action, absolutely flabbergast me. WHEN, sir, will it be quite ok for you to tell us what you think? What you have discovered?

You will find that verbosity-driven members like Jon_Sociologist will support you in your reticence, I suspect. You will no doubt find others. You may even glean a rather pleasing 'sitting on the fence' feeling entirely by yourself.

But I've had enough, my friend. That you refuse to take a stance - and a clear one - in the ongoing war being waged between rationality and unreason, and that you are continuing to cite SCIENCE as the very mechanism by which you keep to such 'middle of the road' views (and DESPITE the notion that Dawkins is surely now hoarse with its uttering, that 'a universe with a god is a very different universe from one without') suggests to me someone who is losing the fucking plot.

Styrer

307. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159710 by Styrer- on April 12, 2008 at 11:40 pm

Comment #159703 by Jon_Sociologist on April 12, 2008 at 10:38 pm

@Styrer-

Why the hell would we want you on our side? We have Irate Atheist and The Reverend Dark to rain vitriol upon deserving heads. And we have the advantage that, from what I've seen, they limit themselves to deserving heads. You're just lashing out viciously at anyone who disagrees with you.

Any points I've seen you score you've immediately fucked up (sometimes even while making the point). You admit to going overboard and to being a "guttersnipe" and yet completely fail to reign yourself in. You correctly point out that belief based upon personal desire but in the absence of evidence is both unreasonable and unscientific. But don't you think your words ring a little hollow when you yourself are so clearly ignoring evidence that you have accepted?

Being an unjustified asshole is one thing, but realizing that you're an unjustified asshole and happily wallowing in it is far worse. Everyone fucks up occasionally and says things that are rude, unfair and unjustified. But to realize a mistake and continue on with it is incompetent, and I daresay betrays a poor grasp on the concept of a scientific mind. How can you fault someone for failing to take the correct steps in light of the evidence, when you yourself so blatantly do exactly the same thing?

I assume you know who clearmind/wooter/selfishmind is. I have honestly tried to encourage clearmind to continue posting here because his every post damages the creationist cause. You may be smarter than clearmind but your posts are just as damaging to our cause. You said I might need your help someday, and you're right. In fact I, and all of the other Atheists here waging the battle for hearts and minds, need your help today. And the best help you can give us is to shut the fuck up. You may have a hard time wrapping your head around this, but being right, or even intelligent, doesn't stop you from being an idiot.

Nothing I have seen from bigcanuck indicates to me that he could not be convinced and brought over to our side. But your hostile and openly hypocritical posts are far more likely to alienate both bigcanuck and any lurking neutral witnesses. So please shut your troll mouth and let the reasonable people talk.

It is too early to tell for sure, but bigcanuck seems like a reasonable, rational individual, who happens to disagree with us. Pointing out why his position is not in fact correct, and that his ideas might not seem so reasonable if examined from another perspective might be better if not followed by vague auguries about how he is putting his life and the lives of his children in danger. I find myself recalling a conversation with another "prophet" that came in here slinging shit, and my response to him applies equally to you: "So did you get that from Nostradumbass.com, or do you have any evidence to back up your prognostications?" Just in case your psychic abilities are not up to divining which comment I am referring to, it is the following: "You are placing your whole life on the line, and that of your kids, and you are doing so on the basis that your lack of evidence for your god is evidence enough" posted in Comment #159686. Spewing such evidence free hypocrisy, and then following it up with a snotty little "Best, Styrer" is "help" that I can do without, so kindly fuck off.

Best,
Jon



Comment #159695 by Styrer-:
That your lot INSIST on bring the greatest theoretical cunt in the universe to visit MY relationships, MY ideas of what is good and bad, MY LIFE as I live and breathe it is the most DESPICABLE, HATEFUL, IMMORAL idea that humankind has ever had to endure.

We may, indeed, not outlast you fucking faithfuelled scum-laden shits. But, at least for me, it will not be through lack of trying.

What the fuck good are your "ideas of what is good and bad" when you blatantly ignore them? Shut your stupid mouth, and quit assuming that bigcanuck is a "fucking faithfuelled scum-laden shit" when his posts make clear that he is not a fundy, is likely either a 50/50 Agnostic, an Agnostic-christian, or an Agnostic deist, not to mention the other myriad possibilities. What the hell are you trying to accomplish you fucking moron? Do you think your honey-laden posts are going to convince anyone? Well, I have news for you; they are, but they're not going to be getting anyone to join our side. If you need the catharsis of spewing such hate at random people might I suggest not clicking the "submit" button, let it out if you must, but let it drop without actually posting it.

What an extraordinarily long rant. I trust you feel better for having posted it. Did you find the 'submit' button without difficulty?

You really do not like being called 'verbose', do you? It is heartening to see that your response to such a criticism is to make yet another longwinded speech here.

But do tell me - if you simply think me a wanker, why not say fuck off? Or, rather more challengingly for you, who seems to like the sight of his own text, ignore me altogether and press on with your other, much more important engagements here and on other threads?

I really am not sure of the letter of your word, Jon. You strike me as someone who has a good deal to say. But you also come across to me as rather a pedant, quoting masses of text in order to illustrate your ability to dissect it, and not always seeing the real point behind your selection and dissection.

In the cut and thrust of debate here, there is a lot of bollocks. But I must take issue with your comment:

'You may be smarter than clearmind but your posts are just as damaging to our cause. '

If I thought that my participation here was as damaging as that which faithheads represent in the world at large, then I would have gone by now. In fact, I probably would never have found this site at all, or felt so glad that I have.

It is strange that I now find myself responding to an anally retentive, self-aggrandizing, dismissive fuckwit such as yourself in my attempt to say why I like this site. Its ethos is, after all, so completely different from your own.

Think on, Jon.

Styrer

308. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159701 by Styrer- on April 12, 2008 at 10:17 pm

Comment #159699 by lievemebe on April 12, 2008 at 10:11 pm

You have a strong argument; continue to develop it.

If you're imagining creationist testicle-throwing as a result of my comment, then do know that your anti-faith speech can be painful too. Not for us, but for its recipient listeners.

What have they to lose but their solipsistic, vicious, subservient, mendacious, inhuman creed after all?

And quite fucking right.

Best,
Styrer

309. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159697 by Styrer- on April 12, 2008 at 9:59 pm

Comment #159696 by lievemebe on April 12, 2008 at

9:47 pm

Paine
My apologies. I don't know what came over me. Perhaps I was thinking of the way rationalists converse amongst themselves rather than with a brick wall. A positive thing is that many religious people have elevated themselves to reason, maybe some diehard creationists can as well.

Don't you be going apologising to any fucker, yer hear?

You, my friend, are well on the money. Get your balls out (it's a metaphor, all women ready to object) and keep kicking.

There'll be enough time for you to not say anything, or to kick anything, when you're dead.

Best,
Styrer

310. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159695 by Styrer- on April 12, 2008 at 9:44 pm

I am sorry for the double-post, but I really have more to say.

If your god is real, and he thereby provides comfort for you, does he really take away your pain when your Dad dies? Or when your wife dies, in a car crash? Is the death of your friend, at the hands of cancer, any more bearable because of a belief in your God than because of the notion that there is NO god?

Of course not. The pain of sheer loss is EQUAL in its intensity.

I have known religious friends, who have tried over years to bring me to Jesus, wracked and twisted and sobbing and shouting, rendered hysterical, because they have lost a loved one.

No, sir. Your god, who notionally separates us all, on death, to either extreme pain or extreme pleasure, is not worthy of my attention. That your lot INSIST on bring the greatest theoretical cunt in the universe to visit MY relationships, MY ideas of what is good and bad, MY LIFE as I live and breathe it is the most DESPICABLE, HATEFUL, IMMORAL idea that humankind has ever had to endure.

We may, indeed, not outlast you fucking faithfuelled scum-laden shits. But, at least for me, it will not be through lack of trying.

Styrer

311. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159686 by Styrer- on April 12, 2008 at 8:48 pm

996. Comment #159637 by bigcanuck on April 12, 2008 at 5:04 pm

Stryer,
What I see is someone who is so Antigod that it has clouded his scientific judgment. You did not answer my question as to whether or not a scientist must take into considerations all possibilities... You seem to be too concerned that young people are being taught something that you personally disgaree with.


There is absolutely nothing anti-scientific about leaving the door open to intelligent design. Science has not given an answer as to how life began and therefore you are presenting irrational, UNsubstantiated claims anytime you dismiss any possible answer.

Your answer to me shows me that you are concerned about propaganda given to youth and not following the scientific model.

What harm is there in saying... we don't know how life was created initially and then giving them some theories and let them go on there way and formulate their own opinions? I'm not saying that intelligent design is the answer...I'm saying a true scientist leaves all possible answers open.

You seem, sir, to at least be trying to engage with atheists and anti-theists alike here.

Many theists who come here simply wish to propound their views that 'God did everything' and then disappear.

If, sir, I may take you to be of the more engaging type, such that I am not wasting my time in responding to you, then I thank you.

May I ask, sir, if your notion of the existence of God is negotiable? Could you, by any evidence, be persuaded that your chosen deity does not exist?

If you insist, no - then there is nothing we can say to each other which will alter this. My offerings to you that you might as well, without evidence, believe in the Magic Mars Monkey who instructs all people to eat chocolate, and be nice to fellow chocolate eaters, can be justified only as much as you state your god is there, listening to all you hear, ignoring some, acting on other bits, or not, of what you ask for.

If you truly KNOW, without evidence being required whatsoever for your faith, then I am sorry to say that I find you not only a poor scientist but a human being to whom rational consideration must stop being given.

I wish I could persuade you of what you are missing out on by not seeing this world, and our part in it, as finite, beautiful, and more awe-inspiring than anything you can find in any holy text.

You are placing your whole life on the line, and that of your kids, and you are doing so on the basis that your lack of evidence for your god is evidence enough.

How can this be explained? My idea: it simply cannot.

Please stop being restricted by myths. They are to be appreciated as literature, not as truth.

It's a wonderful world and universe. Just take a real look. You don't need metaphor, or a sense you are 'sinful', or that you are in any way small, pathetic or needy.

You are your own best reason for being here. You and your genes have earned getting to where you are now.

Enjoy it.

Best,
Styrer

312. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159675 by Styrer- on April 12, 2008 at 7:15 pm

Whether you or anyone else agrees with Steve's findings, the manner in which you expressed your displeasure was both ignorant and rude at best. I would also point out that you asked. And you were a serious prick about the answer. If you aren't prepared to deal with an answer you don't like then you shouldn't ask the question. Whether or not you agree with Steve Zara, he stated his position politely (and at your request), for which you slapped him in the face. I for one, believe you owe Steve a most humble apology.

Well, Jon, your laying into me as a defence for my laying into Steve is rather nice, I must say.

Didn't think there were many of us left, going by the flat-out shite so many members tolerate until someone says 'enough is enough'. Good man.

But that you are totally off your little protecting trolly to jump in here and protect the eminent Steve shows only that you are not aware that the scientific fucker, whom I hold in highest regard, must be subjected as all others to questioning about their propositions.

Steve can amply defend himself against a presumptuous upstart like myself, and you should grant him the chance, before entering the arena, to do so.

Whereas you, sir, seem to me to be a self-seeking advertiser of his own occasionally worthwhile, verbose posts, for whom passion such as my own, one way or another, may prove useful to endorse your rather pedantically unengaging, perhaps correct, posts as an aside.

Trust me - you may yet require such!

Let it not be unsaid that Steve's approbation of your comments is of absolute irrelevance to the charges I've made against him. They speak to neither the veracity of your complaint nor to its substance. In the same way, your flouncing in here to protect the word of Steve against such a guttersnipe as myself holds no sway whatsoever in Steve's EMPIRICAL finding of my assertions, one way or the other.

To return to your dubious phrasing, Jon, and to the substance of your post - do think on, you rather endearing prick and fuckwit.

I await Steve's comments, as I did before you, Jon, ever made your almost imperceptible squeak. I regret that my ears are so formed that I heard it.

Best,
Styrer

313. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159657 by Styrer- on April 12, 2008 at 6:01 pm

Comment #159649 by Steve Zara on April 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm

However, I have never had any 'emotional' investment in Stenger's ideas other than that his ideas have lent some support in my engagements with theists that have shut them up.


I realise this, and I have found that rather worrying. It was why I was mildly concerned about some aspects of Paula Kirby's otherwise outstanding "Fleabytes" review.

There is no such thing as "atheist-friendly physics". There is just physics. We, as hopefully rational people, have to accept what physics in general shows us, not just what one or two atheist physicists write. We should not trawl the bookshelves of WH Smith for popular physics books that we agree with and assume that what is within those books is what most physicists believe.

If we pick books that support our beliefs and quote them, we are just as guilty of quote mining as those who pick bible verses to support their views of morality.

It's been a long time coming - the final recipient was not 'pre-ordained' - but it is you, Steve, who receives my carefully allotted 'TUSH AND FIE'.

You were WORRIED, sir, that certain findings may negate or confirm certain commentators' opinions? Oh fucking grow up.

Steve, I have enormous respect for your scientific acumen, but I am increasingly finding your acquiescent, 'don't upset anyone', 'I don't hate anyone, honest, cos I don't love anyone either' ethos behind your statements a real fucking pain in the arse.

You are absolutely correct that science is above any interpretations you fear twats like me may make; but you must also know that science shows that twattish, faith-drenched assertions are equally to be driven to marginalisation by their very utterance and questionable hold on notions of faith BY SCIENCE ITSELF.

When, sir, are you going to take a fucking side in all of this, and say what you fucking mean?

It was why I was mildly concerned about some aspects of Paula Kirby's otherwise outstanding "Fleabytes" review.

As far as I know, it is I who was the only fucker to express disagreement with Paula's writing of her piece on that thread. I received some flak for stating my opinion that, because Dawkins had already said it all, it need never have been written.

BUT - you, sir, made NOT A SINGLE CRITICLE REMARK, as I recall, apart from nauseating, sycophantic expressions of sheer approbation, of Paula's critique. If I am wrong, please re-direct me to your criticism on that thread. But to offer here, on an entirely different thread, your assertion above is to weaken your claim to asserting anything apposite HERE.

Come on, Steve. Persuade me I'm wrong.

Best,
Styrer

314. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159644 by Styrer- on April 12, 2008 at 5:19 pm

I am, at heart, scientist. I don't present scientific views based on popularity. If you have some emotional investment in Stenger's ideas, that, I am afraid, is your problem.

Yes, I agree, it would certainly be my problem. However, I have never had any 'emotional' investment in Stenger's ideas other than that his ideas have lent some support in my engagements with theists that have shut them up. Call that 'emotional', Steve, if you will; but I suspect that you, and very many other members here, would seek to achieve the same.

I suppose that I am a little irritated that while Stenger's views are the very cause of - as I requested - your investigations, you have failed here, on this thread, on this website of reason and rationality, to offer anything more than a 'he has provided no evidence at all for his idea' together with a promise that your denunciation of his ideas will appear not here, but on a 'blog', presumably your own.

If you wouldn't mind, please post your comments here, too. I asked you the question here, and so I'd like an answer to it here.

Unreasonable?

Best,
Styrer

315. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159633 by Styrer- on April 12, 2008 at 4:53 pm

My whole life revolves around science in the health care arena. What you are telling me now is that it is better to say there is no answer than to consider all posibilities.. Is that what you mean to tell me.

Bigcanuck, do you not see that your notion - brought to young, questioning minds in the classroom and elsewhere - that 'God' replaces all scientific methodologically acquired data is WHOLLY unscientific? Can you not see, sir, that Stein shares this view? Can you not see, sir, that insisting that a god who either is against or for evolution (if 'for', by setting it in motion and seeing over millennia his 'omnipotent' and 'omniscient' will; if 'against', by providing us with so much duplicitous evidence that evolution happened that the only conclusion is a lying god) is in fact ANTI-scientific?

How you can proceed to treat part of your life to the full demands of evidence as a scientist - including, I hope, those parts which require you to be a teacher and not a proselytiser - and another part to irrational, insubstantiated claims made without evidence but with only hope utterly and completely defies me.

Styrer

316. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159624 by Styrer- on April 12, 2008 at 4:37 pm

Comment #159618 by Bonzai on April 12, 2008 at 4:21 pm

Yes, Bonzai, I agree that it is up to faithheads to prove their point, but with Stenger came a whole new idea - that we can actually disprove the idea of god scientifically.

I liked it, as it was bold, 'greatly daring' (as the Hitch described it in The Portable Atheist) and I am reluctant to see this type of challenging discourse go. As Dawkins has now said repeatedly: 'A universe with a god is very different scientifically from one without'. I would like to see this scientific challenge to god and gods being relentlessly pursued.

(On the rudeness thing - don't worry, mate! I'm used to receiving abuse, and am ignorant enough simply to return it!)

Best,
Styrer

317. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159619 by Styrer- on April 12, 2008 at 4:26 pm

Actually, Steve, on re-consideration, I have to say I think you are being a bit of a twat about this.

Look - Stenger posits a universe where its own being is more likely than its not being, and goes to some considerable degree to support his notion.

That you would, sir, seek to dismiss it by means of a 'blog' entry seems to me to be the height of arrogance.

Is this man not a world-class, world-renowned scientist? Would you not expect his findings to have already been found in error if he is simply wrong?

For you to suggest that he presents 'no evidence at all for his idea' is surely a smack to the head of someone whose entire academic career, and hence CONCLUSIONS, have been wholly evidenced driven.

Is your own view, leading to your denunciation of a 'one-universe' guy like Stenger, not simply that there are multiple universes, a view which requires similar levels of evidence as those of Stenger's ideas to support?

I perceive a double standard here, and I am very displeased with you, Steve, as a result.

Best,
Styrer

318. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159610 by Styrer- on April 12, 2008 at 4:02 pm

Comment #159605 by Steve Zara on April 12, 2008 at 3:50 pm

Bugger.

So all of the theists - against whom I've been tentatively arguing that we NOW have understanding of precisely how something can emerge from nothing, thanks primarily to Stenger - will be quite entitled, following your research, to shout loud and clear 'I TOLD YOU! Something CANNOT come from NOTHING!'

Come on, Steve. Leave me with something a little more persuasively NON-GOD-like!

Best,
Styrer

319. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159600 by Styrer- on April 12, 2008 at 3:33 pm

Comment #159591 by Steve Zara on April 12, 2008 at 3:17 pm

Some while ago, Steve, you said you'd check out my interpretation of Stenger, to the tune that 'nothing' is inherently unstable, so permitting quantum mechanics to do its stuff and create 'something'. The whole idea was, if I recall correctly, that 'something' is a more likely state than that of 'nothing'.

Did you get anywhere with your investigations?

Thanks.

[Edit: and sorry if this is a digression! It's still so much on my mind, I'm afraid.]

Best,
Styrer

320. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159592 by Styrer- on April 12, 2008 at 3:21 pm

Comment #159579 by bigcanuck on April 12, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Ben Stein is not trying to damage anything scientific. This is what I'm having a problem with. He quite distinctly states that since Darwinists have no answer for how life began, there is obviously large holes in their theory.

He is concerned (as I am) that discussion is not encouraged on alternate theories that could explain the very lynch pin of any theory... if life evolves without intelligent design of some type... how did it begin in the first place? Ben stein is a very intelligent man and I don't think you'll find anywhere that he discredits science... he is discrediting those who would shut down discussion. When Dawkins tells those who disagree with him to just "shut up" it is simply arrogant and not productive.

Bigcanuck, do you not see that introducing into science, and into science lessons at school, the notion that 'God did it, and there's your answer' is 'damaging' to science?

Are you, sir, at all acquainted with the very same scientific method which delivered us from the idea that illness is a punishment from god. and granted us the ability to see germs for what they were? Do you not realise that your whole life depends on the scientific method having proved, on the basis of evidence, and a million times over, that it has better and more productive answers to what were once the most mysterious workings of nature, but attributed to 'gods'?

Ben Stein, sir, is attempting to refute ALL of this. His (shamefully unspoken, in this film) notion of Intelligent Design is PRECISELY - 'God did it.'

How can you possibly assert that Stein is NOT 'trying to damage anything scientific'?

And please, do us all a favour, including yourself, and tell us when Dawkins has ever - except perhaps rhetorically - said 'shut up' to anyone who disagrees with him.

You amaze me.

Styrer

321. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159575 by Styrer- on April 12, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Enjoy whatever delusion you wish, my friend and have a lovely vacation from reality. Let us know how it was when and if you ever return to us.

Dangerous invitation, AllanW. It is precisely the superstitious supernaturalists' eternally posted postcard during that vacation stating 'I wish you were here' that is the PRECISE problem.

I know you said what you said with some levity, in the same way I have used some to respond here, but I do ask you to let the letter of your word reflect the seriousness of the dangers we really face when confronting the insane tossbags of the faithful.

Same goes for all of us. Watch and be proud of your lexis when used to denounce the faithheads. It means too much to be thrown lightly around, such that the next fucking faithhead trolling here uses it to 'endorse' their position.

The approach we adopt and the language we use in fighting the forces of irrationality are more important, I think, than some here recognise.

Best,
Styrer

322. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #159561 by Styrer- on April 12, 2008 at 2:04 pm

Comment #157748 by AtheistJon on April 9, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Does RD really need somebody to throw him softballs (pardon the americanism) like you did?

AtheistJon - to develop, just a touch, what Henning rightly says, I think it would be a HUGE mistake to think, just because WE have become familiar with some of these responses, and hence welcomely comfortable with them, that they are thereby rendered unimportant or easy to grasp for all.

They are NOT.

Dawkins et al are incalculably enormous forces against superstitious supernaturalism PRECISELY because of their unabashed repetition of the key arguments which seem so pedestrian to us all now.

Don't bite the hand that fed you in the first place, man.

Best,
Styrer

323. Fleabytes

Comment #159556 by Styrer- on April 12, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Any sign, by the way, of that cowardly shit for brains Robertson answering my now FOUR times repeated question?

No? What a piece of work this guy is.

I'll check in when I can, just in case...

Travelling at the moment, subject to iffy wireless connections, so you will let me know, any kindly member here, won't you, if the faith-ridden turd frees itself of enough repeated flushes to attempt a response?

Thanks and best,
Styrer

324. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158518 by Styrer- on April 10, 2008 at 4:45 pm

Folks who defend Richard Dawkins in the face of criticism worship him as their idol, their substitute diety.

I really do wonder - again - why blockheaded faithheads such as yourself, D.I.Ogenes, employ terms from your own superstitious supernaturalist sphere to denigrate us atheists and anti-theists.

Do you really think that you are intimating some kind of wise, ironic commentary and criticism?

Way off the mark, you twerp.

You are actually - unwittingly, of course, but nothing new there - expressing suspicion and criticism of those very terms themselves on which you state that your own screwball claims to veracity lie!

A rather tasty irony, don't you think? And one which shows up your sheer ignorance and short-sightedness even while attempting - uselessly - to be your most calculatingly clear-minded!

It would all be rather entertaining in a rather perverse fashion if you lot weren't so dripping with duplicity, propagating shite that just keeps on shitting.

You're unlikely to stop, though, I suppose, so just keep on with your mad digging, you utter lunacy-drenched twat of humanity, the better we can ALL see the huge, gaping hole of sheer vacuity you're intent on creating for yourselves.

Styrer

325. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158500 by Styrer- on April 10, 2008 at 4:08 pm

Comment #158493 by Goldy on April 10, 2008 at 3:53 pm

The article makes for genuinely distressing reading, Goldy. Sickeningly, though, there is little new here.

The very force behind these atrocities - so evident EVERYWHERE once one is minded to see it - is, of course, the very same destructive, irrational faith that the ridiculous, callous, mind-numblingly ignorant anti-rational 'members' on this thread persist in endorsing oh so desperately and ridiculously against the beautiful, awe-inspiring clear-sighted view of life that Dawkins has spent his life and career trying to show us all.

D.I.Ogenes and his fucking twisted ilk would have us all hastening with them towards a supersitious, life-threatening abyss.

WHEN will enough finally be enough?

Styrer

326. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158488 by Styrer- on April 10, 2008 at 3:34 pm

Alan

With such comedic efforts as D.I. Ogenes has strained to piece together, they do indeed seem to be of one 'mind' (permit a generous definition here). They are an absolute hoot!

Though not, I suspect, in quite the way D.I. Ogenes might think...

Best,
Styrer

327. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #157545 by Styrer- on April 9, 2008 at 8:44 am

Well, Al-rawandi, Annabanana has actually rested it for you.

Thanks for the explanation, Annabanana. Not pleasant for you, not at all, and I wish I had known.

I was obviously wrong here. Sorry, Al. You could have been a bit clearer with the evidence, I think, in which case I wouldn't have taken such a forceful stance, but you do have my apologies.

You're still a belligerent fucktard, of course.

Best,
Styrer

328. Fleabytes

Comment #157470 by Styrer- on April 9, 2008 at 6:16 am

Comment #157451 by Incredulous on April 9, 2008 at 5:45 am

Very thoughtful comment. The poor fella is clearly going through a tough time at the moment, and I extend to him as you do my very best wishes.

But I hope he realises that it would be a huge mistake to think that Robertson and his clan can help him and provide him with the companionship he seems to be longing for. That lot will simply have the poor fucker for lunch.

I wish him well.

Best,
Styrer

329. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157330 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 11:41 pm

Thank you for doing this, Richard.

Best,
Styrer

330. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #157303 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 9:45 pm

Hang on a moment, MaxD and Goldy.

You say take my defense of Richard Morgan to PM?

But you must surely know that fuckwit Al made entirely public, without recourse to PM whatsoever, his despicable statement that Richard Morgan is a 'PERVERT'.

Why should a public calumny be treated to private discussion?

No. Al rawandi made this issue public, for all members to see, to read, to worry about, to laugh about, to ignore, to contemplate just before going to bed.

I will not permit his vicious, unsubstantiated claim that Richard Morgan is a pervert to slink silently to PM.

When Al confirms that he has apologised, in the very same public arena to which he introduced his libellous statement, then I will withdraw.

Best,
Styrer

331. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #157300 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 9:33 pm

It's things like tune, melody, rhythm, harmony, beat, polyphony and so forth I have no idea where to start on.

Whereas all of these things, I now note, are not unusual to your posts here, and to the crafted way you make your point.

I think you might find a new area of reality to explore if you take your heart to some of the most emotional singers, as a start.

Give Tim Buckley a shot, and move on to his son Jeff if you acquire even the smallest of taste.

I really cannot imagine a world without music. And a world without the Buckleys is a rather tough proposition for me.

But that's just me.

Best,
Styrer

332. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #157295 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 9:22 pm

Richard

I haven't seen you this on form for a while.

Superb, sir.

When you stand up and talk, even the tossers take note.

Keep standing and talking. You're getting through.

Fuck, we're going to miss you when you're dead.

Please crack on while you can. There is no-one waiting in the wings, as far as I can see.

Best,
Styrer

333. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #157271 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 7:54 pm

I'd have preferred a little more conversation, a little less reaction, maybe...

(Note to self, stop paraphrasing Elvis lyrics)

Now, Cartomancer, the fact that you can even conceive of such musically-related humour makes me dubious about your protestation of a music-absent life...

If I add in your self-composed 'Model of a Major Modern Atheist', I begin to wonder about the veracity of e-life...and if you even knew what I meant by 'Bops'!

Hmm.

Styrer

334. Rep. Davis: The Worst Person in the World

Comment #157253 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 7:15 pm

7. Comment #157241 by Diacanu on April 8, 2008 at 6:56 pm

YES!!

One of the posters in the other thread sent this in to Olbermann, and it worked!! You did it, buddy!!

*Goes to look up who it was*

That's right, I remember, the member said s/he had put it in to Olbermann.

IF it was our resident RD.Netter - fucking fantastic and thank you!

Best,
Styrer

335. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #157234 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 6:39 pm

Many hours later I now look in, to see where al rawandi's apology to Richard Morgan lies, for attempting in most duplicitous, shitty, arrogant, twatting, stupid, ignorant and unfair manner to state, unequivocally, that Richard Morgan is a pervert.

And I find nothing.

Al rawandi, you are the most cowardly, lying, unpleasant floating turd I have encountered on this site so far.

Put this right, you utter shit. APOLOGISE TO RICHARD MORGAN FOR STATING TO ALL ON THIS SITE THAT HE IS A PERVERT.

I AM holding my fucking breath, you utter horror and shame of humanity.

Apologise as you should, and all this can go.

Styrer

336. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #157223 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 6:16 pm

Da Hitch is absolutely pissed! Out of his tree.

But wins hands down regardless.

What a player. And what a tragedy to have to own up to being brother to that utter fuckwit Peter. Did he ever say more than 'er...we need god...er or we'll kill each other...er... hoodies in UK kick shit out of granny...er...get god...er...er...er...FUTILE!'?

Christopher pissed is better than most folk sober. Including his anal-retentive, unevidenced, pro-faith twat of a bruv.

What an utter disgrace.

Glad my bruv is a fellow atheist.

Best,
Styrer

337. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #157214 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 5:45 pm

Oh Paula. You overwhelm me.

Not only were you yourself a magnificent, professional and genuinely engaged interviewer, but you also brought out some of the very best of Richard that I have had the pleasure to see in quite a while.

Please accept my most sincere thanks for doing this.

For Richard - what a privilege it always is to hear him speak about how we arrived here and how we should really consider ourselves so very lucky to be reflecting on our origins at all.

Hyperbole and special pleading be damned - this is one of the best Dawkins interviews I have ever seen, and that Paula, fellow RD.nettist, was its driving force simply adds to the pleasure.

Thank you so much.

Styrer

338. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #157160 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 3:42 pm

343. Comment #157111 by Quetzalcoatl on April 8, 2008 at 2:58 pm

Styrer-

no offence, but it really is time to let this "debate" end.

'But sir, but sir, he started it, sir! Tell him off, sir, I didn't do nothink, sir, honest!'

Nearly, Quetz. I will acquiesce as soon as Al retracts his accusation that Richard Morgan is a pervert.

As neatly and as quickly as you seem to wish this issue to go away - no, sir. In the absence of either apology or retraction of his charge, made in complete absence of evidence, al rawandi remains a disgrace to this site.

Think on, Quetx. This is no small issue, nor especially for Richard Morgan.

We can call this closed, as you wish it to be, once al rawandi relocates his balls, admits he went too far, and apologises to Richard Morgan.

Styrer

339. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #157100 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 2:52 pm

326. Comment #157074 by al-rawandi on April 8, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Styrer,



All my comments are on record.

I, unlike some others, do not delete my posts.

Whatever I post, remains for all to see. I have taken a position and defended it successfully. You have made a total fool of yourself.

I am sick of repeating myself for the benefit of intellectual halflings such as yourself. Richard Morgan made perverted comments, in my mind that makes him a pervert. You may have a much more narrow definition of pervert, sort of the converse of your untraversably wide definition of truth.

And yes you are a liar for trying to sell the "My english is bad" nonsense. Like anyone would actually buy that load of shit.

This ends our correspondence. I refuse to continue to debate a liar.... it is too much like punching a jellyfish.

It is with sorrow that we must announce the departure from reason to daftness of a member of of Richarddawkins.net.

Attempts at resuscitation to reason were made, but enunciations of 'god help me' and 'is that you, granny? indicated systemic breakdown.

At 2.36, it is reported that the patient uttered the phrase 'punching a jellyfish' before a painless and peaceful passing on to inanity.

All donations to go to RDFRS.

Styrer

340. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #157067 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 2:28 pm

322. Comment #157064 by al-rawandi on April 8, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Styrer,




Your determination, sir, to portray a collection of Richard's comments - entirely your own, selective list of comments - as indicating authorship by a pervert is utterly contemptible.




I did not say it was indicative of authorship. I said it was a window into character.


Please stop lying.




After your apology to Richard Morgan has been issued, then I may decide to hold you here in a little more regard than I currently do.




You have mistaken me for someone who gives a shit about what you think or what you say. And you stand alone in your assertions.


You have been exposed as a liar as well. And now you engage in paragraph after paragraph of substanceless drivel. I have shown how Richard was "innapropriate", how he was dishonest, and now how you are pedaling the same dishonesty.


The jury is in, you are out.

And so the spirit of Clearthinker lives on...

Why a liar, al?

Are you, you utter arsewipe, calling Richard Morgan a pervert or not?

If you wish to retract your verminous and duplicitous accusation, I stand by.

In anticipation,

Styrer

341. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #157058 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 2:13 pm

297. Comment #157029 by al-rawandi on April 8, 2008 at 1:50 pm

As I said,



Despite the attacks, ignorance of evidence, purposeful dishonesty, and ignorance of popular opinion and testimony, I am still willing to let it go. So long as an apology is issued.

And so the worm continues to contort...

You, Al-rawandi, are an absolute disgrace.

I have noted it several times, but was prepared to let it go, on the basis that your views on Islam coincided with my own.

But you have truly gone too far this time, no matter how much vicarious confidence you may feel from members not ready to step up to the mark here.

Your accusation that Richard Morgan is a pervert is backed up, from you, by comments made which, if pressed, could really only be interpreted as 'inappropriate'. Your determination, sir, to portray a collection of Richard's comments - entirely your own, selective list of comments - as indicating authorship by a pervert is utterly contemptible. That you remain in apparent ignorance of your rotten interpretation would, under normal circumstances, show YOU as the individual harbouring worrying tendencies; but because of the nature of sporadic posting, you have acquired somewhat of a support group.

Good for you.

But your consequent, ensuing confidence in requesting an apology from me is really the height of hubris.

You, sir, are, on this issue, simply undeserving of the notion of proper engagement, let alone of enough engagement to result in an apology which you most curiously, perversely and unjustifiably request from me.

After your apology to Richard Morgan has been issued, then I may decide to hold you here in a little more regard than I currently do.

Styrer

342. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #157035 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Look, naysayers - the word 'PERVERT' carries serious baggage.

Al-rawandi, and the rest of his supporters, have failed entirely to show me evidence which could even APPROACH formulating such a view.

As for apologies - I await Al's to Richard Morgan.

Styrer

343. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #157028 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 1:49 pm

I must say that I must be the slowest typer here - I post, and a dozen posts have sailed by.

I'll try to do better.

Best,
Styrer

344. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #157020 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 1:44 pm

280. Comment #157001 by al-rawandi on April 8, 2008 at 1:23 pm

Styrer,



You must be mentally retarded.


Richard Morgan deleted all of his posts!

Styrer, you are a pathetic toad. You simply can't stand the fact that I dish it out evenly. I have never spared anyone on this site, and have been fair in my application of invective. I don't single people out, unless they single themselves out.

You are incapable of rational thought at this point. You are on an angry rant and have selected me for some reason. Either because:

1) You have some attachment to Richard Morgan (which makes the combination of the deletion of his posts and you attacks suspicious)

or


2) You have a personal vendetta against me, which makes you a pathetic person, but that much was already obvious.


You, like your doyen Richard Morgan, have been exposed as a petty, dishonest, fucktard.

And so your award for shittest of the shit is delivered, in hand, with your post above.

Scooternyc would be more than proud of your 'You must be mentally retarded. '

You don't dish it out evenly, you hateful worm. You splatter it without control, in copious amounts, hitting anyone who happens to be passing your pathetic cerebrum, unwittlingly, by.

Your pathetic attempts at justifying your charge of PERVERT against Richard Morgan show further that, unless you are on the subject of Islam, you are a hopeless, lily-livered opportunistic cunt, self-regaling in vacuous attempts to show off...well, very little.

Apologise for your irrational, venomous attack claiming Richard Morgan is a PERVERT.

Or choose to remain the wholesale, full-blooded, hot air-blowing dickhead you would surely prefer not to be.

Styrer

345. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #157005 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 1:29 pm

277. Comment #156996 by Quetzalcoatl on April 8, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Styrer-

I don't like the way this is going. The comments Al posted were only a sample of what was said. Richard did make sexist comments. I saw them. I saw Al's responses calling him on it. Others responded as well, and I'm sure when they're online they'll vouch to that.

There's no need for insults on this. While the comments might have been taken as jokes individually, they were persistent.

It is through PM exchanges with RM that I have learned that he is a thoroughly decent man, who, having lived in France for the past 25 years, is rather nervous about his use of English and about how he is perceived.

That al-rawandi has come up with some of the most vile epithets for our - let's be honest - colleague in matters anti-faith has disgusted me to the core.

While al's hatred of religion, of Islam and of the faithful is a match for my own, I think he has seriously fucked up here.

Styrer

346. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156998 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 1:20 pm

Your constant attacks along with the deletion of certain posts is starting to look quite suspicious.

Let this be clear immediately, fuckwit: I have never ONCE deleted a post on this site.

That you are hanging, ever more desperately, with pitiful evidence, to the notion that Richard Morgan is a PERVERT shows up your own bizarre fucking make-up of a psychological hang-up.

Your have gone so far over the line on this one, sir, that it is no longer visible.

Fucking sort yourself out, apologise to Richard and get back to the main score.

Styrer

347. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156987 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 1:10 pm

269. Comment #156971 by al-rawandi on April 8, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Styrer,



Take these comments and shove them up your ass. And don't ever call me out like that again, especially when you are dead wrong!



Comment #122909 by Richard Morgan on February 6, 2008 at 9:13 am



Please do NOT edit this comment to correct this little error. Your Freudian slips are as delicious as your avatar, and your contributions a real joy to come across.




Comment #134866 by Richard Morgan on February 28, 2008 at 9:19 am

annabanana : I'll see your......whatever you're willing to show me. At my age, one can't be too picky.
EDIT : I do not recommend hymen restoration surgery : I couldn't sit down for weeks afterwards.



Juxta Monkey :

Jesus, you should see me walking down the hallways! It is one humorous sight. ;)


You can walk down my hallway any time you want. But stop calling me "Jesus" - it makes ne nervous on this site.




Here are a couple of samples.



Where is my apology you fucktard? Now stop wasting my time.

And this is...what? Your foul interpretation of what constitutes fucking BANTER on this site?

Shove it back up your own ass, you duplicitous, self-righteous fuck.

Styrer

348. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156973 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 12:56 pm

257. Comment #156948 by al-rawandi on April 8, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Styrer,


I posted the verbal sexual abuse against Anna before. You can look through his past posts and see it for yourself, assuming you can spare the time.

As for the lies, there was private correspondence in which I was accused of being a right wing fanatic. I will ask permission of those involved if I can post it here.

The rest is on the "anti-Quran" thread.

I spent the better part of 2 days having people lie about what I was saying and making false accusations. RM was part of this cabal of hyenas. I will look through that thread and see if you were as well.


I could give a fuck what you think. When you spend the better part of two days being targeted with lies and abuse then you can come and fucking type in bold letters, pontificating your sensitivities to all of us.

Thanks for your, once again, enlightened commentary.

So Al gives me THIS? What a fucking reply.

You call on ME to find evidence against YOUR CALUMNY by trawling through Richard Morgan's posts? Fuck off. Present it all HERE or apologise to Richard.

As for your accusation of Richard lying - you refer all your support for it to PRIVATE POSTS? And you expect me, if not others, to endorse the foul criticism you've made of a fellow member on this basis? What a fucking joke.

Giving one slight nod to your PM evidence - 'I was accused of being a right wing fanatic' is not LYING, you tool. It is an ACCUSATION, anticipating a reponse from you TO REFUTE IT.

Look up the definition of 'lie'.

2 days having people lie about what I was saying and making false accusations. RM was part of this cabal of hyenas.

So have you subjected those other 'people' to the same hateful, vile, shit-filled lexis to which you have subjected Richard Morgan? Pah. Have you fuck.

It seems that it is precisely YOUR sensitivities which have been piqued by Richard Morgan. Certainly not mine, you verminous twat.

Styrer

349. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156952 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 12:32 pm

256. Comment #156946 by Peacebeuponme on April 8, 2008 at 12:25 pm

styrer
You had better have some fucking terrific evidence for this claim.

Be very careful here, al-rawandi. Not only is your continued abuse against Richard Morgan pissing me off; you are on extremely dangerous legal ground.
Dodgy legal ground - on a web threat. Hmm let me see

Prince Phillip had Diana killed
Tom Cruise is gay
John McCain touches children.

The liar accusation is easily proved by the Diogenes2008 posts. The pervert one...well maybe that's a bit strong, but he did make some untoward comments to at least one female poster, from memory.

After his post on the FCOS he has shown himself to be duplicitous, so I call cunt on him.

After all the deletions that have been made on this thread, I'll admit that I am not up to speed. (I really fucking wish that ALL members would let their posts stand, death-threats excepted, in the interest of some fucking COGENCY.)

But Al surely has gone too far here. I demand that he either retract or substantiate his claims.

Immediately.

Styrer

350. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156943 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 12:20 pm

215. Comment #156815 by al-rawandi on April 8, 2008 at 9:38 am

Quetz,




Richard Morgan is a habitual liar, and a pervert.

I have exposed him as both on this site.

Al-rawandi

You had better have some fucking terrific evidence for both these claims.

Be very careful here, al-rawandi. Not only is your continued abuse against Richard Morgan pissing me off; you are on extremely dangerous legal ground.

Back up WITH EVIDENCE your currently despicable comments immediately, or consider yourself marginalised by at least THIS member.

Styrer