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

Comments by Flapjack

Go to: The Dawkins Challenge

Flapjack's Avatar Jump to comment 79 by Flapjack

Perhaps they should rebrand the host "I can't believe it's not Jesus" - "the same moisture sapping taste you love but with 100% added dogma compared with regular rice wafers".

Sat, 16 Jun 2012 11:18:14 UTC | #947689

Go to: The Dawkins Challenge

Flapjack's Avatar Jump to comment 72 by Flapjack

I could trawl through the minutae arguments of this dubious pretzeled post-hoc rationalisation but rather than waste breath and braincells I give you the Courtiers' reply

Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:00:59 UTC | #947549

Go to: Spanish artist faces prison over 'how to cook Christ' film

Flapjack's Avatar Jump to comment 22 by Flapjack

So I'm guessing these folks had better rethink their business model then

And Tom Waits could be on shaky ground too...

But since we've established a legal precedent that eating Jesus is an illegal act of blasphemy without a statute of limitations, logically that must include transubstantiation.

Can we put a case together to convict the Catholic church now?

Thu, 07 Jun 2012 17:23:54 UTC | #946167

Go to: "Our Lady of Sorrows (Ariz.) baseball team forfeits state title rather than play against team with a girl"

Flapjack's Avatar Jump to comment 9 by Flapjack

Well maybe when Our lady of Sorrows has forfieted a few games to opposing teams with girls on them, they'll get the message that imposing arbitary sexist rules is forcing them to slip down the league table.

What do they imagine will happen? Kids making out in the locker rooms on away days?

There again, maybe I'm being optimistic that might give them pause to reflect. Maybe a few of the less able teams could boost their chances by actively recruiting girls to their squads!

Sat, 12 May 2012 11:03:23 UTC | #941169

Go to: Family Battle Offers Look Inside Lavish TV Ministry

Flapjack's Avatar Jump to comment 24 by Flapjack

I thought I was looking at stills from MTV Cribs... are these the plans that Disneyworld chucked out for being a bit too much?

That front entrance is giving me diabetes. Just when you thought the catholics had cornered the market in OTT kitsch... I don't know if I'm more offended by the cash they waste on it or the taste free end result.

Sun, 06 May 2012 09:22:38 UTC | #940114

Go to: Protest against the “Punch your gay kids” Pastor – Sean Harris.

Flapjack's Avatar Jump to comment 38 by Flapjack

Probably a rageaholic Ted Haggard type.

There's now a webpage dedicated exclusively to gay homophobes, consisting almost entirely of Christian Evangelists and anti-gay Republicans, the tally currently stands at 25 entries dating from 2004. Anyone fancy a sweepstake on who will make the big list next and what excuse they'll offer?

Best excuses so far are "Just buying meth off a rentboy who happened to be in my hotel room" - Ted Haggard,

"Documenting weight loss by posting erotic snapshots of my rear end on Grindr" - Roberto Arrango

"That guy I hired from an exclusively gay online escort agency requiring a subscription was helping me 'lift my luggage' at the airport" - George Rekers

"Picking paper up from the floor of the airport restroom and adopting a 'wide stance' when I got busted by that undercover cop" - Larry Craig

http://gayhomophobe.com/

Sun, 06 May 2012 08:24:47 UTC | #940107

Go to: Protest against the “Punch your gay kids” Pastor – Sean Harris.

Flapjack's Avatar Jump to comment 5 by Flapjack

Comment 3 by Quine :

Thanks to the video this story has received a fair amount of press, here in the U.S., so this jerk has had to continuously backpeddle since it hit the news.

Yep I read about his backpeddling, “I do not apologize for the manner in which the Word of God articulates sexual immorality, including homosexuality and effeminacy, as a behavior that is an abomination to God. Nothing in this official statement of retraction should be perceived as an apology for the overarching intent and message of the sermon and the need to define marriage as one man and one woman and to maintain the gender distinctions that God created from the beginning when He made them male and female (Genesis 1)."

or to paraphrase - "I'm sorry I caused offence, but my invisible friend hates homos anyhow, so who am I to argue?"

Id like to add that Thor has since implied that Pastor Harris deserves a porcupine enema. I can't provide evidence of Thor's existence or that I'm not putting words into the mouth of a fictional character to serve as a half-baked proxy for my own opinions, but he does have a blockbuster movie out right now, so whatever he says goes.

Sat, 05 May 2012 17:33:26 UTC | #939930

Go to: Monster-Sized Rabbits Discovered; Sadly, They Can't Hop

Flapjack's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by Flapjack

Comment 6 by IDLERACER :

I wonder what Elmer Fudd has to say about all this.

At the risk of being obvious...

Sat, 21 Apr 2012 09:44:23 UTC | #936224

Go to: 'Gay cure' Christian charity funded 20 MPs' interns

Flapjack's Avatar Jump to comment 11 by Flapjack

Comment 8 by hemidemisemigod

Wow! So not only do Christians condemn homosexuality as a "sin" but they claim they can also cure it like an illness.

It's a standard snake oil sales technique... create a bogus need [in this case by browbeating your intended clientelle into a state of neurotic self loathing over many many years] then flog-em the high-priced placebos to cure it with.

Sat, 14 Apr 2012 17:03:06 UTC | #934645

Go to: Blessed are those with a persecution complex?

Flapjack's Avatar Jump to comment 38 by Flapjack

Contrary to the way that was reported in the Telegraph and bemoaned by people like former archbishop Carey and the Christian Institute et al (more persecution complex!), the government was not saying that Christians must NOT wear crosses in the workplace, but merely that, if their employers have a policy against jewellery in the workplace, Christians cannot rely on human rights legislation to demand an exemption, because wearing a cross is not a requirement of Christianity.

For me this is the key element on the whole "I'm banned from wearing a cross at work, and that's discrimination" debate. I am also an ex-christian, and there is simply no tenet of mainstream christianity which requires wearing a crucifix round your neck. It's not in any holy text any more than sticking a fish on the back bumper of your car is. It's simply an austentatious display of piety when all is said and done. I do get the impression some people wish it was a compulsory tenet of the faith, but it should no more trump uniform standards in the workplace than wearing a football scarf or a lapel badge you picked up at a Star-trek convention. You can still be a practicing christian whether you wear it or not.

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:11:10 UTC | #930522

Go to: Nate Phelps to Speak at Military's Atheist Festival - Son of Infamous “Thank God For Dead Soldiers” Preacher To Speak on Fort Bragg

Flapjack's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by Flapjack

Sorry, here's that link again

Tue, 20 Mar 2012 11:42:58 UTC | #928913

Go to: Nate Phelps to Speak at Military's Atheist Festival - Son of Infamous “Thank God For Dead Soldiers” Preacher To Speak on Fort Bragg

Flapjack's Avatar Jump to comment 6 by Flapjack

These days I'm inclined to think of Fred Phelps and WBC as litigious internet trolls. They go out phishing for reactions then sue whoever they can trip up using their inside knowledge of the first amendment.

Perhaps "hating fags" used to be their primary driving force but when you look at the range of people they deliberately troll to the left and right of the political spectrum from "God hates Fags" to "God hates America" to "God hates dead soldiers" to "God hates the Pope", even down to petty stuff like trolling celebrities, it soon becomes clear that the overarching link (apart from projecting their pet hates onto a hypothetical god) is that they're pressing someone's hotbuttons in the hope that when their intended target retaliates there's a claim for violation of freedom of speech/ expression. What other reason could there be for trolling someone's funeral?

Either that or they sue the local authorities for not providing adequate protection. And with 13 lawyers in their clan who know the first amendment like the back of their hands that's money in the bank. This link seems to be borne out by their behaviour http://kanewj.com/wbc/

Tue, 20 Mar 2012 11:36:34 UTC | #928909

Go to: Westboro Baptist Church to attend Reason Rally with special message for atheists

Flapjack's Avatar Jump to comment 119 by Flapjack

Comment 107 by wald0h

I would be skeptical about the link Flapjack provided.

I have heard this before, that the WBC shows up and sues everyone for money because they're all lawyers and they don't really believe in what they're saying.

However I have never seen any actual proof of this claim. I'm pretty sure more lawsuits have been brought against them than they have brought against people/cities.

I grant you that WBC are more than likely homophobes, as anyone with any integrity couldn't stand up with those banners week after week without a twinge of concience unless they actually believed gays were an abomination.

But if you consider the other groups they troll on a regular basis, the only thing they have in common is that they are all hotbutton issues for someone. Dead soldiers, America, various celebrities, last week they even trolled the band Radiohead.

If you wanted to find a link with gayness in the above it would be a non-sequiteur at best, something along the lines of [*********] is hated by god for allowing gays to exist in the USA. What you can guarantee is that the first two categories offend patriots and the second will get the jingoists especially riled. Add gays to the mix and you've basically trolled everyone to the left and right of the US political spectrum.

Trolling Radiohead is more than likely just a publicity stunt as I can't imagine a lynchmob of radiohead fans.

But I have no reason to doubt the link I posted as when everything is taken into account, they still need cash and Phelps Snr seems mighty keen that most of his family should have law degrees. Got to ask why? As Steven Mading rightly pointed out they have an uncanny knack of being just offensive enough to get other people riled up, but not to the point they break the law themselves. And they don't need to win every case to make a profit either.

Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:52:27 UTC | #927393

Go to: Westboro Baptist Church to attend Reason Rally with special message for atheists

Flapjack's Avatar Jump to comment 88 by Flapjack

As others have pointed out, engaging with WBC is like feeding a litigious internet troll. Someone posted this link on Pharingula and when you read it you see that "hating fags" isn't exactly their driving force.

Suing anyone and everyone they can trip up using the first amendment is the underlying reason behind everything they do.

It's one giant trolling and phishing scam, and anyone is fair game. They either sue you for crossing the line by reacting to their presence in a hostile way or they sue the local authorities and police for not protecting them from the hostility they deliberately generate. Blanking them utterly is the safest option unless you have the legal chops to take on the 13 qualified lawyers in their clan.

Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:52:11 UTC | #926741

Go to: Vatican told to pay taxes as Italy tackles budget crisis

Flapjack's Avatar Jump to comment 2 by Flapjack

About time too, though I'm surprised they didn't pull the old "We're an independent state" routine as a tax dodge.

Sun, 26 Feb 2012 13:37:44 UTC | #922058

Go to: Bath Christian group's 'God can heal' adverts banned

Flapjack's Avatar Jump to comment 27 by Flapjack

Derren Brown's documentary "Miracles for Sale" revealed the arsenal of tricks in the faith healer's repertoire quite nicely, from bogus leg lengthening (Finding someone with slip-on shoes and tug slightly at the heel to create the illusion that the recipient's stunted leg had grown by a couple of inches) to 'curing' the blind by misleading the faithful over the nature of the partially sighted. Naturally they also use stooges and milk the audience for personal details on questionaire cards which are presented as divine revelations later. Seems almost too obvious but apparently these ameteur conjuring tricks work on impressionable grown adults. The chronically sick don't get anywhere near the stage.

Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:50:54 UTC | #914538

Go to: If by "Christian love" you mean hatred & contempt...

Flapjack's Avatar Jump to comment 68 by Flapjack

@ Michael Gray - Yep, I do use an anonymous pseudonym on line. Guilty as charged. And if you ever catch me telling another poster I don't agree with that I hope they burn for eternity in hell or I'm going to visit them at home and punch them repeatedly in the face for their temerity then I hope you'll be first in line to tell me I'm out of order. I do make it a point of principle not to do that though. The anonymity element is simply a precaution because I don't fancy a hoarde of similar online sociopaths with a bad case of deindividuation doing that sort of thing to me. Reasonable enough?

Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:04:50 UTC | #908507

Go to: If by "Christian love" you mean hatred & contempt...

Flapjack's Avatar Jump to comment 10 by Flapjack

To play devil's advocate for one minute, I don't think this type of abuse is exclusive to Christians ranting on internet forums. Dare I say it, I have seen similar sentiments espoused from our own ranks on some atheist forums. Derren Brown's recent show "The Gameshow" demonstrated how easy it is to follow the herd, to loose inhibitions and stick the boot in when you're in an anonymous setting and internet forums/ chatrooms and discussion blogs are notorious for it.

It's simply an ugly facet of the human condition which we all fall foul of to varying degrees from time to time. We notice it instantly when we're in the firing line, but are we such sticklers for these unspoken rules of engagement when we're talking to religious folk we don't agree with? Or are we tempted to "bend the rules, just a little"

In trying to explain the behaviour of crowds, contemporary social psychologists refer to deindividuation. Members of crowds feel anonymous and anonymity leads to a decrease in responsibility and loss of inhibitions.

Whilst tempting to say that Christians should be above all that, I'm not entirely surprised that they're not. Whether that makes them hypocrites is another matter.

Sat, 14 Jan 2012 14:46:29 UTC | #908221

Go to: Tesco slump due to divine intervention, says Christian pressure group

Flapjack's Avatar Jump to comment 35 by Flapjack

I think Green wants to be the UK's answer to Fred Phelps but comes over as a pale imitation. The similarities are striking... -Constantly camaigning against homosexuality -A blatant vainglorious media whore -Making sweeping apocalyptic pronouncements about imagined divine punishment for perceived heathen indisgressions -Boycotting everything -Terrorising his wife and kids with blunt impliments.

The only mitigating factor he has if you can call it that is that he just doesn't get the news coverage Pastor Phelps does. He just wishes he did.

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 21:45:35 UTC | #908033

Go to: Tesco slump due to divine intervention, says Christian pressure group

Flapjack's Avatar Jump to comment 20 by Flapjack

BTW just in case anyone needed reminding why Stephen Green is not a moral authority on anything here's a link for you... or if you prefer, this one...

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:01:27 UTC | #907994

Go to: Tesco slump due to divine intervention, says Christian pressure group

Flapjack's Avatar Jump to comment 19 by Flapjack

"I now call on Tesco to see sense before their company is ruined. Don't display the arrogance of Pharaoh. Withdraw the grant to Gay Pride."

...said Stephen Green, who blithely ignores the fact that it was his own god who according to Exodus made Ramases II give the thumbs down to abolishing slavery. As I remember from school bible classes, the story suggests that God 'made Pharaoh obstinate' with some mind control jiggery pokery! Nothing like a temporary loss of free will to bring about the brutal final act climax god wants in his own contrived f***ed up narrative!

And somehow Pharaoh gets the blame for that one when he didn't even have personal autonomy. What's the reverse of "Deus ex-machina" again?

Anyhow I would have thought that alleged wifebeating from his ex and rabid homophobia should have consigned this fundamentalist egit's opinions to the irrelevance scrapheap years ago.

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 18:54:15 UTC | #907992

Go to: Women cane morality police

Flapjack's Avatar Jump to comment 6 by Flapjack

Wish there were more like these women... it's about time those zealots got a taste of their own medicine. I only hope they are braced for whatever reprisals come their way, but it would be nice to think this was the start of an Arab Spring suffragette movement.

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:46:27 UTC | #907186

Go to: War, Famine, Pestilence...Richard Dawkins - What Sort Of God...

Flapjack's Avatar Jump to comment 61 by Flapjack

I'm with the Peak Oil Poet on this one... back when I used to be a slave to the dogma the idea that bad things happen on god's watch never really shook my faith as it should've, as I could quite easily compartmentalise the idea that we were dealing with a capricious demagogue bully who had to be appeased. For some reason the Old Testament didn't really bother me at the time.

Think of it as divine Stockholm syndrome. Either it "wasn't part of the masterplan", or "someone had sinned" or "The Devil did it"... the devil was always a convenient scapegoat for the events you can't equate to an all loving omnipotent being.

It was much later I managed to reframe the idea in my head, that if God was a real person as described in the Old Testament he'd neatly fall into the psychological profile of Joseph Stalin - and would I be inclined to worship a divine Joseph Stalin? Shortly after that my faith fell to bits. Epicurus summed up the whole problem nicely.

Sun, 08 Jan 2012 10:53:41 UTC | #906436

Go to: [Update: Catholic League takes down their contact link] “Adopt an atheist” campaign begins

Flapjack's Avatar Jump to comment 27 by Flapjack

Couldn't it be like one of those zoo adoptions where I never get to meet them but they send a regular direct debit to my bank account for my upkeep and maybe get a nice photo and a round robin letter in return? I could send them updates on all the gay/ atheist stuff I'd been up to every month. If they pledge double the cash they can adopt my boyfriend too!

Fri, 09 Dec 2011 19:21:01 UTC | #897219

Go to: Poop-Throwing Chimps Provide Hints of Human Origins

Flapjack's Avatar Jump to comment 3 by Flapjack

So our first anthropological milestone was the dirty protest! What does that say about us as a species?

Fri, 02 Dec 2011 06:39:43 UTC | #894945

Go to: Lego bible too racy for Sam's Club

Flapjack's Avatar Jump to comment 13 by Flapjack

Now I see the problem, you can read about all those things in the Old Testament but the moment you illustrate them it's all a bit too graphic for kids.

Because kids aren't capable of forming a mental picture of Abraham stabbing Isaac or Lot's Daughters or all those acts of genocide without pretty pictures. It's either admitting the bible is way too dull to pay attention without illustrations or that if you did pay attention it should be on the top shelf wrapped in cellophane and not available to anyone under 18. That said I did chuckle at the bit in the Brick testament about the holy ghost 'visiting' the virgin Mary... not much was left to the imagination... that's the steamiest encounter involving a ghost since that movie with Patrick Swayze!

Mon, 28 Nov 2011 07:14:56 UTC | #893782

Go to: 'Harry Potter and yoga are evil', says Catholic Church exorcist

Flapjack's Avatar Jump to comment 60 by Flapjack

Isn't this simply elaborating on the gospel according to Ned Flanders?

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 13:34:06 UTC | #893564

Go to: Obama Thanksgiving Speech Didn't Mention God

Flapjack's Avatar Jump to comment 35 by Flapjack

Praising god at Thanksgiving always reminds me of saying grace. There was a Bill Plymton movie a few years back which summed it up nicely... to paraphrase the passive aggressive dad at the dinner table "Dear god, thankyou for this bountiful meal which we are about to consume. Granted you didn't plant the seed, or plough the field or cultivate it in any way and someone else was responsible for breeding the turkey, slaughtering it, plucking it, buying it and cooking it and slaving over a hot stove for 3 hours and then there's your VAT and taxes..." and his wife cuts him off with "Amen!" just as he's launching into a full throttle rant about city hall!

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 13:21:53 UTC | #893561

Go to: Let's Talk About Evolution

Flapjack's Avatar Jump to comment 5 by Flapjack

All this week on Channel 4 on their '4thought tv' slot they're debating the motion "Should Creationism be taught in schools". 50% of their speakers are for the motion.

This is why Evolution should be taught in schools... though some people are tragically immune to reason. How Sam Scott Perry with his 3 science A-levels including Biology at an A* can cling to the bible as evidence of anything other than a discredited theory that a load of bronze age peasants who still thought the world was flat compiled to explain the world is beyond me.

Here's a direct quote "I think ultimately creationism is not pushed forward and actively taught in schools simply because people think that if you teach creationism and things in schools we're teaching the whole worldview of the bible. And you start teaching that people realise 'Ah, well OK, I can trust the bible's science, that means I can trust the bible's morality, that means I can trust the bible's viewpoint when it comes to spiritual things". It was about this point where I facepalmed myself so hard I knocked myself out. Please leave comments on their homepage...

Tue, 22 Nov 2011 08:53:39 UTC | #892219

Go to: Episode 22: Attack of the Theocrats! - Interview with Sean Faircloth

Flapjack's Avatar Jump to comment 4 by Flapjack

Talking of teaching the bible in schools, Channel 4's faith slot '4thought TV' is running a Ben Stein style debate on teaching creationism in schools this week. There seems to be an equal mix of speakers for and against (follow the links on the page) but it might be worth pitching in with your posts.

Seems strange they didn't ask Richard to throw his hat in the ring. Gratifyingly most comments are against proselytising in science class thus far, but there's still a looney fringe who seem to think God buried fossils to mess with our heads.

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 22:58:04 UTC | #892135