This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← American Taliban on the warpath against evolution

American Taliban on the warpath against evolution - Comments

Logicel's Avatar Comment 1 by Logicel

This post from Pharyngula says that this guy has been identified:

Sat, 14 Jul 2007 12:58:00 UTC | #53067

action1976's Avatar Comment 2 by action1976

Truth loving Fundamentalist Christians exercising there God given right to kill any one who doesn't agree with there crackpot views.

Fundamentalist Muslims burning video's and audio cassetes,and blaming it for destroying society.
While inciting people to suicide attacks.

Anyone please tell me why religion is a good thing.

Apart from burning Home Alone 4 and Free Willy but you didn't have to be a religious fruitcake to agree with incinerating those films.

Sat, 14 Jul 2007 13:09:00 UTC | #53074

Cook@Tahiti's Avatar Comment 3 by Cook@Tahiti

Sometimes I wish religion was true so the Rapture would finally come and whisk them all away so they can leave us alone.

We atheists are happy to switch off the lights, tidy up, and burn any remaining copies of Home Alone 4.

Sat, 14 Jul 2007 13:14:00 UTC | #53076

exegesis_saves's Avatar Comment 4 by exegesis_saves

Sometimes I wish religion was true so the Rapture would finally come and whisk them all away so they can leave us alone.

Two points:

1) Think of how much better popular music will be..

2) Again, someone needs to get on the ball and start selling "Rapture Insurance" to believers to cover their heathen loved ones. I'd love to see the political uproar the first time someone tries to sue for "fraud."

Sat, 14 Jul 2007 13:24:00 UTC | #53078

bluebird's Avatar Comment 5 by bluebird

There was an article in May about a guy who supposedly made 'post-rapture letters' for those left behind. Can't find it.

Sat, 14 Jul 2007 14:10:00 UTC | #53093

bluebird's Avatar Comment 7 by bluebird


Sat, 14 Jul 2007 15:40:00 UTC | #53120

kardde1492's Avatar Comment 8 by kardde1492

i agree. even if the rapture comes at least i wont have to listen to their bullcrap anymore. burning in hell for all eternity is better then listening to them for all eternity.

Sat, 14 Jul 2007 19:35:00 UTC | #53156

konquererz's Avatar Comment 9 by konquererz

Let me off the crazy train please. The world has gone mad. How do we stop this insanity? Religion is not progressing forwards, its falling backwards into the dark ages all over again. To be sure, many would like to bring back the inquisition if they could. This is out of control, is there not anyone willing to stand up and preach their own scripture against them?

Sun, 15 Jul 2007 09:14:00 UTC | #53223

Henri Bergson's Avatar Comment 10 by Henri Bergson

One forgets that Pakistan has the bomb. If the (relatively) secular President Musharraf were to be toppled by any one of the myriad fundamentalist muslim groups of his country (and Pakistan was created AS an islamic state), then the west would have to interfere. Interference would preferably be done through funding a coup, but ultimately military force would have to be used.

Having said this, the US has the bomb as well, and Bush seems to be a fundamentalist. Would the US ever (H) bomb a nation due to religious difference? – Doubtful. Would Pakistan under a new muslim head? – Unknowable. Should we, Europe, bomb the US as half of them are a bunch of morons? – Suicide. Should the allies control Pakistan? – Undoubtedly.

Mon, 16 Jul 2007 02:39:00 UTC | #53348

Cook@Tahiti's Avatar Comment 11 by Cook@Tahiti

10. Comment #56497 by Henri Bergson

>Should the allies control Pakistan? – Undoubtedly.

What? Have you been watching the news lately? Do you know any history? Have we learnt nothing?

Even if it were desirable, the combined might of the USA & UK can't even secure the road from Baghdad to the Airport after four years (longer than USA's involvement in WWII), let alone "control" every rogue nuclear state.

Just like the US health care system is grossly inefficient (lots of money spent, poor results), the military is equally useless. Bombing is the easy part, nation-building is more difficult. The primary purpose of "The Military" is to tranfer public funds to defense contractors. Whether the missions succeed or fail is inconsequential. If Americans are safer or more at risk as a result of all these adventures is irrelevant.

Mon, 16 Jul 2007 03:06:00 UTC | #53351

Henri Bergson's Avatar Comment 12 by Henri Bergson


I think you have watched the news but not analysed it.

Afghanistan & Iraq are no longer threats to the west - as nation states (Al qaeda existed anyway). People criticise the invasions because the countries were left in (relative) chaos; but that's irrelevant: they are no longer serious potential threats.

Pakistan must be kept in check, our puppet is doing that for us now.

I don't think most people understand that international affairs is necessarily a zero-sum-game. If you deny that, you're an idealist (and may as well be religious).

Mon, 16 Jul 2007 03:37:00 UTC | #53354

Cook@Tahiti's Avatar Comment 13 by Cook@Tahiti


>Afghanistan & Iraq are no longer threats to the west -

What do you mean "no longer". This implies they once were.

Actually, if you examined the news, the west is MORE threatened (from terrorists, not nation states) than ever...

That's from The Times, hardly a left wing idealist newspaper.

I've no problem with warmongering, so long as the warmongers are the first across the front line. If you're willing to be the first to land on the tarmac in Islamabad, with Hitchens by your side, in your American t-shirts, so we can sleep soundly at night, be our guests.

What I do have a problem with is warmongerers sending other people across the battlefield, on false pretenses, with the intelligence agencies warning that people will be worse off.

Mon, 16 Jul 2007 03:48:00 UTC | #53357

Henri Bergson's Avatar Comment 14 by Henri Bergson


Afghanistan & Iraq, I wrote, were 'serious POTENTIAL threats.'

Secondly, I also wrote that Al qaeda existed before the invasions. Perhaps it stirred them up a little, but terrorism is no where near as dangerous as a nation threat (terrorists do not have armies).

Thirdly, don't forget that the military personnel from the US and UK are volunteers today. It is no bad thing to ask them to fulfill their purpose, as you suggest. Why do you think everyone is a coward by default?...

Of course false pretenses were made, at least with Iraq (WMD, etc.). Naturally and irrelevantly! This is necessary as the population must be controlled by an ethical code that does not objectively exist. If states were honest - that all war is ultimately about power - the populace would be harder to control.

It seems you are part of this deluded populace - but reality is far from your understanding. All statesmen know this.

Mon, 16 Jul 2007 04:06:00 UTC | #53365

Cook@Tahiti's Avatar Comment 15 by Cook@Tahiti

So populations have to be deceived and controlled, but the grunts in the military are making free and fair choices whether to go to war? Yeah, that's real consistent thinking.

By all means, notch up all the frequent flier miles you can by invading every "potential" threat on the planet. No objections here. Send us a postcard.

Mon, 16 Jul 2007 04:14:00 UTC | #53367

phasmagigas's Avatar Comment 16 by phasmagigas

i'd like to see the author of that letter be capable of understanding the research and therory at Colorado university and THEN refute it as lies via his/her own published peer reviewed papers, of course that isnt (ok, i keep an open mind but i feel its VERY unlikely)) going to happen so some rather 'unchristian' tactics now being used.

Its akin to me (who knows zero about engineering)watching a huge bridge being constructed and denying that its safe to go across just because i 'know' its just too big to stand there on its own, I could see cars going over but know its still not possible. I could picket the bridge to stop people crossing, hopefully i'd be arrested and be strapped down by that point (before i decided to bomb the dangerous bridge). Ignorance is bliss for some i supose.

Mon, 16 Jul 2007 04:28:00 UTC | #53369

Henri Bergson's Avatar Comment 17 by Henri Bergson


Is that a response? Come on, give me more than that!

You completely misunderstood everything I wrote.

Mon, 16 Jul 2007 04:28:00 UTC | #53370

bamboospitfire's Avatar Comment 18 by bamboospitfire

"In addition, the New Testament states clearly that Adam and Eve were our original parents and that Noah's Flood was an historical reality."

Given the presence of such fundamental errors on the part of the author at Boulder, does anyone else get the feeling that this might just be a wind-up?

Mon, 16 Jul 2007 04:41:00 UTC | #53376

Cook@Tahiti's Avatar Comment 19 by Cook@Tahiti

Henri, you're still there? Don't you have a country to invade? Pakistan remember? And then all the other potential threats: Iran, Syria, China, North Korea, etc. There's a lot to do for brave folk like you, so I won't hold you up any longer.

Mon, 16 Jul 2007 04:45:00 UTC | #53377

Henri Bergson's Avatar Comment 20 by Henri Bergson


Mon, 16 Jul 2007 04:47:00 UTC | #53378

ranjani's Avatar Comment 21 by ranjani

Since a discussion of the Iraq war seems to have entered this thread, I think the following link might be of interest which is a collection of interviews with Iraq vets.

Mon, 16 Jul 2007 06:43:00 UTC | #53387

Henri Bergson's Avatar Comment 22 by Henri Bergson


So what? Everyone knows that US military personnel are wimps.

I once read they had 'compassion training' exercises whilst the Brits were having night-vision targeting training.

Mon, 16 Jul 2007 09:15:00 UTC | #53398