Banana Man Upset At 1-Star Ratings

Ray ComfortYou know you’re doing something right when it makes the Banana Man upset. He doesn’t like all the one star reviews atheists are giving him on his latest lame book You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence but You Can’t Make Him Think:

“If you look at the reviews on Amazon.com,” he said, “you could come away thinking that this is worst book ever written. It has masses of one ‘stars’ with scathing reviews, saying things like ‘Comfort is a charlatan’ and ‘Dreadful piece of drivel.’”

But he said he also found five-star ratings with comments such as “Great logical thinking” and “a must read.”

He must have missed the sarcasm in those five star reviews.

So why does he think he’s getting such bad reviews? Being who he is, he can’t consider he might be wrong or that it’s just a terrible book. No, it’s because atheists are stupid immoral god-hating bastards:

“I simply expose atheistic evolution for the unscientific fairy tale that it is, and I do it with common logic. I ask questions about where the female came from for each species. Every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn’t keep going. Evolution has no explanation for the female for every species in creation,” he said.

“I also show that the ‘God’ issue is moral rather than intellectual. No one needs to prove that God exists. Creation is clear evidence for any sane person that there’s a Creator. But if I can convince myself that there is no God, it means I am not morally accountable, and evolution opens the door to a whole lot of sinful delicacies such as pornography, fornication, lying, theft, and of course writing bad reviews for a book I haven’t read,” he continued.

Yes, the reason we don’t like his book is because we want to fornicate, lie, steal, and kill. I’m sure it has nothing to do with the intellectual poverty of his ideas.

  • http://www.adamus.nl Adamus

    Heh, “Dreadful piece of drivel” is my review. I’ve been quoted by Ray Comfort. My life is truly complete now.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/kyokumajr Rob

    I actually, sort of agree with Ray on this one.

    I’ve noticed a lot of atheists going about down-rating his book + writing shitty reviews, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE NOT EVEN READ THE BOOK, but just because it’s Ray Banana Man’s.

    I find that really lame…

  • http://foreverinhell.blogspot.com Personal Failure

    It’s unnecessary to actually read the book. If you’ve read his blog, you know exactly what the book contains: red herrings, straw men, ad homs, unasked questions, quote mining and arguments to consequence.

    Ray Comfort is incapable of coherent, logical thought. We’re just calling him on it.

  • Demian

    a mess, really rubish

  • http://www.slim-blondje.com/eng Pascalle

    The title alone is appaling enough for me to almost log on to amazon and write a review.

    I’m an Atheist, i’m a woman.
    So.. what does that mean in his logic, as you can’t make “him” think?

    I think quite a lot thank you. *grumble*

  • http://alphonsuspeck.wordpress.com Alphonsus

    I am gradually and painfully coming to the realization of the futility of debating a truly well versed creationist. The depth of fantasy, pseudo-science, and reasonable sounding claptrap is infinite. They have extreme knowledge of evolutionary science and have come up with reasonable sounding if unscientific arguments for every point. They are very, very dangerous to one uncertain as to the ways of science.

    I have been debating a cutting edge creationist on my blog and, not being a true scientist, I have found myself out of my depth and without enough time or depth of knowledge to continue the argument. Daniel has kindly given me permission to request assistance. I have been beaten down by waves of junk-science bullshit. I would greatly appreciate it if someone from this forum would mind taking a crack at this guy. If nothing else, you might get a chance to see how a reasonably rational creationist thinks.

    http://alphonsuspeck.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/the-method-of-creationism-mike-part-2

    Thank you

  • http://www.vidlord.com VidLord

    He doesn’t like the idea that we evolved from apes, but would prefer more the idea that we came from dirt.

  • marf

    Ummm, what about that species of salamanders that is all female?

  • http://alphonsuspeck.wordpress.com/ alphonsuspeck

    I have to say that I do find that reviewing a book without reading it, or even skimming it, to be dishonest. As followers of science (the agreed upon truth evaluation methodology), it is up to us to maintain the moral high ground over those who don’t.

    While it is true that debate over creationism is over in the scientific community, it is, alas, far from over among the citizens of the United States. It is important that we recognize and be prepared to deal creationists as we encounter them. They are very dangerous to anyone not well grounded in the scientific method.

    The creationist feel they are fighting for the very soul of America. They will falsely represent, quote mine, lie, create straw men, and do WHATEVER it take to push their agenda. We must understand the enemy before we can defeat him.

    Insults, as tempting as they are, prove noting, and only serve to weaken our arguments in the eyes of the uncertain.

    • reckoner71

      I’ve read both Hitchens and Dawkins, and I can say that they use the same terminology and examples in their writing, often verbatim, that they do in television interviews or debates.

      I can only surmise Ray Comfort pulls out his very best arguments when he’s staring into a complex camera lens, and we can safely comment on the content in the book based on what we’ve already ridiculed.

  • http://thinkingforfree.blogspot.com Eamon Knight

    FWIW, it’s probably a fair enough complaint that one should not review books unless one has a reasonable acquaintance with the content. Doesn’t mean you have to read the whole thing necessarily — reasonable excerpts would suffice. Yes, that applies even if we know that the author is an idiot and a propagandist.

  • claidheamh mor

    Is this guy for real??
    What a twisted “mind”.

    I agree with not reviewing a book before reading, but

    1) I read reviews and comment freely on them.

    Val’s Principle: Listen to both (or all) sides, find the side that has the most illiterate rants, the most name-calling, the most hate-filled invective, the most unreasonable premises, and the most substitution of emotionally-loaded words for reasoning, and go away from that side.

    Christianity does it for me!

    2) You don’t need to read the book to see the faults in the reviewers’ reasoning processes. (If any.)

  • J. Allen

    My reply to the banana:

    The pineapple.

    (to be honest, the banana supports evolution quite well by itself, since some trees want their fruit to be eaten.)

  • claidheamh mor

    On another blog, Teleprompter brought to my awareness for the first time a quote that he couldn’t quite remember, about arguing with creationists being similar to playing chess with pigeons.

    I loved it so much I searched for it, and found it displayed in a prominent corner of Troy Britain’s blog, pigeonchess.com. It described my attempts to reason with Christians so well!

    “Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.”

    - Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

  • http://www.elliottcallahan.com/blog Elliott

    Ray believes the stem of the banana was designed with our hands in mind. It’s does, after all, look like a little handle.

    Well I have news for him. I recently discovered that opening a banana is much easier from the bottom. You just pinch the brown scabby looking thing, and it opens right up. No more struggling with a ‘handle’ that bends over but doesn’t tear, mashing and bruising the fruit inside.

    Take that I.D.

  • darkmatter

    “One online review predicted such attacks.

    Comfort “disproves every dumb atheistic assertion very simply with both scientific fact and common sense. This book is sure to enrage the atheistic and seculars of the world; but, their anger and 1-star reviews are only proof that they are not only losing the argument, but, have already lost,” the reviewer said.”

    Why would he want to do that? Even Jesus only preach to to those of the same faith. Maybe the author saw an unfavourable sign. Could it be this sign? $$$

  • Lord of Numa

    Well, I just left my negative review.

    And, by the way, I don’t need to read the book to know that it is a pile of rubbish. I have spent enough time on Ray’s blog to know how he thinks.

  • darkmatter

    To be fair, maybe the author of unreasonable faith’s blog is searching for evidences and assurances that Jesus might exist or not exist with this blog that might be satirical?

  • http://luckyatheist.blogspot.com Michael Caton

    Literal-minded people in general, and people who never encounter others who have conflicting ideas, have a lot of trouble understanding or detecting sarcasm. Must be Ray’s problem.

  • Efogoto

    evolution opens the door to a whole lot of sinful delicacies such as pornography, fornication, lying, theft

    Ya know, all of these were documented in the bible well before Darwin published anything.

  • Just thinking…

    As a young Christian man in Christchurch, New Zealand in the early 1980s, I used to go to the Cathedral Square during my lunch hour and listen to the various speakers who would entertain the punters. The best, by a light year, was the Christchurch Wizard, but there was also a number of other loons, including a persistent little energizer-bunny of a man named Ray Comfort. I admired his enthusiasm (and thick skin), but as a Christian he embarrassed me with his puerile homilies and yapping voice, and I kept myself hidden down the back. Then one weekend our youth group went to hear him speak in a hall–and he was even worse. He yapped on and on, giving nothing more than stupid exhortations to go to war because we were on ‘a battleship stationed at the mouth of hell’ etc. So let me say it: RAY COMFORT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS I STOPPED BEING A CHRISTIAN–HIS STUPIDITY HELPED MAKE ME AN ATHEIST. Thank you Ray..thank you for saving me from ever becoming like you.

    Anyway, I heard no more of RC and assumed he’d sunk into some sort of grungy trailer-trash insignificance. Imagine my surprise when I heard he’d gone to America, and the small town boy had made good (and what is scary is that he doesn’t look any different–which sort of confirms my belief that he may be a zombie or similar type of brainless undead creature). Then, on reflection, I wasn’t surprised that he’d done so well in America. Sections of the poor old USA have the perfect mix of great wealth and great credulity that Comfort would need to survive and thrive. He’s like a blowfly attracted to the biggest, smelliest part of a corpse. In NZ religion is almost a fringe activity (although not fringe enough for my liking) and here he would forever have been a squeaky nonentity.

    So I’m sorry America that you ended up with developmentally disabled Ray. He’s not an export we NZers are proud of. But there is a bright side–he is so blatantly and egregiously stupid that anyone with a brain can see that Ray has his head stuck up his arse and that’s where his God is. With luck, he’ll help turn a whole lot of young Americans to atheism, just like he helped me.

  • http://girlchild.wordpress.com/ mrsmarshall

    Now I want to read his book, but I wonder how I could do that without actually providing a royalty to this guy? Hilarious.

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    @mrsmarshall:
    If you truly wanted to subject yourself to the radioactive genetically damaged typhoon-o’-stupid that is Ray Comfort’s teeny tiny mind, I am required by law to advise you:

    a) That the publishers and their assigns disclaim all responsibility for the brain damage you may sustain, as well as marks caused by repeated and violent i)facepalming or ii)beating of one’s head against the wall, and

    b) to wait until it hits the “90% off” remaindered bin. Should take about another week.

    Comfort isn’t actually stupid himself. Just venial, greedy, and aware that he’s getting a bit past it. Comfort’s trinity is George Washington, Andrew Jackson, and Ben Franklin, and his motto is “In God We Trust~Pay to the bearer …”

  • Karleigh

    Was just browsing Ray Comfort’s blog… he has this section called ‘Comfort for Budding Atheists’, the very first bullet point of which claims that atheists believe ‘everything came from nothing’… his fictional atheist stammers when asked if ‘his Toyota’ had a maker.

    Why do they persist in this idiotic argument?

    Toyotas, TVs, telephones… all have been created by human intelligence. Artificial intelligence. The earth and everything in it? An entirely different matter altogether. It’s not even an argument!

  • Fleegman

    @Just thinking…

    You know, you got me thinking, and I don’t know if it’s been mentioned before, so here it is. I’m wondering, seriously wondering, if Ray Comfort is an undercover operative for the Atheist movement. And a brilliant, BRILLIANT, one at that.

    Here we are, trying to argue with fundies from a logical perspective with evidence and all the usual stuff. From experience, we know that this rarely works. Yes, we can open the cracks that might start people asking the right questions, but it’s always going to be an uphill struggle when the underlying message is: “you’ve been brainwashed and everything you believe is a fairytale.”

    Now Ray, on the other hand, has gone completely the other way to achieve the same goal, and I think it might actually be more effective. By setting himself up as the ultimate poster boy for fundamentalist thinking, he can bypass the psychological barriers that we have to deal with and go right to the core of the person while SCREAMING the message: “Look how f*cking insane my thinking is. Do you really want to be like me?”

    Not only has he cut himself off from the Atheist crowd, but actively gets shunned by them. This must hurt him terribly, but he manages to stick to his guns for the sake of the greater good.

    What a guy.

    So, let’s not blow his cover people; keep this to yourselves.

  • DarkMatter

    Not only has he cut himself off from the Atheist crowd, but actively gets shunned by them. This must hurt HIS POCKET terribly, but he manages to stick to his guns for the sake of the greater $$$GREED$$$.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/kyokumajr Rob

    To Pascalle:

    It would seem to favour women from his title ;) Lucky you.
    But I never noticed the masculine reference in the title. Thank you for pointing that “problem” out.

  • claidheamh mor

    Sexism in the language runs so deep I don’t know if we’ll ever get out from under its conditioning.

    When are you counted as “man”, and when would people look at you funny when you decide that you are, and call yourself “man”?

    The language shouldn’t make you have to wonder whether you are included or excluded in humanity, when it is called “man”, each time the words “man” or “he” or “him” or “his” are used.

  • Sock

    I don’t know why no one calls him on how he attempts to refute evolution. “Explain the female of every species!” which, by Ray’s logic, means that he’s of the opinion that males, and always males, in every species, came first.

  • Roger

    PZ Myers over on Pharyngula has addressed that (and quite well, I might add).

  • LRA

    Exactly. If Ray Comfort had one stitch scientific knowledge in that banana brain of his, he’d know that being female is actually the DEFAULT programming in our bodies that the Y chromosome alters. (Ie that babies with only one X or XX are female, that babies with only one Y is a lethal condition, babies with no X or Y is a lethal condition and babies with XY are male).

    Secondly, as Roger said, Myers addressed the evolution of sex traits quite well.

  • http://www.rationalitynow.com Dan Gilbert

    You’ve hit the problem dead on. It takes a lot less time and effort for creationists to make up absurd claims than it does to factually and scientifically refute each claim. Comfort’s male/female statement is a perfect example. Evolution DOES have explanations for it, but they’re complicated and (for me) somewhat difficult to understand due to their technical’ness. So it takes only a few seconds for Comfort to say “Evolution has no explanation for females” but it would take me probably hours to refute it. I could just say, “Yes it does.” but that just gets into tit-for-tat.

  • trj

    However, creationist well-versed in evolution are a rare species.

  • skepticalroger

    You’d do better to argue about the intricacies of Star Trek with a boiling teapot. Further, I think you give this creationist too much credit; there’s nothing “cutting edge” about woomongers spouting nonsense about their imaginary sky-friend snapping everything into existence. Send the creotard off to argue with an actual scientist–the moron with whom you’re arguing is banking on your lack of scientific expertise. To borrow from Admiral Ackbar: “IT’S A TRAP!”

  • Reginald Selkirk

    They have extreme knowledge of evolutionary science

    My experience differs from yours. Most Creationists I have met are pig-ignorant about science. Some of them do excel at sounding sciencey enough to fool a pig-ignorant audience, and being good at debating techniques (i.e. debates for the public, not actual forensics).

  • LRA

    But they don’t have knowledge of evolutionary science– if they did, they’d believe it!

  • LRA

    What about the fact that Turkeys can lay eggs that have never been inseminated and produce new female turkeys? Turkey virgin birth! Think about that next Christmas dinner!!!

  • http://wmute.livejournal.com wintermute

    This, of course, only applies to eutherian mammals; monotremes, reptiles, birds and insects have different sets of sex chromosomes.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-determination_system

  • http://www.adamus.nl Adamus

    You, sir, win.

  • http://www.elliottcallahan.com/blog Elliott

    I love it.

  • http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Johnny Johnny

    Nice quote!

    Speaking of chess and believers… Cectic has an awesome comic strip on this line of thought.

  • Sock

    Oh, I know, but I specifically meant that he is phrasing it that -males- came first. Why couldn’t he phrase it that females came first? It’s the sexism in the phrasing that gets to me.

  • http://wmute.livejournal.com wintermute

    I specifically meant that he is phrasing it that -males- came first. Why couldn’t he phrase it that females came first?

    Because of Genesis. Duh!

  • claidheamh mor

    Because of Genesis. Duh!

    Because God is male. Duh!

    Betcha not one Christian who believes that has ever pulled up his robe and looked.

  • http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Johnny Johnny

    I love his banana argument because his so ignorant that he doesn’t realize the banana we know today is a product of an evolutionary mutation that man has nurtured and cultivated for thousands of years.

  • http://wmute.livejournal.com wintermute

    Better: Rice.

    It’s inedible in its raw form, and requires very intensive labour in order to grow in any quantity, but a third of the world relies on it to live.

  • Elemenope

    Olives are my favorite example. Most varieties of olives are absolutely unpalatable in their natural state. They have to be soaked for a while in lye–a deadly poison–to pickle before they can be eaten.

    What I wanna know is, who was the guy who said “Hey, let’s take this bitter berry, and soak it in a corrosive poison for a week, wash it off and then stick it our mouths!”?

    Cheese creates similar questions of that practical sort.

  • claidheamh mor

    Acorns. Gotta leach them, pound them, and leave them out in the sun, to keep them from bittering you to starvation.

    Avocados. George Burns as God admitted he screwed up and made the pits too big.

  • http://www.elliottcallahan.com/blog Elliott

    English is currently trying to perform a repair operation on this very problem. As of late, people refer to non-gender specific singular persons in the plural. So:

    “Anybody who raises their hand can be sure the teacher will call on them.”

    “Some jerk left their trash on my lawn.”

    and even

    “Every artist becomes themself as they mature.”

    The problem is grammarians and purists oppose this use of the plural vehemently.

  • claidheamh mor

    Exactly! I learned that from a classmate who learned it from his Russian wife.

    Ah, intelligent design, in which everything was created just for us… awww, you shouldn’t have…

    The best depiction of that is the episode of “The Simpsons” in which Lisa becomes a vegetarian. I think of it every time I wonder why vegetarians come from every walk of life except Christianity. It has a food chart:

    A silhouette of Homer Simpson, lord and pinnacle of creation, arrows pointing toward his mouth, with every imaginable critter walking, crawling, swimming, flying, hopping, floating and slithering its way into the place for which they were all created: Homer’s maw.

  • Elemenope

    The problem is grammarians and purists oppose this use of the plural vehemently.

    Good thing is, if enough people like it (esp. if it serves a useful social purpose for them), the purists will lose.

  • http://www.elliottcallahan.com/blog Elliott

    Yeah.

    Funny note about things being phased out: when I taught English to foreign students, I had one who was very well educated, and had had a good grip on English grammar. One day she came to me and said, “What’s whom?” but she pronounced it to rhyme with ‘bomb.’ I couldn’t help but laugh.

  • LRA

    But can we not find other ways around speaking incorrectly. Them is plural! Can we not say “one” and then s/he?

    As in: Every artist becomes oneself as s/he matures?

    Is that wrong?

  • http://elliottcallahan.com/blog Elliott

    Oh yeah, don’t get me wrong. There are definitely rules. It’s what keeps us from saying things like:

    “I brother my with Safeway to walk will.”

    to mean

    “I will walk to Safeway with my brother.”

    But if you are even capable of conveying to someone that their use of a plural pronoun is non-standard English, and they understand you, then you have to admit the grammatical battle has been won.

    In reality, things like employing they/them exclusively in the singular, using whom, and fronting prepositions (i.e. not stranding them), aren’t characteristics of ‘proper’ English, they are just a different kind of English. Namely, they belong to the prestige dialect of academia.

    As long as you recognize an utterance as part of your language, it can be judged ‘grammatical.’ If I said “everyone washes behind their ears,” you would have no doubt that I am a native speaker — your beef isn’t with my grammaticality, it’s with my failure to use the proper ornaments.

    If I said “every person will washed in back its ears,” you would have reason to say I’m not speaking proper English.

  • http://elliottcallahan.com/blog Elliott

    Sorry, make that:

    …employing they/them exclusively in the plural

  • LRA

    naw, I’m just a stickler for plural or singular agreements (respectively). And I also use whom properly with it’s prepositions (which I try not to dangle in other cases). Certainly utterances have meaning regardless of the syntax, but it just looks nicer to me when it is proper.

    (no judgment on people who don’t agree, though…)

  • Ty

    All being a Christian Minister opens the door to is snorting meth off a male hookers ass and then lying about it.

    Based on available evidence, anyway.

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    “evolution opens the door to a whole lot of sinful delicacies such as pornography, fornication, lying, theft”

    This argument always cracks me up. If I understand it right the argument goes something like this:

    “You atheists only deny god because you want to do really bad things without any guilt.”

    It kills me every time, because so often people assume I’m a conservative religious type when they first meet me. I work in a fairly conservative field, and dress the part that is required. I have been married for a long time and I have 4 kids. My family means everything to me, and I would never do anything to hurt them. I don’t drink, do drugs, etc… Basically I’m a pretty clean cut guy.

    Of course I’m also an atheist. The idea that I don’t believe in god in order to be a lying criminal is in complete contrast to how I live my life. How do believers account for people like me?

    (In all fairness, I often have people misjudge my politics based on outward appearances as well. So it could be something about me.)

  • Ty

    How many people dropped dead eating fugu before someone said, “Oh, THIS organ!!”

  • http://www.elliottcallahan.com/blog Elliott

    The history of cheese is an interesting one, if you don’t know it. As far as I know, it all started because people carried liquid around in pouches made from animals’ stomachs. If you do this with milk, the acid of the stomach causes it to congeal, and voilà! Early cheese.

    The aging process, and the introduction of cultures of bacteria came later, but the stage was set for eating nasty solidified milk product.

  • Elemenope

    LOL. Or bitter Cassava. “Oh, we had to boil it *twenty* times. Well, better luck next time.”

    And, on a personal level, I’m creeped out by any plant that is poisonous or not depending entirely on how much rain fell that year. And I really like tapioca pudding, so take that for what it’s worth.

  • claidheamh mor

    Hahahahahaha!

    I am still enjoying those songs.

  • Elemenope

    How do believers account for people like me?

    Cognitive dissonance resolution.

    While holding a theory one is confronted with evidence that contradicts the theory; One can either:

    1. Discard the theory
    2. Discard the evidence

    Most people go with 2. They do so usually by denying that what seems to be actually is; when a person believes that all Atheists are degenerates is confronted with one who doesn’t act like a degenerate, the assumption often is that you simply hide your degeneracy better…but nobody can hide it form GOD!!!

    Or something.

    The more charitable (and slightly sillier) move is to deny that an Atheist who seems to be moral is in fact an Atheist. Seen that one too, but it is harder to do with a straight face, for sure.

  • Ty

    I work with artists, have long hair, and usually dress in biker chic.

    People assume I smoke pot the instant they see me. I’ve been asked if I’m holding more times than I can count. And I’ve never taken an illegal drug in my life.

    Judging from appearances is fraught with danger.

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    “the assumption often is that you simply hide your degeneracy better…but nobody can hide it form GOD!!!”

    Ah yes – that whole “despite what the evidence shows I believe something else” thing. Makes perfect sense in this context.

    Should have thought of it.

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    No doubt.

    It still cracks meup when it happens.

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    “In NZ religion is almost a fringe activity…”

    This must be so nice.

  • Elemenope

    So I’m sorry America that you ended up with developmentally disabled Ray. He’s not an export we NZers are proud of.

    We got the Lord of the Rings movies and the Legend of the Seeker TV show out of you guys, so I call us square.

  • Ty

    I used to work with a guy from Christchurch who was a major Evangelical nut. He used to come at me with, “Evolution takes more faith than creationism does!” all the time.

    Is Christchurch a hotbed of fundie evangelicalism? :)

  • http://www.elliottcallahan.com/blog Elliott

    Wait a minute, Legend of the Seeker is the worst bunch of photons I have ever had the misfortune of having make contact with my retina. I would settle for ten Comforts to get that abomination off the air.

    Flight of the Conchords however…

  • Elemenope

    Hey, now. Say what you will about the derivative and generally uninteresting nature of the scripts, these guys damn-near reinvented the bar for fan service.

    Gratuitous action! Gratuitous well-choreographed action! Gratuitous well-choreographed action performed by very hot chicks pwning with little daggers!

    Evil S&M wet-dream leather-clad chicks!

    Sexual tension, OMG!

    Beautiful scenery!

    Bruce Spence! (Technically, not fan service, but you get the idea.)

    Not everything has to stimulate the mind to stimulate.

  • Ty

    Love Flight of the Conchords.

  • LRA

    Thanks! :)

  • LRA

    Nope! You’re passion’s showing!

    he he he!

  • http://www.elliottcallahan.com/blog Elliott

    I guess you have a point. The books series degenerated into a soapbox for Objectivism, and had all the nuance and finesse of a brick to the face. But I read them all anyway. And enjoyed them.

    Maybe I’ll give the show a second chance. Ha ha.

  • Just thinking…

    Yep… all except me and my ilk :)

    (love that word, it’s what is left after you take the ‘mmmm…’ out of milk)

  • LRA

    Wow-

    Ty, some how I thought you were a Texan (perhaps it was you TRAITOROUS remarks about Texas BBQ- may you roast in your dry rub-) but you’re from NZ?

  • Just thinking…

    Actually, I’ve only been back here a couple of years and it surprises me how much fundy Christianity seems to be around. Still, the fundys took quite a blow when Christchurch based Graham Capill, who had been the high profile leader of a national Christian political party, went to prison for sex crimes. How familiar does this sound?
    ———-
    “Standing in the dock with shoulders slumped and jaw quivering, Graham Capill looked a broken man.
    The former morals campaigner was yesterday reduced to little more than a self-loathing man in a nice suit as he was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment for multiple sexual offences, including rape, against three young girls.

    The majority of people there were curious members of the public or community groups who wanted to hear first hand what Capill had done to his victims. Many of them were visibly shocked.
    The men and women heard how Capill’s offending began in 1990 with the indecent assault of an 8-year-old girl. He started stroking her legs before moving to her genital area, touching her over her clothing.
    That offending progressed to skin-on-skin contact and eventually, with other victims, digital penetration.
    For 12 years, the Christian Heritage Party leader and moral watchdog publicly decried paedophiles, homosexuals and preached about family values. All the while he was quietly putting his hands down young girls’ clothing, stroking genitalia and massaging their breasts.
    On one occasion one of the victims pleaded with him: “You have a wife, why can’t you go to her?”
    In an email Capill sent a dozen friends the night before he pleaded guilty to these crimes, the former party leader turned police prosecutor tried to downplay his actions by suggesting the sexual abuse with one of the girls was consensual.
    “The law, as it has been explained to me, seems so different to what the Biblical law and indeed common perceptions are of rape,” he wrote.
    “The fact that [the victim] consented is irrelevant.”
    That was rejected by Judge Robert Kerr, who described any suggestion of consent as “nonsense” . He described Capill’s behaviour as “ugly and sexually corrupt”.
    —————
    ONE MORE VOTE FOR BIBLICAL MORALITY

  • Ty

    Nope, I worked with a kiwi who’d come to America.

    I am also NOT a Texan, though I gave one a wedgie once.

  • LRA

    Damn. Why is it the highest profile fundies have the worst sex problems?

  • Jeff Eyges

    Damn. Why is it the highest profile fundies have the worst sex problems?

    It’s part and parcel of the personality profile. The more vigorously a fundie decries a specific act, the more attracted to it you can be sure that he is. This is why they’re constantly telling us that if it weren’t for their belief in God and eternal torment, they’d be out raping, pillaging and plundering – because they probably would be. And, of course, because they’re completely incapable of understanding anything outside of their own narrow world view, they project these suppressed urges onto the rest of us as well. They think we’re all seething cauldrons of lust and violence, just waiting to explode, without God to keep his hand firmly on the lid. You find the same rhetoric and behaviors among Islamic and Jewish fundamentalists as well.

    This is why I’m deeply torn regarding the future of hierarchical religion. On the one hand, I question whether or not we can survive unless we get rid of it. On the other, we may need to hang onto it in order to control these morons and psychotics.

  • LRA

    he he he! ;)

  • http://www.elliottcallahan.com/blog Elliott

    My native speaker intuition says that particular use of oneself is bogus. That’s just me, though.

    I’m usually towards the ‘anything goes’ end of the linguistic spectrum, but in the case of singular ‘they,’ if Shakespeare did it, I say go for it.

  • LRA

    Ok point taken, but really,

    They/them is 3rd person plural. These terms should not be used to replace nouns that are 1st person singular IMO. Surely there are ways to speak properly…

    ;)

  • LRA

    sorry! make that 3rd person singular!

  • Roger

    “Pig-ignorant”–I love that! It pretty much sums up just how ignorant creationists are.

  • LRA

    oh, the delicious, delicous tryptophan filled irony!

  • Elemenope

    Yoghurt has a similar history. Camel stomachs filled with milk left in the sun…etc.

  • John Charles

    When one is presented with a shit sandwich, it is not necessary to take a bite before rendering an opinion on its probable taste.

  • http://elliottcallahan.com/blog Elliott

    I agree, and I hate to

    but what I’m saying is there is nothing ‘proper’ about these grammatical peeves. They’re just preferences imposed on us by those with the most linguistic prestige.

    Preposition stranding is the best example of this. The process of leaving a preposition without a noun phrase is not ungrammatical at all. It’s one of the features we share with other germanic languages: it’s part of what makes English English — it really makes our language special, unique among the world’s tongues.

    If you said “Who(m) are you speaking with?” in French, stranding the preposition at the end:

    “Qui est-ce que vous parlez avec?”

    It wouldn’t be a case of ‘informality,’ or ‘improper French,’ they would honestly stop the conversation, because they couldn’t parse the sentence.

    The historically prestigious languages of Latin and French are bound by the rules of their syntax to not strand their prepositions and to not split their infinitives (lol). So, anglophone intellectuals of the enlightenment era, who were familiar with the ‘logical’ languages, tried to impose their restrictions on English — to hold English to this (arbitrary) standard.

    The same holds true of many things traditionally schooled grammarians deem ‘improper.’ They have no basis in what the rules of the language are, they are merely linguistic reflections of social and historical trends.

  • LRA

    Did I split an infinitive?

    Dunno, but I think we are in agreement here. I’m just saying that my preference is for more formal constructions. And for agreement.

    Obviously, “Qui est-ce que vous parlez avec?” isn’t proper as it should be “Avec qui est-ce que vous parlez?” Since the kings of England were French for hundreds of years, it doesn’t seem crazy to me that we would have similar syntax rules.

    But we don’t have an academy of English language the way the French do!

  • http://elliottcallahan.com/blog Elliott

    No, you didn’t split an infinitive. I was loling because I split two in a row.

    We are in agreement, as long as we are distinguishing ‘proper’ and ‘correct’ from ‘formal.’ There is nothing better, clearer, or more proper about ‘formal’ English.

  • LRA

    Unless you want a job in academia or some sectors of business (as you have already pointed out).

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    I read a debate thread when the Bananaman video first emerged from the bowels of teh intertubes which went somewhat like this (I paraphrase).

    Xian:Praise Gawd for the useful banana
    Atheist: Doesn’t that worry you at all?
    Xian: What?
    A: That the banana, being shaped as it is, is somehow supposed to argue in favour of the existence of a god.

    X: Why?
    A: Well because of the associated implications.

    X: What associated implications?
    A: You know … about sex.

    X:???
    A: Well, the banana is shaped to the human hand and mouth. Co-incidentally, a certain male appendage is shaped like the banana … What does that suggest God had in mind?

    X: You’re a sick deviant.
    (conversation disintegrates, with Xian tumbling into ALL-CAPS)
    A: Alternatively, maybe He really meant you to shove the banana in another conveiniently banana-shaped orifice?

  • LRA

    “Comfort’s trinity is George Washington, Andrew Jackson, and Ben Franklin, and his motto is “In God We Trust~Pay to the bearer …”

    Is that true? Cuz I think those men were deists!

  • http://www.slim-blondje.com/eng Pascalle

    You just made me spray my coffee over my keyboard.

    I was thinking in those lines as well.. but didn’t really dare respond with it.

    :)

  • reckoner71

    “When a person is insane, as you clearly are, do you know that you’re insane? Maybe you’re just sitting around, reading Guns & Ammo, masturbating in your own feces… do you just stop and go, ‘WOW! It is amazing how fucking crazy I really am’.”

  • Just thinking…

    “I’m wondering, seriously wondering, if Ray Comfort is an undercover operative for the Atheist movement.”

    Yep, I actually agree. I’ve been doing Ray Comfort a disservice–he’s not a moronic, godbotting creotard, he’s an heroic secret agent proselytizing for the Atheist cause.

    FORGIVE ME RAY! Thanks to your heroic sacrifice, your willingness to appear stupid in the eyes of the world and be shunned by all people with two brain cells to rub together, you are turning people away from the stupidity of Christian religion! What a hero you are. When you are gone we will erect a statue of a banana in your honor. Thousands, nay millions, of indoctrinated people will have cause to praise you for opening their eyes to the utter stupidity of Christian excess.

  • reckoner71

    To be fair, I don’t think I’ve ever heard any believer – save for Banana Man and Growing Pain – repeat this absurd claim.

    Any creationist worth their debating salt wouldn’t touch it with a 170 ft. cross.

  • spence-bob

    Get a library card.

  • J. Allen

    Washington certainly was a deist, and he rarely spoke about religion, and wasn’t an official member of any church. He didn’t call for a priest of any sort on his death bed, and letters of friends describe him as Deist:

    As President, Washington regularly attended Christian services, and he was friendly in his attitude toward Christian values. However, he repeatedly declined the church’s sacraments. Never did he take communion, and when his wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the sanctuary…. Even on his deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to Christ, and expressed no wish to be attended by His representative. George Washington’s practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not himself a Christian. In the enlightened tradition of his day, he was a devout Deist–just as many of the clergymen who knew him suspected. (Barry Schwartz, George Washington: The Making of an American Symbol, New York: The Free Press, 1987, pp. 174-175.)

    Franklin was a well known Deist, though a little more conservative:
    [Benjamin] Franklin drank deep of the Protestant ethic and then, discomforted by church constraints, became a freethinker. All his life he kept Sundays free for reading, but would visit any church to hear a great speaker, no doubt recognizing a talent he himself did not possess. With typical honesty and humor he wrote out his creed in 1790, the year he died: “I believe in one God, Creator of the universe…. That the most acceptable service we can render Him is doing good to His other children…. As to Jesus … I have … some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble.”

    As for Jackson:

    The presidency of Andrew Jackson [7th U. S. President, 1829-1837] had its effect on religious life. An ardent church/state separationist, Jackson dissociated himself from any religious denomination, though he had been reared a Presbyterian. On numerous occasions he made pronouncements that fostered religious liberty and toleration in the new country.

  • http://wmute.livejournal.com wintermute

    Eggs.

    Who was the first person to see something fall out of a chicken’s cloaca and think “hey, that looks tasty!”?

  • Jeff Eyges

    True, but they arm themselves with a lot of pseudo-science. It’s like arguing with a child who’s learned some big words.

  • Jeff Eyges

    That WorldNetDaily article also quoted Comfort as saying,

    Atheists spammed my blog, spammed our website and sent abusive e-mails about our new billboard, so I suspected some sort of atheist conspiracy on Amazon, and fortunately I found it,” Comfort said.

    “Fortunately” because it plays right into his fantasies of martyrdom. Many of them seem to get off on it.

  • http://unreasonablefaith.com Daniel Florien

    Haha!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X