Saturday, November 14, 2015

Ask A Stupid Question And You Sometimes Get Facts You Didn't Count On.

Incidentally, why do you keep calling me an atheist? I'm not. I'm a lapsed agnostic who used to not know and now doesn't give a shit. Also -- remember when atheists blew up all those abortion clinics and the government building in Oklahoma City?

The only things I know that you are are a. a past-it pop music scribbler who spends his days as a pathological blog troll looking for attention whatever way he can from such as will willingly give it and from whom he can unwillingly draw it and b. a liar.   Oh, and I should include c. an ego and megalomaniac, who doesn't seem to have developed in that aspect of his character since the age of two.   As such I am certain to within a logical certainty that you are an atheist who is lying about that, something you have in common with several people in history, one whose name begins with an "H". Convince me otherwise.

As to your desire for me to remind you of when atheists blew up all those abortion clinics, I haven't studied that issue in depth but can say that no one who took the teachings of Jesus seriously would do it.  

And as to the people who blew up the government building in Okalahoma City, I already did that this year in response to some similarly stupid comment made by some Eschaton idiots who do history the atheist way, they make it up.   I will repost that piece now. 

Monday, January 12, 2015


Since Dawkins, Harris, and Their Fan-Boys Force The Issue

The challenge made to me last week, to name AMERICAN mass murders committed by atheists was one I was reluctant to answer.  Not because I couldn't but because I am loath to practice the same kind of group guilt that is the first resort of online atheists whenever some killing which has, or can be made to appear to have a religious association is in the news.  Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and other soft-handed, scientifically vetted bigots have revived the respectability of that kind of bigotry and the online intellectual world has taken it up in a way that a lot of us, fifty years ago, would never have believed we would see again in the post-Holocaust period.

Well, I did take up the challenge to some extent, noting an atheist hate-talker, serial murderer, one whose declarations, by their description,  would probably fit in easily at many if not most online atheist hate-talk venues, both blog and webloid.   I also mentioned the little known fact that Jim Jones, the pseudo-Pentecostalist and self-declared atheist was, by his own words, an atheist.   He explicitly said that he used the trappings of religion to gull people into his cult, of which, of course, he was the substitute for a god. Even as he led them to murder-suicide.  There's nothing in atheism that would keep an atheist who thought he could get away with it from pretending to be a Christian of some kind and doing what Jim Jones did.  And nothing in The Bible that would support it.

To those I could have added Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, and the man who inspired them, William Pierce, infamous as the neo-Nazi advocate of violence of the kind McVeigh and Nichols committed against the people in The Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, what was previously considered the biggest mass murder in American history prior to 9-11, the incident that Dawkins and Harris used to whip up hatred against religion and, especially, the 1.6 billion Muslims across the world.  I could have mentioned it but I don't own a copy of the book I read that in and had to borrow it over the weekend.

McVeigh read and recommended the white supremacist novel The Turner Diaries, which dramatizes attacks on Jews and racial minorities in order to establish "Aryan nations" and has scenes both of the bombing of the federal building and of an airplane being flown into a building in Washington, D.C.  The authore of Diaries, William Pierce, talked of being an atheist, as McVeigh and Nichols did occasionally, but they apparently only meant that they rejected a personal God.  Pierce held that the life force is evolutionary, with the white race at the pinnacle.

Juan Cole:  Engaging The Muslim World.

Now, I don't really get what Cole means by his assumption that they "only meant that they rejected a personal God" not having found any evidence that McVeigh or Nichols expressed themselves on that.   His attribution of replacing that with an evolutionary life force to William Pierce would fit right into some of the weirder aspects of German and, then, Nazi beliefs flowing from their interpretation of natural selection.  I don't think Ernst Haeckel or, in fact, Alfred Rosenberg would be far from it.  The belief that "the white race" would be at the pinnacle, could be directly derived from Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley, both of whom were led to their belief in racial supremacist theories from their natural selection, a scientific racism they share with a line of the most orthodox scientific figures up to and including Watson and Crick, into the present generation.   None of which, I am sure, the people making that challenge to me or their inspirations, Dawkins and Harris would be happy to have forced me to point out.

Don't bother to challenge me to document that, I have, massively, in their own words, look at my archive.   Clearly, William Pierce was no orthodox believer in the God of Abraham, if he believed in the god substitute of Dawkins and Harris might make an interesting study, if I could stomach reading more of his hate talk.

I have read that Terry Nichols has had some remorse for what he did in prison and, though I haven't researched it, he has been accused of having a religious conversion.  McVeigh, though, didn't change his mind on that point.

In a letter to the Buffalo News daily in New York state yesterday, McVeigh used the word "sorry" for the first time, but instantly rendered it meaningless. "I am sorry these people had to lose their lives," he wrote. "But that's the nature of the beast. It's understood going in what the human toll will be."

There was anger in Oklahoma City yesterday after his claim that the bombing of a federal government building was a "legit tactic" in his war against the excesses of central government. Yesterday, his lawyer compared his role to that of a pilot who drops a bomb on a foreign country killing women and children. "He does feel for people but he doesn't feel like he did anything wrong," Mr Nigh said.

In his letter, McVeigh said he was an agnostic but that he would "improvise, adapt and overcome", if it turned out there was an afterlife. "If I'm going to hell," he wrote, "I'm gonna have a lot of company." His body is to be cremated and his ashes scattered in a secret location.

Since I doubt the guys who have been hectoring me on that point will check my references, I'll point out that it is from The Guardian, not some politically unacceptable venue.

While he was glorying in his macho declaration, his personal and seedy apotheosis, quoting that dreadful poem Invictus*, outside of the prison, Christians,  "faith heads" were protesting his execution and against capital punishment, in general.  McVeigh, of course, was not opposed to capital punishment and clearly relished his going out in that kind of glory.  He was, also, not, apparently, concerned with the other people who had been held on death row with him, also from The Guardian Article,

Before today, the federal government had not executed anyone since 1963. Most executions are carried out by the state authorities. Now death row opponents fear the floodgates may have opened. Another convict, Juan Raul Garza, is to be executed next week.

Sister Rita Gerardot, a Catholic nun who visits Terre Haute's death row, told the Guardian: "It's a very sombre mood. There's a lot of tension among the men, because they know that's their fate. They're like sitting ducks now."

Protesters from each side of the death penalty debate will be allowed to gather in separate locations. Yesterday, however, the only sign of protest outside the prison was a middle-aged man in a white T-shirt and baseball cap worn backwards holding a sign saying: "Pray for Tim's dad on Father's Day. God forgive all of us."

I have not, nor do I especially wish to do enough research to discern if  the claim made by some atheists to William Ernest Henley (also an accusation of atheism by others) online, is accurate.  I can say that I think he's a pretty awful poet and that that poem is rather stupid.  Its use by those ranging from the great and good, Nelson Mandela, to the terrorist and supporter of apartheid, Ronald Reagan might indicate that it an empty vessel into which anyone can pour anything.  If it made McVeigh able to pretend that he was the master of his fate even as he was about to be proven rather definitively not to be might be worth considering.   Its agnostic declaration of thanks to"whatever gods may be For my unconquerable soul" certainly did nothing to stop McVeigh from killing many hundreds of people or to express any real remorse for having done it.

Update:  Hate against hate only doubles the amount of hate and reinforces the hate the haters are hating on.

Update 2:  Well, Mr. Atheist, you made me go back, again, and I realized that I left out that, when he was murdering at least 16 people, Jeffrey Dahmer was also a convinced atheist.  And that satisfied YOUR condition that it happen in the United States, as well.   Now, doesn't that make you happy?

Update 3:  If I'm mistaken about Darwin's relationship with Haeckel, and by the evidence of Darwin's own, published declarations, I'm not, and Haeckel's relationship with German scientific racism, and I'm not, then I shared that second misunderstanding with the atheist and eminent Darwinist, Stephen Jay Gould.



54 comments:

  1. Get back to me when you can produce the Oklahoma bombers membership cards in the Organized Atheists Society of America.

    And Jim Jones, who I did not reference in the above, ran something called the People's Temple. I've checked my local phone directory, and so far I can't find any listing for atheist groups under "houses of worship."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I answered your question about the atheists who bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma, using the very words of the man who carried it out. That you pretend that wasn't as definitive an answer to it as possible merely exposes you for the boob that you are. I have no problem with posting the proof from your own hands that you are a boob. I'm rather happy to do that.

      Delete
    2. OKLAHOMA CITY: I'M JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE
      AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH TIMOTHY MCVEIGH
      Time Magazine
      By Patrick E. Cole Monday, Apr. 15, 1996
      "TIME: Are you religious?
      MCVEIGH: I was raised Catholic. I was confirmed Catholic (received the sacrament of confirmation). Through my military years, I sort of lost touch with the religion. I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs.
      TIME: Do you believe in God?
      MCVEIGH: I do believe in a God, yes. But that's as far as I want to discuss. If I get too detailed on some things that are personal like that, it gives people an easier way alienate themselves from me and that's all they are looking for now."

      Delete
    3. McVeigh is known to have been very influenced by William L. Pierce the man who wrote what was obviously like scripture to McVeigh, The Turner Diaries. Pierce founded his own religion - the SPLC probably correctly says it was a tax scam - but he defined "god" as being the same thing as nature, the basis of his racist ideas which he explicitly defined in Darwinian terms, citing Charles Darwin and Darwinists in explaining where his thinking originated. . Perhaps that's why McVeigh, as he was awaiting trial, more than a year before he was convicted, might have wanted to pass himself off as a religious believer when he could be fairly certain that conservative Christians would comprise a majority of the jury pool. I can imagine his lawyer trying to get him to do that. However, he chose not to go into detail about just what "god" he believed in. As I pointed out to your tag-team booby, he had nothing to lose when he wrote his final letter in which he said that if there were an afterlife and a judgement and a hell, it would be a surprise to him.

      I'm finding that dipping into your fellow scientist, William Pierce's thinking is repulsive in the extreme but if you want to find out the origin of that diseased thinking it's necessary. You'll like it even less like good news than Simps because you've got a mind. A dishonest mind but a mind.

      Delete
    4. Tony, I notice that you don't actually have a rebuttal to McVeigh's actual words. Just the usual guilt by association bullshit. Whether he followed Pierce or not is completely irrelevant. He said he believed in God, so he was not an atheist.
      While we are on the topic of guilt by association, Dahmer may have been an atheist. He was also gay. Do you really want to continue down this road? Are all gays monsters because Dahmer was a monster? Then stop this bullshit about trying to tar atheists with him.

      Delete
    5. Well, Tanky, as he had pages from The Turner Diaries talking about how to do what he did when he was caught and he used to peddle copies of it, if he's associated with the Darwinian-religio writings of the author of The Turner Diaries, Timothy McVeigh did that associating. As to what I said in that comment, the timing of his declaration that he believed in a god and his refusal to say what he meant by that word, as he was looking forward to being tried as the foremost terrorist in American history, carrying a capital penalty as well as infamy and, definitely, bad PR for his ideology, I stand by all of that.

      Dahmer may have been an atheist. He was also gay. Do you really want to continue down this road?

      Do you ever listen to what you're saying before you say it? I was challenged to name American mass murderers who were atheists and I did that. I can say that as a gay man I have never wanted to a. have sex with strangers, b. bind anyone, c. sadistically attack anyone, d. kill them, e. cannibalize them. f. store the remains to rot in my apartment.

      I've never been an atheist. If an atheist who were gay wanted to do those things, I can see nothing in atheism that would tell him it was a sin to do so.

      Of course, all of that is moot as it was Jeffrey Dahmer who made that statement about there being nothing to restrain him from doing that if he wanted to. I can point out he's hardly the first atheist to make that observation. I'm sure Martin Bormann, as he was biting down on the cyanide capsule, figured he'd gotten away with everything he did.

      Delete
    6. You stand by all this? You mean simply ignoring what he actually said and blathering on about Pierce. He said he believed in God. You have nothing whatsoever to refute that. But keep repeating it over and over and over again. If McVeigh's religious beliefs are the cause of his crimes, then according to your demented logic, we should condemn theism.

      I agree with you that being gay did not make Dahmer be a monster. Being an atheist didn't make him one either. My atheism never made me want to cannibalize anyone either. Try looking up the association fallacy. That and the No True Christian™ fallacy are pretty much the only arrows in your quiver. But I guess they never taught logic at the Twinkle Twinkle School of Music.

      So I have to ask, what is it with your hatred of atheists? Do they threaten your weak faith? Did an atheist jilt you? Why is it that you spend all your time obsessing about and hating atheists? Why is it so important for you to blame atheism for all the evil in the world? Normal people don't behave this way. Atheists are not the cause of your lonely, bitter, dead end life. Get help.

      Delete
    7. He said that in an interview he gave as he was awaiting trial. I can't imagine his lawyer not instructing him in what to say as anything he said in the interview could have become evidence in the trial. I would say that what he said, later, when he decided to not try to avoid being executed for his crime is less likely to represent an attempt to game the jury.

      Dahmer is the one who said," If a person doesn't think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway."

      No matter how much you want to pretend he didn't say that as an explanation of why he killed at least 16 men, sadistically, cruelly and canaballistically. He said it on video in an interview with Stone Phillips. I listened to the thing, wishing I wasn't the whole time. The things I do to fact check for this blog.

      I never anticipated writing so much about atheists, it was you guys imposing yourself on the left that necessitated that. It was several years ago that I realized the part that atheists had had in dragging the left into political oblivion that I realized it was necessary to refute your many, many lies and distortions. There are so many of those it could be a full time job.

      Delete
    8. I see. Sheldrake the Magnificent gave you the power of clairvoyance. You can read McVeigh's mind. He obviously didn't mean what he said. But you, with your magical decoding ring know that when McVeigh said he believed in God, what he really meant was that he was a virulent anti religious atheist. Sure, Homer. Only you can see that.
      And atheists forced you into making diatribes against them your entire life? Sure. They imposed themselves on the left? Were you kicked out of the Democratic Party? Do atheists prevent people of faith from participating in progressive causes? Of course not. That is nothing but the voices in your head talking.

      Delete
    9. You're just getting stupider as this goes on.

      If the Democratic party kicked out all of the atheists it would probably win more elections. There has never been any electoral issue or candidate which has ever benefited from atheists exerting themselves in it.

      Any progressive cause that depended on the -3% of the population who poll as atheists it would fail, there aren't enough atheists to carry any cause to success. Even the legal basis for the equal rights of atheists depended on the support of Christians and Jews.

      Remind me, you tell people you're a scientist, do you? Yet you don't understand that 3% is is smaller than 85%?

      Delete
    10. 3% ? That's about the same percentage of the population as gays and Jews. Should progressives kick them out, too? Or do hick piano teachers decide who gets to belong to progressive movements. Speaking of which, why is it that you never express any views that are actually progressive? You preach hate and intolerance. You rail against modern culture. You think religion should trump secular government. You hate science. You hate atheists. In short, you are a mirror image of Mike Huckabee. Politics make strange bedfellows. Why you want to sleep with political syphilitics is beyond me.

      Delete
    11. Jews and gay people don't insist on being ballot box poison assholes.

      It really burns you up that a piano teacher can kick your ass doesn't it.

      "I never express any views that are actually progressive". For pity sake, you didn't read my post Saturday on terrorism? Not to mention all of the other posts I've written on full equality for women, members of minority groups, LGBT people, for economic equality.....

      I suppose I should thank you as being the third idiot atheist to verify my insight about atheists refusing to see things they didn't like when they were right in front of them. I'm farther to the left than you and Sims and JR-Freki put together and squared by pi.

      Delete
    12. How have atheists made themselves ballot box poison assholes? Bernie Sanders has won numerous elections and he seems to be doing pretty well in his current campaign. Barney Frank is an atheist and he won 16 elections. Pete Stark won 20. Tell me whose campaigns have been sunk by atheists?
      As for your supposed progressive views, all I have to say is that the people of Beavertail must be real goose steppers if you are considered a progressive. Your rambling take on terrorism wasn't progressive. It was just your usual reactionary whining about atheists and secularism.

      Delete
    13. Barney Frank didn't run as an atheist in any election, I don't think he even alluded to being an atheist until after he'd retired. I'm unaware of Sanders having said he is an atheist.

      I dare say none of them would forego their Christian supporters so as to please the atheist assholes like you among them.

      My congressional representative is Chellie Pingree, I worked on her campaign. In most of the ratings I've seen she has about the same rating as Pete Stark. I don't know, did he come out as an atheist before his last election campaign? Did he try to get elected without the votes of Christians or Jews or Muslims?

      Your idea that secularism is the same thing as atheism is typical of atheist stupidity. Your idea that atheism has anything to do with liberalism is as stupid. Atheists can't even articulate a basis for equal rights without leaving atheism, at least of the materialist variety. Atheists are the ones always telling us how we don't have free will or free thought and everything we think we think is a result of chemical determination. Atheism is a lot more in keeping with fascism, as I'm also finding the more closely I look at such questions.

      Your knowledge of history is at the level of a comic book as might be issued by Prometheus or American Atheists.

      Delete
    14. You have to make up your mind. You say that atheists are insignificant at only 3% of the population. But at the same time you claim atheists are a threat to civilization. Which is it? Were you warned about the atheist menace reading the Protocols of The Elders of Atheism? Your hysteria about atheism, your paranoia about an atheist conspiracy seems directly drawn from that propaganda.
      I notice you didn't give any examples of atheists poisoning the political success of leftists. Instead, as always, you just call people names and avoid actually supporting anything you say. Face it Sparky, you are just another cranky religious reactionary. You hate everything and everybody. And for some weird reason you blame atheists for your pathetic, friendless life. But it sure is good that you have Baby Jesus to bring you the love and serenity that is evident in everything you write. Yes, you are a true example of the joy that religion brings.
      Now run along to the Huckabee rally. Together, you can carry on the fight against atheism and bring more religion into politics.

      Delete
    15. First, dopey, I don't say that atheists are fewer than 3%, the Pew survey does, I don't even believe that figure is accurate because the Pew survey also says that a percentage of those who call themselves "atheists" believe in a god or spiritual force. But for purposes of blog brawling, since atheists are always making claims based on the Pew surveys, I use their figures. The big difference is that I almost always bother to read what the Pew survey actually says instead of making it up. I will admit that in this argument, today, considering no amount of documentation or evidence will keep you from lying, my motivation to do that work hasn't been very great.

      Atheists have had an influence on the left way out of keeping with their puny numbers because liberals have been such suckers for them and their slogans. It was the stupid idea that people didn't have a right to not vote for an atheist because it supposedly violated the "non establishment" and "no religious test" provisions of the Constitution that was a watershed in my understanding of that malignant influence. It's so stupid yet it is so widely believed to such damage to the real left that I figured I'd study the issue more. You can thank Amanda Marcotte for me getting that insight into the problem.

      The rest of it is just more of your stupid lies, blah, blah, blah, oh, I forgot, I'd sworn off translation. Face it, Tanky, you and Sims and JR-Freki are idiots.

      Delete
    16. "It was the stupid idea that people didn't have a right to not vote for an atheist because it supposedly violated the "non establishment" and "no religious test" provisions of the Constitution that was a watershed in my understanding of that malignant influence"
      You are absolutely delusional. Who has ever claimed that people don't have the right to not vote for an atheist? Absolutely nobody. You are hearing voices in your head. People have the right to vote for whomever they want. Atheists don't deny that. You just made that up. Show me the quote from Marcotte or anyone else that atheists are saying what you think they are saying. Quotes, please. Actual quotes, not your interpretation of what you think people said. Actual quotes that demonstrate that you aren't psychotic. You can't and you won't. Instead you will come back and whine that atheists are liars and dishonest.
      By the way, the sentence that I quoted is abominable writing. Did your parents only communicate with you by grunts? Or is this bizarre dyslexia one of the symptoms of your mental illness?

      Delete
    17. I've provided so many quotes that you pretend aren't there that I'm not bothering providing them on demand. I don't give a Simels witticism if you don't believe me because the quality of your belief is as low as the quality of your skepticism.

      I'm practicing, hoping that eventually I'll write sentences so long that it will give you a brain spasm to read them and you'll go away.

      Delete
    18. I see that you will never produce any quotes that say what you claim. Never once has anyone said that not voting for an atheist violates the Constitution. OK, I've teased you enough for the day. I will leave you to get back to jacking off to your Joe Perham tapes.

      Delete
    19. I have yet to notice a decrease in your mendacity on the basis of quotes with citations and links, it would be a waste of my time to provide those on demand.

      You're really going to hate the posts I've been researching, today. I really hope you'll really hate them and it will get your little pinafore in a tight, painful knot.

      Delete
  2. "using the very words of the man who carried it out. "

    According to you, atheists lie about everything. I presume that includes the fact of their atheism.

    :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In nothing that I've written did I ever say "atheists lie about everything". I gave two restraints on lies that are left when you stop believing that it is a sin to lie, a. a disinclination to lie and, b. not thinking you'd be able to get away with it. When he was sentenced to death, obviously not able to get away with anything, McVeigh had nothing to lose from telling the truth about his thinking.

      You are such a boob. However, this has inspired some new research on my part which, while entirely unpleasant to do, will produce posts filling in the recent history of Natural Selection as politics in ways I guarantee you, you won't like. I was curious after re-reading that passage from Juan Cole and went looking for the missing link in it between St. Chuck and the present day white supremacists. It makes some rather interesting if horrifying reading. I just don't know how I'm going to write it up, yet.

      Of course you'll refuse to see any evidence of anything you don't like. And you'll lie about it, that's what you do.

      Delete
  3. I guarantee none of it will prove that the murder of six million European Jews was the fault of Charles Darwin.

    In other words, it will be -- as my co-religionists say -- so much chin music.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your repeating this like you have your own, personal form of intentional Tourette's merely proves that in addition to being willfully blind to evidence confirming what you hate to be true, you willfully choose to not understand the first thing that I've said about the Darwinian contribution to the Nazi's eugenics, including the murder of Jews. I can say that every, single time I have reviewed new information in the Nazi's own understanding of the foundation of their race science, the Darwinian nature of much of that foundation is more instead of less obvious. Every single time I've looked at it.

      Face it, Sims, your St. Darwin is as non-existent as St. Philomena, only worse because it's a false front put on a real person. Hey, just like you and your multiple sock puppets. No wonder you're so in love with the myth.

      Delete
  4. Oh blow it out your ass, Sparky, I have no brief for Darwin other than he was an important actual figure in the history of science, rather a fictional character in the fairy tales that are the basis of your so-called faith.

    In any case, the only reason you continue to ride this hobbyhorse is that it's a dodge to get European anti-Semitism off the hook for the Holocaust. In other words, Holocaust Revisionism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A. I have never made that the theme of any of my writing, it would be rather absurd for someone who has cited the encylicals of Pius XI, XII, St. Pope John XXIII and even the last two popes to be accused of trying to "get European anti-semitism off the hook for the Holocaust", especially as I cited just about the earliest traditions European of anti-semitism which you deny exists, that of the classical Greeks and that of the Roman Tacitus. I've cited both the actual history of European anti-semiticsm as you mocked and talked about the confession of it by the highest of authorities. There's no one I respect more on that topic than John XXIII, I agree with the High Rabbi of Rome about his position in the history of confession and change on that count.

      Now, admit it, Sims, you have no idea what any of that means, do you.

      Delete
  5. It means you can't write two coherent sentences in a row. Beyond that, exactly dick.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You must really be flummoxed now that Duncan has decided to try a little writing again. I'd encourage him, on those topics he knows something about he's got something to say. Not that those who are left of his blogging community would care about that. If I were him I'd go the way Digby did and cut the comments so he could concentrate on his writing.

      You're too stupid to understand anything of any complexity which doesn't fit into the narrow limits of your intellectual repertoire.

      Delete
  6. Considering you continue to insist that organized religion's prohibitions against evil make it superior to atheism, despite the fact that said organized religion's prohibitions are completely unenforceable, to its alleged adherents, in any meaningful way , I'd be a little more careful about who you're calling stupid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Having prohibitions against evil which are not uniformly followed is superior to having no prohibitions against evil which are not uniformly followed.

      Atheism's having no prohibitions against evil means that anyone doing evils prohibited by religion are being bad at being religious but they aren't being bad at being atheists.

      I am careful about who I call "stupid" I considered if it were justified to point out you are stupid and it turned out that it was justified. Your making this comment only adds to the confirmation of that decision.

      Delete
  7. "Having prohibitions against evil which are not uniformly followed is superior to having no prohibitions against evil which are not uniformly followed. "

    So your honor system is superior to my honor system.

    You tell 'em, Sparky.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, you don't even get that, do you, Simps. I think that people will have to face justice for their sins, I believe there will be an accounting. It's not the "honors system".

      Your "honor system"? I thought you didn't think I should believe anything that isn't evidenced. I've seen no evidence that you have an conception of honor as a restraint on you.

      Delete
  8. Atheism's having no prohibitions against evil means that anyone doing evils prohibited by religion are being bad at being religious but they aren't being bad at being atheists.

    That's like saying "you'd be cute if you had a different face" I.e., it's a sentence with words in it that abut each other, but which otherwise makes no sense whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Too long for you, Simps? It's no wonder you don't read Darwin and check his citations, it would be entirely past your reading comprehension.

      I'll bet you'd be able to find one of those old SRA Reading Lab kits for sale in the greater NYC area. You should start at the beginning.

      Delete
  9. You know, Sparky, I saw noted non-believer John Cleese do a show last night, and one of the points he made is that anybody who can't laugh at himself is by definition incapable of understanding humor or wit of any kind.

    At the time, all I could think is oh my, Cleese is reading your mail. I mean, in all the years I've been making fun of you, you have never once responded with something self-deprecating. Or cracked a decent joke, for that matter.

    It must really suck to be you.
    :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As you are so often the target of my humor you're just doing that old atheist amnesia thing about it. Apparently even my self deprecation goes over your head. Which is encouraging. Never mind my puns. I'm not throwing any pearls to swine.

      John Cleese was funny, his last video-casts I watched were rather funny. I would suspect he would have experienced people too stupid to get his humor, something that Steve Colbert runs into quite a lot.

      Let's see, Oh, yeah, two jokes I invented at Eschaton

      1. [Before he died, this was] You can't call William F. Buckley a fascist, he successfully sued someone for calling him a fascist and Liberace successfully sued someone for saying he was gay.

      2. [When somene asked why Chris Matthews was often called "Tweety"] He said, I thought I'd slob a plutocrat, so I did! I did! slob a plutocrat.

      There have been others. Some have found my limericks amusing, especially the ones on you.

      Delete
  10. "Some have found my limericks amusing,"

    Other people like to be dressed up in rubber suits and spanked with paddles. Proves nothing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sims, no one cares about the remains of your sex life.

      Delete
  11. Actually many people do, but I have to watch what I say or else Taylor Swift will write another song about me.
    :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suppose there are people who study sexual dysfunction professionally who might. I meant normal people.

      Delete
  12. Didn't get the reference or the joke, did ya, Sparky.

    There's a surprise.
    :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. a. Which reference to rubber and paddles could that be? Let me guess, something in the classic flims of the Porky's series? Or is that too high brow a guess?

      As to jokes about rubber and paddles? Geesh, I think I probably heard the first one of those about 1963, they got boring before straight boys like you ever heard of the genre.

      Delete
  13. No, you blithering idiot. The reference to Taylor Swift writing a song about me or why it's funny.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Taylor Swift? You think I'd bother becoming familiar enough with Taylor Swift to get your lame attempt at turning it into a joke? That's almost funny.

      You are such a class act, Sims.

      Delete
  14. Replies
    1. What's wrong, Sims, your girl friend forget to give you your daily does of Geritol?

      Delete
  15. "m certain to within a logical certainty that you are an atheist who is lying about that, something you have in common with several people in history, one whose name begins with an "H".

    Howard the Duck? Helen Reddy? Henny Youngman?

    Seriously, Sparky, who the fuck are you talking about?
    :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I were answering most people on that I'd say, "Think less hard". In your case I say, give up, it's beyond your abilities.

      Delete
  16. Don't feel too bad, Sparky. Not being able to come up with a good joke happens to everybody at some point.
    :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I told a joke and you thought it was funny I wouldn't tell it again because I'd figure it must be too stupid to want to be associated with it.

      Delete
  17. So the impotence gag when right over your head. Quel surprise.
    :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's over your head to you doesn't rise to my notice, for me.

      Delete
  18. "jokes about rubber and paddles? Geesh, I think I probably heard the first one of those about 1963, they got boring before straight boys like you ever heard of the genre. "

    Pulling rank again, Sparky?
    :-)

    ReplyDelete