351. 'Purity' ring case in High Court

Comment #51534 by pewkatchoo on June 23, 2007 at 9:53 am

nancy excellent. You should be a poet.

352. In the name of the Father

Comment #51533 by pewkatchoo on June 23, 2007 at 9:49 am

Why are there two versions of this thread and the 'His Word' thread? This is most confusing!

Can the mods sort this out please?

353. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #51476 by pewkatchoo on June 23, 2007 at 3:42 am

Bonzai
I have read Atlas Shrugged and, though I found it very difficult to get through, I cannot really find fault with its central premise. I may not like everything it says, but it is not garbage and neither, IMNSHO, was Ayn Rand a hack.

354. 'Purity' ring case in High Court

Comment #51475 by pewkatchoo on June 23, 2007 at 3:32 am

Does wearing a chastity ring make a child a possible target for rapists? There are those that would take such a thing as a challenge surely.

So she could even be putting herself in danger.

355. 'Purity' ring case in High Court

Comment #51473 by pewkatchoo on June 23, 2007 at 3:19 am

Scottishgeologist
I think you should maybe see a shrink about your obvious fettishes. Either that or write a book so we can all read about them!

356. In the name of the Father

Comment #51465 by pewkatchoo on June 23, 2007 at 2:31 am

Ho hum. Philosophers would be philosophers, artists would be artists, binmen would be binmen. None of these positions need god. The only people that would be out of a job if we all agreed there is no god would be....

I think you guys really missed the whole point of the article. It was written as a prelude for the ex-Bish to tout his own rather more pathetic offering which you can see at the end of this laborious drivel.

357. His word

Comment #51460 by pewkatchoo on June 23, 2007 at 2:19 am

The problem for ultra-Darwinians is that they have to assume that all things – including ideas, or memes as Dawkins calls them – progress via the animal narrative of natural selection (so religion, or rather the need for it, must serve some basic "positive" survival-enhancing purpose) but surely the key thing about religion is that we have it and animals don't. That is because we have consciousness of death and they don't.

358. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51452 by pewkatchoo on June 23, 2007 at 1:59 am

Vaal
Unfortunately, this is actually as GOOD as it gets. If you analyse the blatherings of any GoBo you will find that facetious and fallacious argument is actually the best they have got.

359. 'Purity' ring case in High Court

Comment #51339 by pewkatchoo on June 22, 2007 at 11:56 am

Hey Stuart
I thought it was brilliant. Best laugh of the day. Did you read the comments? Wonderful. You couldn't make it up.

epeeist
I agree. As a parent with 2 kids, there is absolutely no way that I want them showing their individualism in their dress. Have you any idea what these kids like to wear? Expensive designer clobber only please. It becomes a fashion war if you let them wear what they want. All we parents would be subjected to MAD. Mutually Assured Destitution.

360. 'Purity' ring case in High Court

Comment #51323 by pewkatchoo on June 22, 2007 at 10:57 am

Excellent stuff here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39XD1ImxGWw&mode=related&search=

and look at some of the comments.

361. 'Purity' ring case in High Court

Comment #51322 by pewkatchoo on June 22, 2007 at 10:52 am

I agree with most of the posters here. She needs a good shagging. Maybe even a trio!

362. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51260 by pewkatchoo on June 22, 2007 at 6:41 am

Shuggy
ARSEITY surely! The art of being a total retentive with no outside help!

363. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51209 by pewkatchoo on June 22, 2007 at 12:45 am

Bizarro, I sometimes think that you could not find your bottom with the aid of GPS. Your arguments are not even illogical, they are just plain barmy. There is no 'who' in creation there is only 'what'.

Even if you accept that there is a super duper metaphysical being this would mean that metapyshics is simply another form of reality which would bring you back to the question 'What created that reality?'. Ultimately, everything does need an explanation I am afraid!

364. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #51201 by pewkatchoo on June 21, 2007 at 11:43 pm

Enlightme..
'Arsenal stinks...'

Don't sit on the fence man, tell us what you really think.

365. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #51200 by pewkatchoo on June 21, 2007 at 11:39 pm

Peter Hitchens is a bit of a chinless wonder! Pompous and arrogant (it runs in the family obviously), his views are diametrically opposed to his brothers. He is also the editor of the Mail on Sunday which probably says it all.

366. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #51131 by pewkatchoo on June 21, 2007 at 3:35 pm

It is hilarious because they are both appearing on Question Time on the beeb at the moment. Peter is Chris Hitchens brother. They definitely do not see eye to eye on anything.

367. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #51126 by pewkatchoo on June 21, 2007 at 2:58 pm

Yay hitch. Kick that silly bitch Shirley Williams into touch. What a stupid woman she is. It's thanks to people like her that the UK has the problems it does at the moment. Leftie wooly thinking sheep.

368. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51069 by pewkatchoo on June 21, 2007 at 10:50 am

Great satire. Where is it from, the Onion?

369. The courage of their convictions

Comment #51033 by pewkatchoo on June 21, 2007 at 7:55 am

I have to admit that, reading that has made me feel very humble indeed. I feel vaguely pathetic in fact with my own extremely small and vapid challenges of the mainstream.

Brave people indeed.

rokort
I agree, the Dutch parliament is an absolute disgrace. But then so are all politicians. Their treatment of Hirsi Ali was disgusting and definitely kowtowing to the lunatics. I love the Netherlands and the people, but I despair of the institutions. But it won't change until you get rid of your love of your royal family and all their connections.

370. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #50939 by pewkatchoo on June 20, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Logicel
A derangement of god-botherers.

371. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #50937 by pewkatchoo on June 20, 2007 at 2:26 pm

James Carol
It was not staged. 'OK' is pretty much the response a 14-15 yo boy would have to his parent shouting at him. I know this because it is exactly how my lad reacts when his mum or I are angry with him. And exactly in that tone too. Not that we get in his face like that though.

372. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #50936 by pewkatchoo on June 20, 2007 at 2:10 pm

Corylus
That is just tooooo much! Fucking hilarious.

373. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #50934 by pewkatchoo on June 20, 2007 at 1:47 pm

EntropyGuardian said:
I am an atheist myself, and I feel that the typical teenage atheist really doesn't have the ability to explain the implications of their world view any more than a teenage theist would be to explain the implication of theirs.
Why should they have to explain it! Up to the age of 20, very few people do have much of a world view.

Of course nothing he said leads me to believe this other than his perceived age and the fact that I haven't come across someone of his age who could really debate a theist on critical issues.
Exactly what critical issues would those be? So far as I can tell there are no critical issues in fairy stories.

No matter who it is or what their view, I would hope that they came to this position with a lot of "soul" searching and amassing of evidence. Something that teenagers are not known to be the best at.
Why would they need to do any soul searching? There is no evidence to amass. I have a feeling that you are rather unsure in your atheism.

So I guess my issue really isn't with this kid in particular, but with teenage atheists who are quick to offend but typically light on substance. Once you have the knowledge and tools under your belt and you speak your mind you are going to offend some, but you must do it in a careful way if you want the public perception of atheism to change for the better.
Well whooopsie doo. I am sure that he will take your concerns fully into consideration the next time he blurts something to his mum. Come on, can't you see that you are being incredibly pompous here?

374. Rushdie knighted in honours list

Comment #50872 by pewkatchoo on June 20, 2007 at 9:18 am

Perhaps we could burn an effigy of Margaret Beckett. Better still, just burn the real thing.

375. Rushdie knighted in honours list

Comment #50808 by pewkatchoo on June 20, 2007 at 3:14 am

Corylus
Never been in the HoL. Been in the commons, many many moons ago. I would guess that the seats there are less comfortable than those provided for their lordships.

Down wiv the monarchy, well after the queen pops off at least.

376. 12 Year Old Girl Prodigy Paints Pictures of God

Comment #50681 by pewkatchoo on June 19, 2007 at 12:14 pm

Thats not god, that's Mick Fleetwood.

377. In the know

Comment #50672 by pewkatchoo on June 19, 2007 at 10:57 am

ignored
be my guest mate! No royalties need be paid!

378. Richard Dawkins on his online alterego

Comment #50671 by pewkatchoo on June 19, 2007 at 10:52 am

I have enough problems getting to grips with the real world, never mind submerging myself in some virtual existence.

379. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50670 by pewkatchoo on June 19, 2007 at 10:48 am

What a load of intellectually vacuous nonsense this idiot Hedges came out with. 'I will be what I will be'. Oh, oh, oh, I think I am comeeeeng! God is a verb. I am going godding tonight. Fancy a quick zues on the table? How about we go out tonight and allah a few christians, but in an individualistic sort of way. Indeed, that was a masterful display of total fuckwittery. Harris was amusing and interesting to listen to, Hedges was just pure slapstick. And who the fuck was that complete moron, looking like a jethro tull reject, sitting in between them?

380. U.S. circumcision rate drops

Comment #50643 by pewkatchoo on June 19, 2007 at 7:34 am

konquererz
Get him to coat it in warm chocolate first. That will do the trick.

381. Rushdie knighted in honours list

Comment #50620 by pewkatchoo on June 19, 2007 at 5:35 am

4 comment by Mind Rebel
Have you ever actually read any of Rushdies' books? Or are you just intending to?

382. Rushdie knighted in honours list

Comment #50617 by pewkatchoo on June 19, 2007 at 5:30 am

To be honest, I have not got the foggiest idea why Salman Rushdie has been honoured in this way, or even at all. Sorry, but I find his books pretentious rubbish, I have never been able to finish one, full of literary tricks but with no useful message (at least as far as I was able to read). I am not surprised the ayatollah put down a fatwah on him, I would too.

Then there is the little issue of Rushdie slagging off the brits and british society. That was after the government spent millions on providing him with personal protection. A bit of an ingrate our mr Rushdie.

Anyway, I am not a socialist, but I too find the honours thing to be a load of old cobblers. However, if anyone was to offer me a K and a fully expenses paid seat in the Lords I might just reconsider.

383. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50610 by pewkatchoo on June 19, 2007 at 4:51 am

Comment #50601 by fides_et_ratio on June 19, 2007 at 4:09 am
If you want to presume that you reside in the high point of pure reason as many athiests do, then you must adhere to facts with, dare I say it, a religious fervour. The trouble with athiests when they discuss religion, is that they are seemingly unable to do this.

384. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50609 by pewkatchoo on June 19, 2007 at 4:48 am

Fides, I accept that ID has not yet made it on to the curriculum, though that is not for the want of trying. However, it is clear that religious teaching in some schools is treading a very fine line by claiming some kinship with science. For example, in my son's school the RE teacher makes the insinuation that advances in science may some day be able to explain god. This is a backdoor legitimising of religion by deliberately blurring the purpose of science. This was not the only time I have caught them in such evident trickery.

385. In the know

Comment #50261 by pewkatchoo on June 16, 2007 at 5:36 am

I am getting fed up of reading baseless shite like this from the religious numbnuts. My posted response is below.

Ho hum, more ridiculously subjective faith based twaddle. Your piece is full of false assertions and downright bloody lies. I hope Sam Harris, for one, sues you for libel.

Now, let me explain the words you cannot currently use to describe atheism.

Militant, nope, no atheists bombing churches/mosques or even want to pull them down or anything like that.

Rabid, nope, not much in the way of mindless frothing at the mouth to be found there. Just calmly reasoned notions. The worst that they could be considered guilty of is extreme boredom with the intellectual paucity of the arguments of the devout.

Beliefs, nope, atheism is an absence of belief. We don't believe in anything. We do have hopes and aspirations, loves and desires. But no mindless beliefs.

Fundamentalist, nope, nope, nope. This is perhaps the most ridiculous charge laid at the door of the new atheist. There is no doctrine or dogma associated with atheism, so it is not a word that can even remotely be used to describe atheists. Anyone who uses it is a foolish ignoramus who really should buy a new dictionary.

Dogmatic, nope. If you bring me proof of god's existence, and I do mean proof, then I will be quite happy to accept it. I reserve the right to call god an idiot though.

386. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50082 by pewkatchoo on June 14, 2007 at 11:27 pm

The problem is that the catholic church has limitless buckets of cash. They don't even need rich followers any more as they are self-sustaining. They will be there until the day when we get totally fed up of them and physically tear down the whole stinking edifice.

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

Comment #50033 by pewkatchoo on June 14, 2007 at 3:59 pm

Hitchens will appear on Question Time on BBC1 next Thursday together with Boris Johnson. That should be an interesting show.

388. Atheism is pretentious and cowardly

Comment #50030 by pewkatchoo on June 14, 2007 at 3:45 pm

Oh sod off philos. You are just getting on peoples' tits now with your inane charitable atheist shite. As Billy Connolly would say 'away and bile yer heid'.

389. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50024 by pewkatchoo on June 14, 2007 at 3:17 pm

How amazing. A bunch of ignorant child molesters in skirts are preaching on morality. Well there you go then, what a topsy-turvy world we live in. Christopher Hitchins was debating with some wierdo who was burbling on about the religious being more charitable than atheists. But their version of charity seems to come with an awful lot of qualfications.

390. Christopher Hitchens on The Hour

Comment #49691 by pewkatchoo on June 13, 2007 at 2:00 am

Thanks Wrought
I vaguely remember the case now, though not the details. How sad. What an awful statement by your president. Playing politics with peoples lives like that is disgusting. It is, effectively, none of his business. The womans'wishes were totally irrelevant it seems.

We are having similar problems in the UK. It annoys me the overbearing influence that the religious have in these matters. They have absolutely no moral superiority, so what gives them the right to interfere in what is purely a personal matter.

391. PBS Revelation: Network's 'Wall Of Separation' Has Religious Right Genesis

Comment #49624 by pewkatchoo on June 12, 2007 at 3:49 pm

If this continues, I see America heading inexorably into civil strife.

392. We stand awed at the heights our people have achieved

Comment #49618 by pewkatchoo on June 12, 2007 at 3:36 pm

What a load of unspeakable shite.

393. Baptists Warned About Islam, Atheism

Comment #49611 by pewkatchoo on June 12, 2007 at 2:41 pm

I am starting to think that Christopher Hitchins is totally right. If we leave them to their own devices they are going to blow up the planet. Either the islamic nutters or the religious right of America.

394. A Compass That Can Clash With Modern Life

Comment #49608 by pewkatchoo on June 12, 2007 at 2:35 pm

A totally screwed up society with no personal morality in evidence. How can you have a personal morality when you need a fatwah for every minor decision, for example if you should hand in money when you find it.

Religion is just institutional ignorance.

395. Christopher Hitchens on The Hour

Comment #49537 by pewkatchoo on June 12, 2007 at 10:16 am

Hitchens mentioned some woman in the interview who had died and that her family had been harassed. What was that about?

396. The New Atheists

Comment #49514 by pewkatchoo on June 12, 2007 at 8:15 am

gcdavis
Yes, there is no doubt that many of the great artists and composers of the past were religious. But I don't think it is their religion that gave them their talent. Bach probably would have produced beautiful music if he had been irreligious. Maybe inspired by looking at nature or the stars. Some of van Goch's most beautiful work was inspired by nothing so mundane as looking at his bedroom.

397. Religion - our maelstrom of ignorance

Comment #49506 by pewkatchoo on June 12, 2007 at 7:41 am

re Paris
I guess that she thinks she was visited by the lord while she was in jail. Note to Paris, just because a prison guard has a very big one does not make him god.

398. The New Atheists

Comment #49503 by pewkatchoo on June 12, 2007 at 7:23 am

gcdavis
I would love to be able to travel back in time and have a wee chat with Caravaggio and ask him if he really, really believed all this religious twaddle or if he was only in it for the dosh.

399. The New Atheists

Comment #49472 by pewkatchoo on June 12, 2007 at 3:51 am

gcdavis
I agree with most of what you say. However, you make the mistake of conflating religion with art. I think it is more a case of 'following the money'. The production of religious artifacts was a nice earner for artists through the ages. Why, are artists such as Monet, Renoir, van Gogh, Picasso the highest priced artists today? None of them produced any even remotely religious work. Certainly I would have a van Goch over a Botticini or Rubens.

The same can be said of music, literature, even architecture.

400. 60 SECONDS: Richard Dawkins

Comment #49455 by pewkatchoo on June 12, 2007 at 2:29 am

Keep hitting them guys. I am still hoping to start a campaign against faith schools and the teaching of religious belief in state schools.