Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by Shuggy


301. The Future Forum Presents: Christopher Hitchens and Marvin Olasky

Comment #50029 by Shuggy on June 14, 2007 at 3:36 pm

22. Comment #49910 by BMMcArdle on June 14, 2007 at 4:20 am

Hitchens is wearing the American flag on the lapel of his jacket.
It's called the zeal of the convert.

302. The Future Forum Presents: Christopher Hitchens and Marvin Olasky

Comment #49872 by Shuggy on June 14, 2007 at 1:42 am

Olasky's argument boils down to "Religious people do good things, therefore religion is good." Sometimes the atheist argument looks like the mirror image of that so we have a stalemate. In fact, we need to argue more clearly that good people would do good anyway, just as bad people do bad anyway, whether religious or not. (And as Stephen Weinberg [sp?] said "but for good people to do bad, that takes religion")

CH did not say "Religion annihilates everything" but "poisons" i.e. taints, a much milder claim.

CH is not a gracious person: he could at least have acknowledged the applause for taking US citizenship.

I like "The ad hominemer the better!"

303. The Great Mutator

Comment #49807 by Shuggy on June 13, 2007 at 3:03 pm

There is almost complete agreement in the science community. There is total disarray within the religion community.

As the people of Gaza and the West Bank know to their cost.

And the extraordinary thing is that religious folk can't see the elephant - and the six-armed goddess - in the room. "We believe this, you believe that, but we can live in peace." And all efforts to establish which of them is "right" have ended in disaster so at best they have a truce. Sad, very sad.

304. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #49446 by Shuggy on June 12, 2007 at 2:04 am

I'm a little unhappy about his dismissal of the Yakama Indians' concerns about Kennewick Man, and especially his carelessness with their name. These things can be resolved with a bit of diplomacy: they might have been reassured to know how very little of the tissue would be needed for a DNA test, and that they could have the bones back for their rites when the scientists were finished - though the racist issues chrystalstar mentions would throw a spanner in the works.

305. The New Atheists

Comment #49420 by Shuggy on June 11, 2007 at 10:59 pm

My only objection is to the phrase "New Atheists". What's new about it? What's the difference between the atheism of Dawkins and Hitchins and Harris and that of Russell and Ayer and Bradlaugh and Paine?

306. Tome truths

Comment #49351 by Shuggy on June 11, 2007 at 3:18 pm

I hope he's right, just because truth is better than lies, but are we ready for the hordes of people who are lost without the crutch of religion, and especially the hordes of young people who think that without religion, anything goes (that you can get away with)? You and I know that there are ample secular reasons for (to keep it simple) goodness, but we haven't just had our props kicked away.

-----
He refers to "any major bookstore". I wonder if he's ever been inside a "Christian bookstore"?

307. Christopher Hitchens on Religion

Comment #48719 by Shuggy on June 8, 2007 at 7:49 pm

He can't go up against the testimony of believers. ... He's out to prove that my testimony and my salutations of my belief in a God is dead wrong. ... it's not fair upon this planet, to human mankind, to discredit a personal testimony ... ." Stephan Munsey

"testimony" like "witness" is a word these people don't seem to understand. A witness gives testimony to what they have witnessed, and then they are cross-examined. Hearing God speak would be hearsay evidence, wouldn't it, and thrown out of court?

(I will not download RealPlayer - once bitten.)

308. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #47558 by Shuggy on June 5, 2007 at 12:42 am

kcjerith wrote:

i am not sure what one can do. Ban religious teaching in the home?
No, that would probably be too much of an intrusion, but one could certainly keep public schooling secular, and possibly make public schooling compulsory - let them indoctrinate the kids in their own time. I don't know about yours, but our government got sucked in by the line that private (church) schools were lifting a burden from the state, so the state should fund them.

309. Beggars belief: Robin McKie on The God Delusion

Comment #47263 by Shuggy on June 3, 2007 at 7:46 pm

Rtambee wrote:

what I would like to say in response is to partly emphasise the significance of the trancendent experience and to partly clarify the explanatory power of the spiritual approach to the universe that has demonstrated its ability to transform lives, as Augustine said, due to its ability to reformulate the dialogue between faith and reason.
You speak as if there is only one kind of transcendent experience, but there are many. What makes you think those brought about by, say, prayer or meditation, point to anything different from those brought about by drugs or really good sex? Or, having mentioned those, rock n' roll - as in a long session in a moshpit? They too transform lives.

310. Beggars belief: Robin McKie on The God Delusion

Comment #47262 by Shuggy on June 3, 2007 at 7:41 pm

A theocratic argument for Enlightenme...

You can't proclaim aAmonism without affirming Amonism. This is shown by the phonetic similarity of "a" and "A". Therefore, God exists.

I call this the Argument from First Vowel and this is perhaps the first (and only) time it has appeared in public... :)

Excellent, I will raise you:

I hereby found the religion of the worship of Athe (pronounced "ay-THee"), and you are all by definition, worshippers.

As for Amen, Wikipedia says, 'Common English translations of the word amen include: "Verily", "Truly", "So be it", and "Let it be". Colloquially, it can also mean "I agree," or "Well said."' so it seems quite secular in itself.

311. U.S. a theocratic state, says former Canadian ambassador

Comment #46859 by Shuggy on June 2, 2007 at 1:29 am

Comment #46830 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on June 1, 2007 at 9:45 pm

The US is now broadly loathed and in many circles considered dangerous,... the US is doomed to insignificance, and justly deserved,
But I don't think you can ignore the US's castiron grip on world popular culture. Wherever bellies are full, I fear you'll find people care more about "Friends" and MTV and wearing Nikes than global warming or nuclear threats.

312. Groundbreaking Research Has Scientists Talking With Apes

Comment #46855 by Shuggy on June 2, 2007 at 1:14 am

The comments with the original articles include several of the form "But never forget, the apes are just animals." I'd almost forgotten people still make that distinction.

313. Atheism shall make you free

Comment #46854 by Shuggy on June 2, 2007 at 1:11 am

2. Comment #46829 by roach on June 1, 2007 at 9:45 pm

I no longer call myself an agnostic ... That fence really started to hurt my ass.
T-shirts coming up!

314. Groundbreaking Research Has Scientists Talking With Apes

Comment #46796 by Shuggy on June 1, 2007 at 4:35 pm

31. Comment #46579 by davyB on May 31, 2007 at 5:42 pm

I pointed to the picture of the moon and said, "The moon." At first he looked very puzzled. Then suddenly, a look of wonder came over his face. "The moon? The mooooon?" he said. "Yes, the moon." He became very animated. "THE MOON!"

That reminds me that when I was learning to talk, my word for an aeroplane was "moon car". Can an(other) ape do anything creative like that?

315. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46792 by Shuggy on June 1, 2007 at 4:16 pm

126. Comment #46782 by BaronOchs on June 1, 2007 at 3:00 pm

... e^(i*pi) will always be -1 for me I don't care what popocopatotolettle says!

Well, a large segment of mainstream christians believe that 3=1, from which e^(i*pi) = -2 can easily be derived.

Speaking of e^(i*pi)=-1, You may be interested in
http://www.cafepress.com/ahua/2438201 .

316. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46788 by Shuggy on June 1, 2007 at 4:03 pm

114. Comment #46718 by Hip_Priest on June 1, 2007 at 9:04 am

I checked out the blogs4brownback page regarding this article:

http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/2007/05/31/brownback-shows-the-new-york-times-whats-what/#comments

What's with the bit about treefrogs? Looks like a term to abuse intelligent people.

317. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46627 by Shuggy on May 31, 2007 at 10:15 pm

He should have stopped while he was ahead.

If he'd kept silent people might have thought he was a fool, but by speaking he's removed all possible doubt.

318. Groundbreaking Research Has Scientists Talking With Apes

Comment #46541 by Shuggy on May 31, 2007 at 3:24 pm

By far the greater part of the interpretation is going on on the human side. Kanzi pushes "Surprise" and the naive reporter is surprised, but Kanzi has seen it happen dozens of times. And how "Surprise" means "Pass me that box of candy beside you" is beyond me. Having a consistent set of sounds emerge at the push of a button, matching the sounds experimenters make, is a neat trick, and it does give the apes the power to use what linguistic ability they have, but can the apes concatenate signs intentionally, creating meanings that the experimenters had no part in creating? I see far too much of the linguistic work being done on the human side.

The other thing lacking is that this "language" has been entirely created by the humans. (I use the quotes because it lacks the essential element of all real languages, a finite number of meaningless units [letters, phonemes, chiremes] that can build an indefinite number of meaningful units [written words, spoken words, signs])

319. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46532 by Shuggy on May 31, 2007 at 2:57 pm

Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.
So when science and religion do conflict, you'll cling to religion and oppose science? You are the Weakest Link, Goodbye!

I hear he washes the feet of other church goers,what a nut!!
Aww, that's rather sweet. I warm to him a little on hearing that. (They - usually - only do it in the week before Easter, because it's something they believe Jesus did, if he lived. It's a gesture, not serious foot-hygiene. If he did it every Sunday I'd be concerned.)

320. A Look at Regent University

Comment #46338 by Shuggy on May 31, 2007 at 1:27 am

Across the Potomac River in Virginia, the cradle of the First Amendment, a familiar figure surely smiled as he beheld this mingling of politics and piety. If he had his way, that wall would come down altogether

I can't see the video; to whom is he referring? Not anybody dead, since the dead don't "surely smile" (except insofar as worms have eaten their lips).

321. I Believe In Evolution, Except For The Whole Triassic Period

Comment #46304 by Shuggy on May 30, 2007 at 9:48 pm

we need to take a stand against these pseudoscientists who are misrepresenting 300-million-year-old fossils as 230-million-year-old fossils and claiming the Earth is 44 million years and 51 weeks older than it really is.

I'm confused. The difference between the first two figures is 70 million years, but he says the secular Triacissists are only claiming it's 44 million years and 51 weeks older. I can see that Godd/ess/es took out one Creation Week (if evolution didn't start again while S/He/It/They was/were still resting), but where did the other 25,999,999 years go?

322. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46029 by Shuggy on May 30, 2007 at 3:32 am

The Wee Frea wrote:

At the risk of upsetting you - if you want to see the devil in action have a look at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2r1GPGDWrI

You flatter yourself. I just see someone who hasn't properly understood the argument of TGD, or how evolution works.

323. The Dawkins delusion

Comment #46022 by Shuggy on May 30, 2007 at 3:10 am

scr79 wrote:

On a different tangent, about religious gatherings and their social/anthropological value -- I wonder how many, if instead of it being a religious gathering it was a weekly gathering to make the place a better world, would still attend on a weekly basis?
I think the social/anthropological value of people gathering together on a regular basis for ritual, social interaction and feelgooditiveness is inestimable. (Otherwise, I can't imagine how they can put up with the boredom of conventional services.)

324. Dawkins at the Hay Festival

Comment #46017 by Shuggy on May 30, 2007 at 2:58 am

So what is the difference between the kind of delusion that someone is Napoleon and the kind that there is a supernatural intelligent being?

All I can think of is that there is negative evidence that someone is Napoleon, such that they have to believe a variety of absurd things as well, and only a lack of evidence that there is a god. But theists do generally believe a variety of absurd things as well, so maybe that can be pulled down.

What makes a delusion pathological?

325. The Dawkins delusion

Comment #45923 by Shuggy on May 29, 2007 at 4:09 pm

The liberal and decent archbishop of Canterbury
who last week invited 800 bishops to the 10-yearly Lambeth Conference, but not the one gay one (or, it must be said, one who's broken away because of the gay one).

Has RD ever said or indicated that he expected mass deconversions as a result of his book?

326. Aiming for knockout blow in god wars

Comment #45707 by Shuggy on May 29, 2007 at 3:31 am

Helios wrote:

I'm not sure how attacking all religious belief exacerbates differences between christians and muslims.

Well since Jihadis think the West is godless, and RD is saying "and so we should be", maybe she's afraid he'll incide Jihad on us all?

327. Penn & Teller's Bullshit - Holier Than Thou With Christopher Hitchens

Comment #45678 by Shuggy on May 28, 2007 at 11:50 pm

TIKI AL wrote:

As a person who has stood in our Arizona pool during a monsoon lightning storm with the longest metal pool pole held on high begging "god's" wrath to materialize ...

Next time I'll try a tinfoil kite on bailing wire.

Going for a Darwin, are we? Pity they're all posthumous.

328. Observer Diary 27th May 2007

Comment #45672 by Shuggy on May 28, 2007 at 10:19 pm

Shuggy, interesting your choice of a motorbike type vehicle. Any particular reason for that (^8? While not dismissing this, I think that on the whole 4 wheels would be safer.
I guess I'm thinking of simplicity, and two wheels being enough for the weight, and the "training wheels" would be there if it was in danger of tipping over. Buckminster Fuller invented a three-wheeled ("Dymaxion" meaning "impressive-sounding name") car that was so unstable he had to add an aerofoil to try to keep it on the road. And most of those high, narrow "smart cars" look very tippy.

329. Observer Diary 27th May 2007

Comment #45671 by Shuggy on May 28, 2007 at 10:12 pm

Wikipedia, the democratically assembled on-line encyclopedia which, by any reasonable standards, ought to be a total failure but somehow, unaccountably, comes through with flying colours whenever you look up something you know about.



Eh?! Are we talking about the same Wikipedia here?!!!
Wasn't there a survey not that long ago which compared Wikipedia with, like, truth, and found it a tad wanting?
Partly I'm kidding... I do love it really, but I've seen a fair few gems on there!

My experience is that you find the errors on subjects you know about. I'd have said it's good for anything that isn't controversial, like the date of the Battle of Hastings.

330. Exorcism exercise for fired-up faithful

Comment #45627 by Shuggy on May 28, 2007 at 2:50 pm

A Heretic wrote:

"If you wish to kill yourself but lack the courage to, I think a visit to Palmerston North will do the trick." -- John Cleese ( See personal quotes section of his IMDB bio
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000092/bio )

But, instigated by ex-Palmerston Northian John Clarke (Fred Dagg), Palmerston North has taken its revenge by naming its rubbish tip "Mt Cleese, height 45.2 metres".
----

Mr Subritzky said if non-believers witnessed a "deliverance" they would be convinced.

"Voices speak out of people, they make various types of strange noises ... quite frequently there are manifestations of demonic power. It's very, very real and you realise you're dealing with unseen beings living within people."

Now that is delusion.

331. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45625 by Shuggy on May 28, 2007 at 2:35 pm

Lord Winston on belief in God sounds very much like Prince Charles on love. Can we look forward to a divorce* in a few years?


*But not, let us pray (to the FSM), remarriage.

332. Observer Diary 27th May 2007

Comment #45472 by Shuggy on May 28, 2007 at 1:05 am

philos wrote:

I am annoyed but accept the exercised and mild paranoia that go with security checks.

Not just paranoia, but ridiculous and wasteful excess. Like RD's experience in Miami on the way to Ecuador, on a flight from Auckland to Vancouver, there is a stop at Honolulu that isn't mentioned on the ticket. All passengers have to leave the plane, pass through US security (including questions about why they want to enter the US) into a transit lounge, then through US security again and back on to the plane. Presumably if you have any of the innumerable disqualifications for entering the US, you can't go to Vancouver. I suppose this protects their transit lounges from being blown up, but a bomber would be much more certain of getting the whole planeload by detonating in flight.

333. Observer Diary 27th May 2007

Comment #45457 by Shuggy on May 27, 2007 at 9:53 pm

Donald: I have looked for additional information on the Boobies but have found no reference to their going blind. Gannets also are high speed divers and there is no reference to their going blind either.

Couldn't they avert it by blinking at the moment of impact? And wouldn't they evolve to do that because the blindness (if any) would be progressive, and start while they still had reproductive obligations? Might old boobies go blind for some other reason?

Could it be that our Richard has repeated an urban legend because the Ecuadorian guide was "impressive"?

(I really don't claim to know the answers to these questions.)

334. Observer Diary 27th May 2007

Comment #45407 by Shuggy on May 27, 2007 at 3:38 pm

The first production model Teslas will be high performance sports cars with an acceleration of 0 to 60 mph in 4 seconds,

If they're electric, they're only shifting the problem of dwindling energy resources sideways (unless, as here, most of your electricity is from renewable [hydro] sources). But why high performance? More toys for boy racers? What the world needs now is lightweight, fuel-economical transport for one or two people and some luggage: I see an enclosed step-through motorbike with automatic "training wheels".

335. Aiming for knockout blow in god wars

Comment #45402 by Shuggy on May 27, 2007 at 3:04 pm

In another context [ethics of infant circumcision], Somerville says

... we have to start from a basis of deep respect for religious belief and a requirement of very strong justification for any interference with the expression of this belief.

- but she gives no reason why we should do either. It would be interesting to have her explain this "deep respect" further. Who decides what is a religious belief? Not all religious beliefs are worthy of respect. Devil worship, human sacrifice and many another are self-evidently not. We do not hesitate to interfere with the expression of religious belief when it harms children in obvious ways.

336. Penn & Teller's Bullshit - Holier Than Thou With Christopher Hitchens

Comment #45198 by Shuggy on May 26, 2007 at 8:18 pm

TIKI AL:

As a person who has stood in our Arizona pool during a monsoon lightning storm with the longest metal pool pole held on high begging "god's" wrath to materialize

Didn't someone called Franklin prove that lightning is a purely materialistic phenomenon? I think if you'd been struck you'd have got exactly what you des^h^h^h would expect, without any help from any god/dess/es.

337. Christian sports workers degree ridiculed

Comment #45041 by Shuggy on May 26, 2007 at 1:22 am

What the hull is a "parachurch organisation"? Are they jumping out of aeroplanes now?

338. Teachers rebel over atheism promotion

Comment #45038 by Shuggy on May 26, 2007 at 1:11 am

foxfire:

Sadly, I have no clue how to "get critical thinking into curricula as a core subject from primary school onwards".

Well, one way that occurs to me is through paradoxes, puzzles, optical illusions and the like - things that challenge one's preconceptions, show us how we can be misled and encourage thinking outside the square. But if you mean the political problem of changing curricula, that part's beyond me.

339. I Don't Believe in Atheists

Comment #44477 by Shuggy on May 24, 2007 at 10:48 pm

All human institutions, including the church, are inherently demonic.

Wha..?

And demons are ...? (Like God, hunan constructs, etc, etc? And around and around we go.)

340. Lightning damages Jesus statue

Comment #44466 by Shuggy on May 24, 2007 at 9:58 pm

Maybe God just doesn't like kitsch.

341. I Don't Believe in Atheists

Comment #44424 by Shuggy on May 24, 2007 at 4:47 pm

* God is a human concept.
* God is the name we give to our belief that life has meaning, one that transcends the world's chaos, randomness and cruelty....
* God is that mysterious force—and you can give it many names as other religions do—which works upon us and through us to seek and achieve truth, beauty and goodness.
* God is perhaps best understood as our ultimate concern, that in which we should place our highest hopes, confidence and trust.
* In Exodus God says, by way of identification, "I am that I am."
* It is probably more accurately translated: "I will be what I will be."
* God is better understood as verb rather than a noun. God is not an asserted existence but a process accomplishing itself.
* And God is inescapable.
* It is the life force that sustains, transforms and defines all existence.
The name of God is laden, thanks to our religious institutions and the numerous tyrants, charlatans and demagogues these institutions produced, with so much baggage and imagery that it is hard for us to see the intent behind the concept.
You can say that again! I was hoping that a sophisticated theist would clearly tell us about the more sophisitcated version of God that can be distinguished from the Sky Fairy (both Mk 1, arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction, jealous and proud of it, etc, and Mk 2, our loving Heavenly Father) and intelligent people can believe in, the Ground of all Being of Tillich, and the like. This is not it (or Him).

Tell me Mr Hedges, what (apart from an asserted existence) is your god NOT?

342. Dental healer finds share of faithful believers

Comment #44254 by Shuggy on May 23, 2007 at 9:43 pm

Comment #43959 by eoinc on May 23, 2007 at 5:05 am

Scottishgeologist,

"I am sure that James Randi would like to hear about it - after all there is $1000000 waiting for this guy..."

James Randi covered this guy already in his book The Faith Healers. Apparently, this man's pen-flashlight that he uses when peering into people's mouths has a feeble, yellowish glow, which causes the fillings to appear gold when they reflect the light. Many people who have been healed incidentally report that their fillings reverted to their ordinary silver colour when they got home.


No, believe it or not, that was another guy pulling the same sca- um, with the same gift. His name is The Reverend Willard Fuller of Palatka, Florida.

Incidentally, Randi also has a chapter in that book about Oral Roberts.

343. The Conversion of the Casual Evolutionist - You can't spell love without evolve

Comment #44202 by Shuggy on May 23, 2007 at 3:41 pm

All the obvious stuff just seemed to make sense, like ... how Donald Trump is still able to date fashion models because…

OK, well, perhaps Darwin's theory had its limits.

He obviously hasn't read anything recently. Young women hooking up with rich and powerful men with bad toupées to support their children (and young and handsome men on the side to father them*) is exactly what the theory predicts.

*I don't know if that's exactly true in Trump's case, but if I were a fashion model, that's what I'd do.

344. Gay row US Anglicans miss summit

Comment #44195 by Shuggy on May 23, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Awl wrote:

within 20 years religious groups will have caught up with the rest of society and will have no problem with homosexuality; those passages in the bible will be conveniently ignored along with the stuff about beating your wife and owning slaves. And Rowan Williams will be vilified by history as a filthy homophobe and sycophant.

Oh no, they'll rewrite their history to celebrate Bishop Spong as another Wilberforce, the pro-gay things Williams said will be dug up to salvage his memory and Anglican homophobia will be shovelled under the carpet.

Bonzai wrote:
But at least it shows that the organized churches are in rapid decline in the industrialized countries. Church opposition to gay right is a non issue in these countries because no one cares what it has to say anyway. There is a siver lining to everything.

Meanwhile the Anglican church casts a benign/blind eye on the rampant homophobia of countries like Nigeria where government and chuch policies are completely in accord. Williams seems to have decided to sacrifice gay Anglicans and the church in the first world on the altar of numbers in the third.

Where do you send links to get them posted here? I posted this story on the Forum yesterday.

345. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43832 by Shuggy on May 22, 2007 at 9:32 pm

Can someone explain who Jack Abrahamovs is and why Ralph Reed is defiled by being his friend?

Ralph Reed is someone for whom words like "oleagenous" and "unctious" were coined.

Did any of them give a moment of silent respect for Saddam Hussein's family?

And why should we feel sad for Falwell's family? Don't they believe he's gone to Heaven (and is telling God where he went wrong at this minute)?

346. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #43556 by Shuggy on May 22, 2007 at 1:57 am

Philip asked:

I am going to ask the same question until I get the right answer

Why does it have to be your god?
They would of course answer, because there is only one. I guess that's the great strength and danger of monotheism. The Romans (I'm told) were tolerant of religions because everybody worshipped their own gods and didn't mess with other people's - until the christians came along. (The Jews were OK because they didn't proselytise.)

I wonder, how many people really do do the good they do because of the god/s they believe in, who wouldn't do it anyway? How could this be tested? The one "experiment" we have is all the people who say they lived a life of crime, drug addiction, alcoholism etc. and whose life turned around when they got religion. Can we say they would have done so without it, or with something secular?

Perkyjay wrote:

Winston Churchill is reputed to have said that "a preposition is a word that one should never end a sentence with".
I doubt it. Are you thinking of "That is something up with which I will not put"? (Though Fowler quotes it as something Dryden did not write.)

Anyone else have the greatest difficulty in spelling "blockquote" first time and not "blcokquote"?

347. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #43555 by Shuggy on May 22, 2007 at 1:54 am

ratio wrote:

Take two islands, populate them with people of similar backgrounds (I suppose you'd have to use children). Tell one group that god was watching everything they did and would punish them if they did anything wrong (wrong, according to god's rules). Explain to the other group that it was in their mutual self-interest to obey the same set of rules, but no eternal damnation etc.

We couldn't ethically do it to children, but why not set up a couple of "Big Brother" style houses and give them those rules? Not only that, you (and the world) would be watching everything they did.

348. Navy vet: Chaplains tried converting me

Comment #43482 by Shuggy on May 21, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Although I don't feel too sorry for their victim as he also clings fervently to his religion. It would be much better for him if, while he was munching his ham sandwich, he could just say I don't believe in god so *&^% off.

"Better for him"? Isn't it really up to him to decide that? I hope you have no plans to convert him to atheism while he's in pain and on a heart monitor.

Food is a very intimate thing, and feeling unable to eat something for any reason or none is quite understandable. I find their refusal to serve him kosher food quite appalling, perhaps worse than trying to convert his mind to christianity. But their ignorance of what Jews believe is just laughable. (He might have made himself clearer by saying "No, I'm one of those people you've been persecuting for the last 2000 years because we don't believe in Jesus, remember? Fagin? Shylock?", and then they might go "Ohhh.")

349. Catholic Church Reconsiders Limbo

Comment #43222 by Shuggy on May 21, 2007 at 12:07 am

I thought the Onion piece was quite funny (I don't get the Swiffer® reference), but I thought the Vatican's official statement was hilarious!

the responses that have been given through the history of the church
Ribtickling!
There is much that simply has not been revealed to us
Thigh-slapping!
they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do
Sidesplitting!


Why didn't it have Comedy at the top?

350. Pedal power takes Islamic shape in Iran

Comment #42820 by Shuggy on May 19, 2007 at 9:50 pm

The funny thing is, the more you do this kind of thing, the more erotically charged the concealed parts become. Keep it up, and (heterosexual) men will *j*c*l*t* at the sight of a woman's fingertip.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 | Next