December 2008 Screwballs

[MarcusAndreas]

Screwball to stupidity.

[Chaotic Void]

Screwball to stupidity.

That's a given.

What stupidity are you referring to?

[JonLanceBarker]

I see no reason why a Christian should feel compelled to extend such a "common courtesy" to a heretic, and in fact there is merit in deliberately not using the title or constructing a mocking variation of it (such as "his hokey-ness" though I'm sure someone could come up with something better).

How about "His Hoariness?"

[MarcusAndreas]

I was referring to stupidity in general.

[mig_killer2]

I was referring to stupidity in general.

Just for that I'm giving you a demotion from Captain Obvious to Staff Sergeant Obvious (that's one heck of a demotion BTW)

[Manwë Súlimo]

Just for that I'm giving you a demotion from Captain Obvious to Staff Sergeant Obvious (that's one heck of a demotion BTW)

URGENT NEWS FLASH: Being demoted is a bad thing.

[Mr Minder]

Yeah, heretic was the wrong word. How about blasphemer?

Yes, that'll work.

Depends on what you mean by "good".

Not "good" as in righteous before God, but overall decent person. And he's tried to free his country for a long time now (not good in and of itself, but certainly not bad either...).

The funny thing is, that he might not even be considered holy by Theravada Buddhists. I don't know, but since he's a major figure in Mahayana Buddhism (which makes a much bigger deal about gods, spirits and Bodhisattvas than Theravada does) it seems probable to me.

[Mountain Man]

O.K., this one seriously left my head spinning:

The so-called "laws of logic" have not shown a great deal of merit for me. I see no reason to hold onto them. There's no need to form any kind of belief. Not that that's denying them. Hey, if someone uses them better than I do in a proper technique, I have no problem with that. I don't need to form a rally to strike them from the books, or denounce them as blasphemous and immoral. They just don't hold great value for me. I tested them, at your request, but they haven't shown enough relevance to my life that I need to form any kind of judgment at all.

[Mountain Man]

Screwball nomination for this pair of clueless liberal journos who are baffled that Obama's election didn't bring peace on earth and good will towards men:

ALEX WITT: You know, John, and it’s interesting because there are many who had such an optimstic and hopeful opinion of things, and you certainly can’t expect things to change [snaps fingers] on a dime overnight, but there are many who suggested that with the outgoing Bush administration and the incoming Obama administration there would be something of a lull in terrorism attacks. There had been such a global outpouring of affection, respect, hope, with the new administration coming in, that precisely these kinds of attacks, it was thought — at least hoped — would be dampered down. But in this case it looks like Barack Obama is getting a preview of things to come.

JOHN YANG: He’s — it’s a rude awakening, a very, sort of, sober reminder of what he’s going to be facing in just a few weeks.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-no...nded-terrorism

Anybody who calls this a "rude awakening" hasn't been paying attention for the last several decades.

[jpholding]

Screwball nomination for this pair of clueless liberal journos who are baffled that Obama's election didn't bring peace on earth and good will towards men:

Oh my. The At-Large Platinum noms just got a late entry...

[Challenger Grim]

Reading the Nov screwy awards, Mike Wright is lucky I never saw his Narnia talk (being a big Lewis/Narnia fan). To quote Farnsworth, "The evil I could tolerate, but the stupidity... *shudder*".

Anyway, need to subscribe so let's head over to DD's site and pick out some gold...

First up... he seems to take two things only tangentially related and smash them together in a train wreck of world ending purportions:
http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2008/12/03/framed/

A while back there was a bit of a brouhaha over how best to present science and/or atheism to the world. Atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens were said to be too “harsh” and “shrill” in their bold and confident assertions that religion was wrong. Advocates for atheism and/or science, it was said, needed to “frame” their arguments, to make them more appealing and less offensive for the average, religiously-minded layperson.

Well, some atheists took that advice to heart, and Dinesh D’Souza would like to give them the “thanks” they deserve.

The central argument of these scientific atheists is that modern science has refuted traditional religious conceptions of a divine creator.

But of late atheism seems to be losing its scientific confidence. One sign of this is the public advertisements that are appearing in billboards from London to Washington DC. Dawkins helped pay for a London campaign to put signs on city buses saying, “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Humanist groups in America have launched a similar campaign in the nation’s capital. “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness sake.” And in Colorado atheists are sporting billboards apparently inspired by John Lennon: “Imagine…no religion…”

There is no claim here that God fails to satisfy some criterion of scientific validation. We hear nothing about how evolution has undermined the traditional “argument from design.” There’s not even a whisper about how science is based on reason while Christianity is based on faith…

[A]theists seem to have given up the scientific card.

Congratulations, framers. You’ve made Christians much happier, now that they can claim you’ve conceded defeat in the scientific realm.

Having read Vox Day's TIA (a great read I recommend), and a casual reader of his website (I don't agree with him on everything), I'm anxious for DD to finish TIA because Vox has then promised to give him one massive rebuttal (or something). He may not have to, as DD will just hang himself.
http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2...e-golden-rule/

Vox is partly right: Jesus didn’t base his religion on the Golden Rule, and more’s the pity because it would have produced a better moral system if he had.
...
This time Vox is on more solid ground. Yes, the reference to “Love your neighbor as yourself” is a fair rewording of the Golden Rule, but that’s not Rule One. Rule One is to devote yourself completely to God, which in practice means unquestioning obedience to whatever the priests and prophets tell you God’s will is, whether it’s selling your daughter into sexual slavery or beating your slaves or taking genocide to the point of killing every man, woman, child, babe, and beast. This takes precedence over the Golden Rule in Jesus’ eyes, and it’s a shame he had to tarnish an otherwise good moral system with such primitive and barbaric superstitions.

Epic... Fail

Good 'ole DD. Always there when we need material.



P.S. Everyone playing the Evangelical Realism drinking game...

In fact, obeying God’s will is not merely difficult, but impossible, since God does not show up in real life to tell us what that will might be. Instead, we are forced to rely on what men say God’s will is—and no, it does not help that some other men have gotten together and voted to declare certain of their brethren to be infallible and inspired prophets and apostles. The leadership and teaching of an infallible and perfect deity might indeed provide us with a superior moral system, if we had real-world access to such a deity. But we don’t, and in His absence men have found it far too easy to their own desires into the words of Holy Writ.

Take a drink!

[Pumbelo]

Having read Vox Day's TIA (a great read I recommend), and a casual reader of his website (I don't agree with him on everything), I'm anxious for DD to finish TIA because Vox has then promised to give him one massive rebuttal (or something). He may not have to, as DD will just hang himself.
http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2...e-golden-rule/

That might be "Vox vs. Kelly from the RRS" 2.0

[Challenger Grim]

That might be "Vox vs. Kelly from the RRS" 2.0

I think you mean, Vox vs RRS Kelly 0.5. Kelly She at least seems to make less of a fool of herself as DD (but then, that's like comparing Steve-O vs Tom Green).

[Manwë Súlimo]

I think you mean, Vox vs RRS Kelly 0.5. Kelly She at least seems to make less of a fool of herself as DD (but then, that's like comparing Steve-O vs Tom Green).

Help a noob out. Is the DD you are talking about OUR DeeDee or someone else entirely? Because you might wake up dead if it was OUR DeeDee.

[Challenger Grim]

Help a noob out. Is the DD you are talking about OUR DeeDee or someone else entirely? Because you might wake up dead if it was OUR DeeDee.

DD = Deacon Duncan = Dumplin' Dumbash

I like to call him DD because it keeps reminding me of Dexter's sister (only not as bright).