Uh, welcome?

Other than that I find your post confusing. Did I miss something?

 

R/

Lenny

www.kaosium.org 

Nonsense. Every single discipline of human endeavor by virtue builds itself on reasoned discourse and argument. Propositions should be decided meritocratically by virtue of their reason for holding. THere is no reason whatsoever why religion should not be brutally subject to absolutely the same epistemological criterion as any other field of human endeavor?

Again, so what? We shield nothing from discourse or invasion of belief in any other field of endeavor. I see no reason why religion ought not be crushed under that wonderful eviscerator of bad ideas, reasoned discourse.

Because for one, for the bulk of those under its subjugation, religion is not particularly a source of comfort, for another the primary sustinence of religion c, for another, the idea of religion as a source of comfort is ridiculous. It is testimony to the idiocy of the theology and its twisted minds that invented the concepts of hell and sin that those who propogate it could possibly imagine their nonsense is a source of comfort for any sane thinking man, and finally, the propogation of propositions only on grounds of maintaining an illusory state of happiness is highly unethical.

 

 

Ok now think about this: Is it a really dumb idea to not tell some tribal leader weilding a big fucking sword that his god is infact bullshit?

As good luck would have it, Enlightenment has eviscerated the power of religion to murder its dissenters, and although a great many still live under its violent, hateful jurisprudence, particularly in Islam, a great many others do not, and therefore feel obliged and happy, to kill this particularly noxious stain on human prehistory that continues to blight our lives, regardless of where we live.

Enlightenment is a good thing, I agree with you on this point but your idea on delivery is wrong.

Damn right

My apologies for not responding straight away to your specific requests upon Richard Dawkins this is mainly due to me taking in what I percieve as right and what is wrong. Dawkins to me is someone that favours scientology, now don't get me wrong science holds far more answers than any religion can with far more confidence, however Dawkins to me is nothing more than a Theist dressed up in Atheist clothing.

 

You can however disclaim this as pure ignorance due to the fact that I have read little of what Dawkins has written but again my post is all down to the grindstone of my opinion and nothing more. 

Shall I bother to meantion that you abuse your myspace privileges to gain I.P. identifications on your members at the RRS?

Dude, don't be so dense.  Myspace has a public search engine, and you provided us with the information we needed to do the search.  Last I looked, myspace doesn't have a prohibition on using the search engines they provide.

 

 

Somehow I don't think dead kangaroo knows what Scientology actually is.

 

Dumbass.

 

I think the idiot means scientism. The distinction is important to say the least, but this is such a perfect malaproprism that it deserves to go down as a perfectly formed inadvertant stupidity. The comment is so deliciously ironic, even better because it is inadvertent.

The only 2 possible links you had was the I.P. address and email. now casually resubmitting these details to rebroadcast someones plausibly private myspace entry was slightly naughty, I would say. If you disagree then I'd be happy to clear it up with a myspace moderator.

Can't y'all at least give him the "asshat" avatar first?

 

I'll meet you half way.  Unban, with the avatar.  Someone can reban him later, just understand he's my bitch right now... pageviews baby! 

Just to get me banned good and proper: It's good to see you sucking cock for the Athiests.

If thats the case why don't you just give it up or do you favour masterabation?

And just for good measure, both of your accounts got an asshat.  If I have to take time out from my reading to deal with this kind of shit, somebody's getting an asshat.

(Damn, that felt good.  Haven't given out an asshat in months.)

 

I am an innocent atheist minding my own business yet they choose to slap a derogatory frame upon me even though they are supposed to be open and for equality etc etc but yet here I find me being not only placed into the troll section but also banned, I find this very fucking unjust.

   geezzz I am against banning

, so much fun to miss out on,

How about a good public flogging instead !

, in  Islamic tradition, I read that it was only to whip with gesters ..... that even to kill simply meant to work at healing the sick ones, ( kill the evil spirit )

yeah wishful thinking , and excuses maybe on my part, beats me ?

 

 

Christ fucking a pogo stick...

All that bitching and moaning, and now that he's unbanned, he's not even going to grace us with more of his wisdom.

It's the last time I do anybody a favor.

 

Nah, I just cannot be arsed with this non-person's site anymore. Cheers for time wasted.

"The reason I post here today is to inform you what you are doing is almost completely useless and nothing shy of trolling."

If they have become the most popular atheist website in America, brought attention to other atheist websites, and they (and other websites) have changed the way many people view religion and the world around them, I don't think it's accurate to say that what they are doing is almost completely useless. It seems that you have almost completely failed to do any research.

"Because respecting someone with delusions makes a delusional person not choose you as their next target."

And confronting the schoolyard bully makes that person choose you as their next target as well. That doesn't mean the schoolyard bully should remain unopposed. When a person decides to make the attempt to change the world, or even a small portion of it, that person necessarily places himself or herself at risk. I think you would benefit well from a history lesson because you seem to have not noticed that the world wasn't changed for the better by the spineless.

Further, those with delusions are generally intent on spreading their delusions. If the delusions are not opposed while still opposable, the amount of people who have the delusion will inevitably increase. Eventually the sane would have no power over the course of events because the delusional have the numbers and thus the power. To not combat delusions is to bend over and say, "insert here."

"If they choose to believe in what they do and are comfortably happy to believe what they do then who are we to disturb them in their happy state?"

May I ask the same question of you? If the owners of this website choose to believe that oppressive worldviews, or worldviews that result from systemic problems in thought processes, should be opposed or the people corrected, and they are comfortably happy to believe that, then who are you to disturb them in their happy state? Do you not see your hypocrisy? You deny privileges to one group that you grant to the other when there's no reason to treat them unequally.

"Dawkins to me is someone that favours scientology [sic], now don't get me wrong science holds far more answers than any religion can with far more confidence, however Dawkins to me is nothing more than a Theist dressed up in Atheist clothing. You can however disclaim this as pure ignorance due to the fact that I have read little of what Dawkins has written but again my post is all down to the grindstone of my opinion and nothing more."

You should read some of Dawkins' work because your representation of him is false.

"Shall I bother to meantion that you abuse your myspace privileges to gain I.P. identifications on your members at the RRS?"

It's not an abuse of MySpace privileges to get IP addresses. It's not an abuse of RRS administrative privileges to get IP addresses. It's not an abuse of any privileges to cross-reference them. Why are you complaining anyway? They just increased your Google Page Rank. I think they should remove the reference to your MySpace just so you don't get search engine benefits by being a troll.

You quoted, "You can however disclaim this as pure ignorance due to the fact that I have read little of what Dawkins has written," after your scientism-scientology malapropism to defend yourself, then said, "You can feel free to shut the fuck up when ever possible."

Your ignorance doesn't seem to stem from your ignorance of Dawkins but of your ignorance of the distinction between scientism and scientology. If you do know the distinction between them, you must know so little about Dawkins that it would be intellectually dishonest to even put forward an opinion on the person because there would be absolutely no basis for the opinion.

"The only 2 possible links you had was the I.P. address and email. now casually resubmitting these details to rebroadcast someones plausibly private myspace entry was slightly naughty, I would say. If you disagree then I'd be happy to clear it up with a myspace moderator."

You can contact a MySpace moderator if you so desire but your efforts will be fruitless. The phrase, "plausibly private," is a contortion of the English language. The word you are looking for is "public." The moderators at MySpace will probably laugh at you when you tell them that you think others invaded your "public privacy."

"Was it because I was an actual 'asshat' or was it because you were the 'asshat' who couldn't cope with my opinion?"

It was because you were an asshat.