Clownhall article: Desperate Atheist Rage
Hoof-Hearted
Desperate Atheist Rage!
By Marvin Olasky
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Send an email to Marvin Olasky
Nineteenth-century novelist Gustave Flaubert used to joke about
archaeologists discovering a stone tablet signed "God" and reading, "I
do not exist." His punch line had an atheist then exclaiming, "See! I
told you so!"
These days, nothing stops atheistic caissons from rolling along the
bookstore aisles. Maybe that's because atheists on average have small
families and lots of discretionary doubloons jingling in their
pockets. Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation" and Richard
Dawkins' "The God Delusion" were big best sellers during 2006.
Christopher Hitchens' "God Is Not Great" has ascended this year.
All three books are ferocious. Here, for example, is Dawkins' view of
God: "arguably the most unpleasant character in fiction: jealous and
proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive,
bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist,
infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal,
sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
Concerning "The God Delusion," even Publishers Weekly noted, "For a
scientist who criticizes religion for its intolerance, Dawkins has
written a surprisingly intolerant book, full of scorn for religion and
those who believe. Even confirmed atheists who agree with his advocacy
of science and vigorous rationalism may have trouble stomaching some
of the rhetoric: the biblical Yahweh is 'psychotic,' Aquinas's proofs
of God's existence are 'fatuous' and religion generally is
'nonsense.'"
Harris also prefers exclamatory words such as "preposterous" to either
reason or evidence. He asserts certainty about what he admits not
knowing: "How the process of evolution got started is still a mystery,
but that does not in the least suggest that a deity is likely to be
lurking at the bottom of it all." He complains not only about
ignorance but about moral failings: "An average Christian, in an
average church, listening to an average Sunday sermon has achieved a
level of arrogance simply unimaginable in scientific discourse."
Yet Harris, for all his attacks on Intelligent Design, does not even
understand the distinction between macro-evolution -- one kind of
creature changing into another -- and micro-evolution. One of his
proofs of theistic obtuseness is that "viruses like HIV, as well as a
wide range of harmful bacteria, can be seen evolving right under our
noses, developing resistance to antiviral and antibiotic drugs." No
one claims that viruses don't evolve; the debate is whether they turn
into something else.
This year's champion screed, by Christopher Hitchens, also oozes
scorn: "Monotheistic religion is a plagiarism of a plagiarism of a
hearsay of a hearsay, of an illusion of an illusion, extending all the
way back to a fabrication of a few nonevents." The subtitle of "God Is
Not Great" could hardly be more extreme: "How Religion Poisons
Everything." The "everything" claim sounds improbable. Are 1.3 billion
Muslims all murderers? Might Christianity have produced 50 percent
evil and 50 percent good? If not, how about 30 percent? Ten percent?
Will not Hitchens relent from his anger if five percent is good?
Even New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof has praised America's
evangelicals for fighting sexual trafficking in Eastern Europe and
slavery in Sudan -- but the Times gave "God Is Not Great" an adulatory
review.
Hitchens calls "the whole racket of American evangelism a heartless
con" -- but I've met hundreds of compassionate evangelicals who must
be dumb, because they've spent their lives in a racket that's yielded
them almost no money. They've adopted hard-to-place children, built
AIDS orphanages in Africa, helped addicts and alcoholics turn their
lives around, and much besides.
So why, despite the evidence, are authors such as Dawkins, Harris and
HItchens so doctrinaire in their denunciations? Alister and Joanna
Collicutt McGrath offer a reason in their book, "The Dawkins
Delusion": "Until recently, Western atheism had waited patiently,
believing that belief in God would simply die out. But now a whiff of
panic is evident. Far from dying out, belief in God has rebounded "
So pity the atheists: They're cornered and desperate. But God can
break through and change their lives and thinking, as He changed mine
in the 1970s when I was saying what Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens say.
Marvin Olasky is a professor of journalism at the University of Texas
at Austin,the editor-in-chief of World, and author of Scimitar's Edge.
Hatter
> http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MarvinOlasky/2007/08/02/desperate_...
>
> Desperate Atheist Rage!
> By Marvin Olasky
> Thursday, August 2, 2007
> Send an email to Marvin Olasky
>
> Nineteenth-century novelist Gustave Flaubert used to joke about
> archaeologists discovering a stone tablet signed "God" and reading, "I
> do not exist." His punch line had an atheist then exclaiming, "See! I
> told you so!"
>
> These days, nothing stops atheistic caissons from rolling along the
> bookstore aisles. Maybe that's because atheists on average have small
> families and lots of discretionary doubloons jingling in their
> pockets.
Two appealsto emition. One the Christians-having more children-are
more virtuous(an automatic ill note for the childfree like myself) and
Christians being poorer because they have more children- are more
virtuous. Argumentum ad lazarum
Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation" and Richard
> Dawkins' "The God Delusion" were big best sellers during 2006.
> Christopher Hitchens' "God Is Not Great" has ascended this year.
>
> All three books are ferocious. Here, for example, is Dawkins' view of
> God: "arguably the most unpleasant character in fiction: jealous and
> proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive,
> bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist,
> infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal,
> sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
>
> Concerning "The God Delusion," even Publishers Weekly noted, "For a
> scientist who criticizes religion for its intolerance, Dawkins has
> written a surprisingly intolerant book, full of scorn for religion and
> those who believe
Appeal to authority, appeal to emotion
> Even confirmed atheists who agree with his advocacy
> of science and vigorous rationalism may have trouble stomaching some
> of the rhetoric: the biblical Yahweh is 'psychotic,' Aquinas's proofs
> of God's existence are 'fatuous' and religion generally is
> 'nonsense.'"
Appeals to popularity, and inverse appeal to authority
>
> Harris also prefers exclamatory words such as "preposterous" to either
> reason or evidence. He asserts certainty about what he admits not
> knowing: "How the process of evolution got started is still a mystery,
> but that does not in the least suggest that a deity is likely to be
> lurking at the bottom of it all." He complains not only about
> ignorance but about moral failings: "An average Christian, in an
> average church, listening to an average Sunday sermon has achieved a
> level of arrogance simply unimaginable in scientific discourse."
>
> Yet Harris, for all his attacks on Intelligent Design, does not even
> understand the distinction between macro-evolution -- one kind of
> creature changing into another -- and micro-evolution. One of his
> proofs of theistic obtuseness is that "viruses like HIV, as well as a
> wide range of harmful bacteria, can be seen evolving right under our
> noses, developing resistance to antiviral and antibiotic drugs." No
> one claims that viruses don't evolve; the debate is whether they turn
> into something else.
Once again. The difference between macro and micro evolution is not
unlike the movement of tectonic plates. It is always happening,
sometime faster and sometimes slower, but it is the same process. This
is Ignoring the counterevidence
>
> This year's champion screed, by Christopher Hitchens, also oozes
> scorn: "Monotheistic religion is a plagiarism of a plagiarism of a
> hearsay of a hearsay, of an illusion of an illusion, extending all the
> way back to a fabrication of a few nonevents." The subtitle of "God Is
> Not Great" could hardly be more extreme: "How Religion Poisons
> Everything." The "everything" claim sounds improbable. Are 1.3 billion
> Muslims all murderers? Might Christianity have produced 50 percent
> evil and 50 percent good? If not, how about 30 percent? Ten percent?
> Will not Hitchens relent from his anger if five percent is good?
>
Argument Ad populum(hidden), Appeal to emotion, and a very very big
Equivocation
> Even New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof has praised America's
> evangelicals for fighting sexual trafficking in Eastern Europe and
> slavery in Sudan
Red Herring, Appeal to authority, appeal to emotion
-- but the Times gave "God Is Not Great" an adulatory
> review.
>
> Hitchens calls "the whole racket of American evangelism a heartless
> con" -- but I've met hundreds of compassionate evangelicals who must
> be dumb, because they've spent their lives in a racket that's yielded
> them almost no money. They've adopted hard-to-place children, built
> AIDS orphanages in Africa, helped addicts and alcoholics turn their
> lives around, and much besides.
>
> So why, despite the evidence, are authors such as Dawkins, Harris and
> HItchens so doctrinaire in their denunciations?
Ignoring the counterevidence
> Alister and Joanna
> Collicutt McGrath offer a reason in their book, "The Dawkins
> Delusion": "Until recently, Western atheism had waited patiently,
> believing that belief in God would simply die out. But now a whiff of
> panic is evident. Far from dying out, belief in God has rebounded "
>
Appeal to authority, irrelavant conclusion
> So pity the atheists: They're cornered and desperate. But God can
> break through and change their lives and thinking, as He changed mine
> in the 1970s when I was saying what Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens say.
>
Ignoring the counterevidence , Begging the question
Hatter
Vlad the accountant
> http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MarvinOlasky/2007/08/02/desperate_...
>
> By Marvin Olasky
> Thursday, August 2, 2007
> Send an email to Marvin Olasky
What and tell him that you have just plagarized his no doubt
copywrited material and posted it on the internet?
is it totally impossible for a theist to have an original thought?
Christopher A.Lee
They're told what to think.
Anybody know which loonie "hoof-hearted" is?
Vlad the accountant
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 05:38:50 -0700, Vlad the accountant
>
> >On Aug 2, 1:02 pm, Hoof-Hearted <Hooof.hear...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MarvinOlasky/2007/08/02/desperate_...
>
> >> Desperate Atheist Rage!
> >> By Marvin Olasky
> >> Thursday, August 2, 2007
> >> Send an email to Marvin Olasky
>
> >What and tell him that you have just plagarized his no doubt
> >copywrited material and posted it on the internet?
>
> >is it totally impossible for a theist to have an original thought?
>
> They're told what to think.
>
> Anybody know which loonie "hoof-hearted" is?
surely their told that jebus dont want thieves for sunbeams? and no i
didnt call you shirley.
As to which idiot, maybe its a new one come to play. ;-)
Ronald 'More-More' Moshki
> http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MarvinOlasky/2007/08/02/desperate_...
>
You see, from the moment a caveman looked up at the sky,
blaming the drought on some #@+*&%^$#@#$%^-ing bum in the sky,
we have had others telling us what an imaginary Big Guy is
doing, thinking, will do etc.
It doesn't fly--from Jupiter to Allah to Jah
and many thousands of others:
---------------------------
God created Mankind or was it the reverse--
Doesn't reall matter 'cause bof' of 'dem are cursed.
One is stuck with the other 'till the end of time--
Each hell-bound on maintaining the 'Eternal March To Crime'.
Greywolf
"Hoof-Hearted" <Hooof....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1186056154.8...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MarvinOlasky/2007/08/02/desperate_atheist_rage!
>
> Desperate Atheist Rage!
> By Marvin Olasky
> Thursday, August 2, 2007
> Send an email to Marvin Olasky
>
>
> Nineteenth-century novelist Gustave Flaubert used to joke about
> archaeologists discovering a stone tablet signed "God" and reading, "I
> do not exist." His punch line had an atheist then exclaiming, "See! I
> told you so!"
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha! Excuse me if I die of laughter. OOoops ... I just pissed in
my pants from laughing so hard <sheepish grin>
Any other condescending knee-slappers in non-existent 'God's' file of
atheist jokes?
>
> These days, nothing stops atheistic caissons from rolling along the
> bookstore aisles.
Yes there is: 'Caissons' upon caissons of Christian books purporting to tell
the 'truth' about 'God' and his kid, 'God' which are based on nothing more
than supposition and superstition. Facts? Hah!! You've *got* to be kidding.
Where are they? Haven't you noticed that there isn't *anything* proving the
existence of a 'God' -- let alone a 'Son' of his and some un-named 'Mother'.
(You going with 'Sophia', are you? Is that who you Christians are going to
maintain is 'God's wife? Do we have a mother of a 'God' who isn't a 'God'?)
Maybe that's because atheists on average have small
> families and lots of discretionary doubloons jingling in their
> pockets. Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation" and Richard
> Dawkins' "The God Delusion" were big best sellers during 2006.
> Christopher Hitchens' "God Is Not Great" has ascended this year.
>
> All three books are ferocious. Here, for example, is Dawkins' view of
> God: "arguably the most unpleasant character in fiction: jealous and
> proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive,
> bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist,
> infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal,
> sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
Tell me just where you disagree and I'll show you biblical, theological,
'proof' that Dawkins know of what he speaks. Up to the challenge? The 'God'
of Christians, Jews, and Muslims is not a very nice make-believe character.
Need I remind you that this imaginary creature of yours is responsible for
formulating the concept of evil, 'designing' it, 'creating' it, maliciously
introducing it into existence when he had the 'free-will' NOT to, and
malevolently injecting/infecting it into the consciousness of both 'angels'
and man -- even to the point of maliciously infecting *every* single baby
infant *ever* born, or *will* be born with 'original sin'!
Can you tell me where the 'loving' God is hiding? Look around you. Do you
see the handiwork of a loving 'God'?
>
> Concerning "The God Delusion," even Publishers Weekly noted, "For a
> scientist who criticizes religion for its intolerance, Dawkins has
> written a surprisingly intolerant book, full of scorn for religion and
> those who believe.
Those familiar with my plight will practically die of laughter reading those
words. Intolerance? How about Christians doing their damndest to try and and
make life for an atheist as unbearable as they possibly can -- within the
limits of the law: even to the point of witholding food delivery, running
water, and inflicting deliberate, malicious, psychological torture; all
because an atheist has a difference of *opinion* with them? Scorn? You're
damned *right*!! Anyone treating another human being as though they were a
Jew in Hitler's Germany because that person holds a world-view different
than their own *deserves* scorn! What monstrous, depraved, individuals the
Christian 'faith' has produced. Ugghhh!!! Why in the *world* would *anyone*
want to be like *them*? Thank goodness there are *good* Christians to
counter-balance these sadistic, morally depraved jerks.
Even confirmed atheists who agree with his advocacy
> of science and vigorous rationalism may have trouble stomaching some
> of the rhetoric: the biblical Yahweh is 'psychotic,' Aquinas's proofs
> of God's existence are 'fatuous' and religion generally is
> 'nonsense.'"
>
Where's 'God'?
> Harris also prefers exclamatory words such as "preposterous" to either
> reason or evidence. He asserts certainty about what he admits not
> knowing: "How the process of evolution got started is still a mystery,
> but that does not in the least suggest that a deity is likely to be
> lurking at the bottom of it all."
Guess what? You produce a 'God' and I'll bet Sam Harris would mow your lawn
and take out the garbage for a *year*! But that's the problem, isn't it? You
couldn't produce a real 'God' if your very life depended on it. That's
because 'God' is as 'real' as a 'God believing' atheist. Look at the
advances in science that have been made in the last century. Do you not
think our scientists will eventually come up with the answers to the
questions evolution still pose? Do you not think 'life' will be found
elsewhere in the galaxy eventually?
He complains not only about
> ignorance but about moral failings: "An average Christian, in an
> average church, listening to an average Sunday sermon has achieved a
> level of arrogance simply unimaginable in scientific discourse."
Wrong, is he? Look at the Christians who claim that they interact with a
'God'; who claim that a 'God' speaks to their 'heart; who insist a 'God'
answers their prayers when it can be shown that this imagined creature
doesn't. (How about that amputee getting his or her missing limb(s)
supernaturally restored to them soley through 'prayer'? Hah! ... Double
'Hah'!!.) And asserted with such arrogant confidence and contempt for the
atheist. Where's the Beef?
>
> Yet Harris, for all his attacks on Intelligent Design, does not even
> understand the distinction between macro-evolution -- one kind of
> creature changing into another -- and micro-evolution. One of his
> proofs of theistic obtuseness is that "viruses like HIV, as well as a
> wide range of harmful bacteria, can be seen evolving right under our
> noses, developing resistance to antiviral and antibiotic drugs." No
> one claims that viruses don't evolve;
You mean like that Jewish 'God', Yahweh, 'evolving' into 'Daddy "God"
melding with a Christian 'Son-God' named 'Jesus' *and* a 'Spirit-God' named
'Holy Spirit' without the benefit of a 'Mother-God' but all but 'Mother-God'
being 'God'? But didn't 'God' evolve into a human being at some time in
'God's' imaginary past? Now if that isn't evolution, I don't know what is!
the debate is whether they turn
> into something else.
Only the rabidly religious are contesting evolution. It's as secure a 'fact'
of science as the lack of any undeniable proof of deity is. Now *that's*
pretty solid. Don't you agree?
>
> This year's champion screed, by Christopher Hitchens, also oozes
> scorn: "Monotheistic religion is a plagiarism of a plagiarism of a
> hearsay of a hearsay, of an illusion of an illusion, extending all the
> way back to a fabrication of a few nonevents." The subtitle of "God Is
> Not Great" could hardly be more extreme:
Now tell us that the Israelites didn't 'borrow' elements from other, older,
religions and make them their own. Hardly innovative or 'new'. Even
monotheism existed before the Israelites adopted it -- with the Egyptians.
"How Religion Poisons
> Everything." The "everything" claim sounds improbable. Are 1.3 billion
> Muslims all murderers? Might Christianity have produced 50 percent
> evil and 50 percent good? If not, how about 30 percent? Ten percent?
> Will not Hitchens relent from his anger if five percent is good?
Here's where I'll differ slightly with Hitchens. Religion has been
responsible for doing good under good leaders. Religion *can* be rather
benign. In my case out here, my sole source of food now comes from a
Christian minister. He is a *good* man. You would want your kids to grow up
with the 'heart' this guy's got. He is a very open-minded, tolerant,
Christian who is trying to make the world a better place. But for every one
of *him*, I could yank 50 douche-bag, so-called Christians out of their
homes and cars out here to piss on for being so phony-baloney, bigoted,
hypocritical 'God believing' hate-mongers. Not a good ratio, is it?
>
> Even New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof has praised America's
> evangelicals for fighting sexual trafficking in Eastern Europe and
> slavery in Sudan -- but the Times gave "God Is Not Great" an adulatory
> review.
Hey! Don't forget the evangelicals who are doing their damndest in trying to
save our planet enviromentally -- in opposition to extreme evangelicals who
think they're a bunch of 'kooks'! Not every 'Christian' is 'bad'. Only the
'bad' ones are. Unfortunately there's waaay too many of em' behaving badly.
>
> Hitchens calls "the whole racket of American evangelism a heartless
> con" -- but I've met hundreds of compassionate evangelicals who must
> be dumb, because they've spent their lives in a racket that's yielded
> them almost no money. They've adopted hard-to-place children, built
> AIDS orphanages in Africa, helped addicts and alcoholics turn their
> lives around, and much besides.
No doubt about it. You're going to find Christians doing 'good' and trying
to make the world a better place. But if their sole purpose in doing so is
to get you addicted to Jesus ... No thanks!
>
> So why, despite the evidence, are authors such as Dawkins, Harris and
> HItchens so doctrinaire in their denunciations? Alister and Joanna
> Collicutt McGrath offer a reason in their book, "The Dawkins
> Delusion":
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ... my how 'original' and creative. Okay. I've stopped
pissing in my pants from laughing so hard. I can move on now.
"Until recently, Western atheism had waited patiently,
> believing that belief in God would simply die out. But now a whiff of
> panic is evident. Far from dying out, belief in God has rebounded "
>
What 'God'? Michael Jordan?
> So pity the atheists: They're cornered and desperate.
In my case, truer words were never spoken. And guess who's behind the
sadistic, mean-spirited -- even murderous -- mistreatment I'm on the
receiving end of? Hint: They're not Buddhists or Hindus.
But God can
> break through and change their lives and thinking, as He changed mine
> in the 1970s when I was saying what Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens say.
>
Now go ahead a lie and say Jesus appeared to you and spoke to your heart --
and in the process disproved what our scientists have learned about the
universe. Face it. You had some kind of emotional/psychological stress in
your life back then and instead of reaching for that bottle of hootch or the
heroin needle you reached out to imaginary Jesus and his Poppa, 'God' -- Oh,
I keep forgetting: they're *both* 'God', aren't they? -- and now you're just
a lovin' Jesus, the kitty cat, the flower blossoms in your front yard, the
blue sky, the starry night. Isn't addiction wonderful?
You were never a *real* atheist, were you? You were just a Christian who
'hated' Imaginary 'God', couldn't stay mad at his make-believe self for
*too* long, and so went back to praising Mr. Non-Existent because it gave
you great psychological comfort and a sense of well-being. Didn't you.
The atheist authors you cited hit a nerve. There is no 'desperation' on the
part of atheists (excepting my, very extenuating circumstances). You
Christians like to think you have us on some kind of 'ropes'. We make you
uncomfortable because you *know* you have nothing to back up your absurd,
preposterous, claims. That troubles you. So as in the case out here, when
you have an atheist trapped and defenseless, you dish out your damndest to
'punish' him for 'spoiling' you delusional set of beliefs. Well if *that's*
what the Christian faith brings out in people, it's time for those people to
quit calling themselves Christians and defiling those portions of the
Christian faith that *are* uplifting and noble and call themselves what they
really are. They're hate-mongering bigots who don't hold to the noble,
morally upright religious principles they were once taught. Plain and
simple.
Greywolf
Geoff
> On Aug 2, 1:02 pm, Hoof-Hearted <Hooof.hear...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MarvinOlasky/2007/08/02/desperate_...
>>
>> Desperate Atheist Rage!
>> By Marvin Olasky
>> Thursday, August 2, 2007
>> Send an email to Marvin Olasky
>
> What and tell him that you have just plagarized his no doubt
> copywrited material and posted it on the internet?
Not wanting to appear supportive of this twit, but the cite was properly
attributed and thus certainly not plagiarized. And based on The Fair Use
Statute, I don't think this would constitute an infringement of copywrite.
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a
fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
* the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
* the nature of the copyrighted work;
* the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and
* the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.
The post obviously satisfies the first factor - it is noncommercial. It more
than likely satisfies the second, it being applied to works such as novels.
The third factor is generally not applicable to articles in the public
domain. And since this will have absolutely no effect on the value of the
work, that makes it 0 for 4.
I've seen plenty of god-bots post articles here without attribution. That is
pretty heinous as it implicitly claims authorship. Who-Farted is an annoying
god-bot, but at least not a plagiarist.
Brian E. Clark
@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Hoof-Hearted
said...
> Marvin Olasky: "So pity the atheists: They're cornered
> and desperate."
Olasky admits that atheism-oriented books are
bestsellers, yet he defaults to his prejudices
and declares that atheists are cornered. That's
like remarking about the success of the Harry
Potter franchise, then insisting that readers of
fantasy are a despondent and dwindling minority.
I've asked this before: is there any
contradiction egregious enough that a right-wing
conservative can spot it?
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
panam...@hotmail.com
> http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MarvinOlasky/2007/08/02/desperate_...
>
> By Marvin Olasky
More theistic crybaby crap. To me, the funny thing is...they've
brought this upon themselves! If Christians had never become
politically active, people would never have tired of their nonsense
and gone looking for alternatives.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
a#2015/KoBAAWA!
Uncle Vic
<flush stolen intellectual property>
>
> So pity the atheists: They're cornered and desperate. But God can
> break through and change their lives and thinking, as He changed mine
> in the 1970s when I was saying what Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens say.
>
Why do you care what we believe? Mind your own business!! The mere
fact that you have to go out and recruit others to share your delusions
shows your own desperation. There's a moral issue we practice which
your hypothetical jebus never taught. "Live and let live". If we all
followed that ethic, there would be a lot fewer problems in the world.
--
Uncle Vic
#2011
Eris
> On Aug 2, 8:02 am, Hoof-Hearted <Hooof.hear...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MarvinOlasky/2007/08/02/desperate_...
>
> > Desperate Atheist Rage!
> > By Marvin Olasky
> > Thursday, August 2, 2007
> > Send an email to Marvin Olasky
>
I was amused to see that Barnes & Noble has a Religious Fiction
section.
JPG
wrote:
I think the fact that the subject parodied the originating site as
"Clownhall", not "Townhall" would indicate to me that this poster is
satirising the article and is not a god-bot.
JPG
aa 1919
>
Michael Gray
Let's take up the offer, and kick his balls around the yard.
panam...@hotmail.com
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 05:56:24 -0700, Vlad the accountant
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 2, 1:44 pm, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 05:38:50 -0700, Vlad the accountant
>
> >> <vlad.the.account...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Aug 2, 1:02 pm, Hoof-Hearted <Hooof.hear...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> >>http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MarvinOlasky/2007/08/02/desperate_...
>
> >> >> Desperate Atheist Rage!
> >> >> By Marvin Olasky
> >> >> Thursday, August 2, 2007
> >> >> Send an email to Marvin Olasky
>
> >> >What and tell him that you have just plagarized his no doubt
> >> >copywrited material and posted it on the internet?
>
> >> >is it totally impossible for a theist to have an original thought?
>
> >> They're told what to think.
>
> >> Anybody know which loonie "hoof-hearted" is?
>
> >surely their told that jebus dont want thieves for sunbeams? and no i
> >didnt call you shirley.
>
> >As to which idiot, maybe its a new one come to play. ;-)
>
> Let's take up the offer, and kick his balls around the yard.
OTOH, he *did* call townhall.com "Clownhall". Perhaps his sympathies
lie closer to ours?
-PF, Atl.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
Michael Gray
Does that mean I have to hide my cricket bat with a nail?
Dang.
Geoff
--
Geoff O'Furman
Head Coach, Varsity Hockey
University of Ediacara
AA #22??
Geoff
> I think the fact that the subject parodied the originating site as
> "Clownhall", not "Townhall" would indicate to me that this poster is
> satirising the article and is not a god-bot.
Right you are. Otherwise, I stand by my petty rant.
panam...@hotmail.com
Don't worry. I'm sure a suitable target will arrive in a moment. <g>
-PF, etc.
Doc Smartass
news:hak3b39nt9hgji85k...@4ax.com:
It's a reference to Thursday night's "Countdown"--there was a video clip
of a horse race and "Hoof Hearted" was the winner ("Hoof Hearted in the
winner's circle!")
(some of y'all might need to say "Hoof Hearted" a few times out loud ;)
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling
aa # 1939
Help Prevent Projectile Stupidity
Duct-Tape a Fundie's Mouth Shut Today!
July 29, 1994:
Jim Barret & Dr. John Britton
Murdered by paul hill.
Doc Smartass
news:1186056154.8...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> Hoof-Hearted
Someone's been watching Countdown...
Michael Gray
Good.
I thought I would be out for a duck.
But now I can hit a six, and bowl a maiden over, score a leg bye, and
use a runner on a sticky wicket whilst declaring the test.
(Well, you yanks drivel on with your obscure baseball bull.)
Vlad the accountant
>
> - Show quoted text -
carefull you dont get caught behind in the slips!
Robibnikoff
"Doc Smartass" <gek...@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9980D28781ED...@216.77.188.18...
> Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in
> news:hak3b39nt9hgji85k...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 05:38:50 -0700, Vlad the accountant
>> <vlad.the....@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Aug 2, 1:02 pm, Hoof-Hearted <Hooof.hear...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MarvinOlasky/2007/08/02/desperate_
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Desperate Atheist Rage!
>>>> By Marvin Olasky
>>>> Thursday, August 2, 2007
>>>> Send an email to Marvin Olasky
>>>
>>>What and tell him that you have just plagarized his no doubt
>>>copywrited material and posted it on the internet?
>>>
>>>is it totally impossible for a theist to have an original thought?
>>
>> They're told what to think.
>>
>> Anybody know which loonie "hoof-hearted" is?
>
> It's a reference to Thursday night's "Countdown"--there was a video clip
> of a horse race and "Hoof Hearted" was the winner ("Hoof Hearted in the
> winner's circle!")
>
> (some of y'all might need to say "Hoof Hearted" a few times out loud ;)
<snerkle> :)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
Ash
technically correct "Townhall.com" I suspect the original poster does
not agree with the material.
Michael Gray
Oh look.
A seagull.
Smiler
"Vlad the accountant" <vlad.the....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1186145073.3...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
It's the googlies he's really got to look out for!
Smiler,
The godless one
Michael Gray
wrote:
It is embarassing having to watch the spin-bowlers rubbing their balls
in public.
Women's Cricket is much more interesting.
Smiler
"Michael Gray" <mike...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:sj78b399vcg3ajjo8...@4ax.com...
Yes, it's unseamly.
Especially if you're watching from a box at the gassworks end.
Smiler,
The godless one
Michael Gray
wrote:
Who wears their cricket box at the gasworks end?
The Elephant Man?
I mean, it would get all sticky and yucky!
Hey, on a serious note: that is the only time that I have appeared on
the front page of an Australian national newspaper, in colour!
In full 1896 cricket outfit, with a W.G. Grace bat.
With the stunningly appropriate headline in 90pt type:
"WE ARE A NATION OF IDIOTS!"
(Although I steadfastly claim that it referred to an unrelated
article.)
I am told that the story made it's way to the London Times, (I was
phoned by one of their reporters), and "The Who Weekly", which had
Brad Pitt on the cover, and was therefore devoted to my 'story'.
Don Martin
Another of those "lookalike" contests?
WOA* #2278
If you can't be a dirty old man, what is the point of being an old man?
Through a jaundiced eye darkly--rheum with a view.
The Squeeky Wheel
http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
__________
*Wicked Old Atheist
Michael Gray
Not at all.
The two pubs in the village have an annual friendly cricket match on
the village green every Christmas (summer here).
I dressed up like W.G. Grace and faked a bat of his because that is
"what I do".
It happenned that the bat was sold at a village charity auction some
years later, in a pile of junk that I had donated.
Someone bought the pile of junk, and "discovered" my very conving fake
W.G. Grace bat in the lot, and thought he had hit the jackpot.
It was authenticated by a local cricket historian, and was shipped to
London where it was further authenticed by the M.C.C.
Sotheby's were going to auction it, and the owners were expecting it
to fetch somewhere around £100,000 sterling!
It was nit until a reporter from the Times traced it's origin to me,
and telephoned me out of the blue to find out if I knew exactly what I
had donated to the auction, and enquiring as to whether or not my
Grandfather gave it to me.
She did not believe me when I told her that it was a cheap Pakistani
bat that I bought 10 years ago from K-Mart, and had aged and signed.
I actually had to prove that I had faked it, and the historians and
the M.C.C. were *very* very embarrassed, and the family concerned has
already booked their kids into a posh private school on the
expectation of the income!
For some reason they were andry with me, despite the fact that it was
not my fault!
\Anyway, the stroy then wen't around the world about how I had faked a
W.G. Grace bat and pulled "The Bat Trick of the Century" as one
headline blaired.
Got me on the front page of the state newspaper.
All just from an offhand effort to be non-boring in a village
inter-pub social game!
Don Martin
<mike...@newsguy.com> wrote:
This is wonderful! It is even better than having a real W.G. Grace bat
or looking like Brad Pitt. Good onyer!