This is going to cause some uncomfortable moments in atheist circles — after Richard Dawkins’ death and resurrection, he’s now going around performing miracles. This is very awkward.
I know! I’ll just have to stop believing in him, and instead put my faith in Daniel Dennett, who would never…oh, wait.
All hail our Lord and Savior, Richard Dawkins!
How lovely it would be if Dawkins could turn tap water into a really nice wine…
Oh great. So now I have to start telling people that atheism is a religion?
I don’t get it.
Ha ha, PZ, now you’re going to pay for desecrating “The God Delusion.”
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
If Jesus was around, he’d get invited to all my parties. We’d save so much money on liquor.
Acquiring new skills, however unexplainable, is not a basis for a belief in the supernatural. We just haven’t figured out the mechanism and method of Dawkins’ newfound talents. I’m sure one day, science will easily explain this, in a clear and concise manner.
That reminds me of atheists in Terry Pratchett’s Discworld series. They remain atheists despite the gods hitting them with lightning. Some of the gods have a grudging respect for them.
It could be worse; it could a that every time PZ is trying to enjoy the wine with a bit of cheese and crackers, he ends up with cheese and Carpaccio. Now that would be really awkward.
There is the line in one of the Discworld novels that goes like this:
“he wasn’t an atheist, because being an atheist in a world with 7000 known gods was a non-survival trait”
“Granny didn’t believe in gods. She knew they existed. She dealt with them on a daily basis. She just didn’t believe in them. I would be like believing in the postman.”
I was wondering if the water was turned into a good wine or not and a friend stated that one ought not question the gift of free alcohol. I bow to his superior insight.
Micheal, you just gave me an excuse to link to one of my favorite drinking songs.
I know you can walk on water
But can you walk on this much beer?
Damn. PZ. You had me scared. For a minute, I was thinking, “Dawkins died? How did I know know that Dawkins died?”
Apotheosis is such an awesome word. I’m tempted to start a religion just so I can have an excuse to use it more often.
Then again, it does have a hard time competing against the lovely linguistic gems of biology like “biopoiesis” and “chiasmata”..
ermmm – have y’all seen this??
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/29/dole-ad-fabricates-audio_n_138874.html
Nah, if he could find me a Wii fit, that’d be truly miraculous!
what a turd that woman is.
Off topic, but I love the random quote that just came up on the Pharyngula main page: the poem “Little Boy Lost”. I read it all the way through and was honestly quite surprised when I realised that the poet was William Blake and not Cuttlefish (OM)!
Yay! We’re saved! Newsbiscuit Sidebar Headline:
Not that I want to be accused of being a joyless sour puss, but the point of that article about Dawkins seemed be that no matter how strong the evidence for the divine is, including resurrection from death, dogmatic skeptics like Dawkins will never believe. Instead, they will always hand wave the evidence away and conclude that there must be a “scientific” explanation. Excuse me, but that’s bullshit.
Skeptics and scientists follow the evidence, and I’m certain Dawkins is perfectly capable of changing his position if valid evidence of the divine were ever presented. The dogmatism of atheists is a fantasy believers use to comfort themselves about their own credulity. Note that all of the stories about atheists remaining stubborn nonbelievers in the face of overwhelming evidence are always made up, and that’s because the evidence for the divine doesn’t actually exist.
@#21, it’s a joke. If you can’t laugh at yourself, you can’t laugh at anyone.
Skeptics and scientists follow the evidence, and I’m certain Dawkins is perfectly capable of changing his position if valid evidence of the divine were ever presented.
Dawkins has actually said this.
tsg, I knew there would be at least one poster who would throw the mindless “it’s just a joke” response at me. Now perhaps you might explain what the joke is exactly and just who it’s supposed to be on, because I’ve explained why I don’t find it funny.
Something tells me I’d be wasting my time.
Lighten up.
@#21 “Instead, they will always hand wave the evidence away and conclude that there must be a “scientific” explanation”
What evidence?
Posted by: H.H. | October 29, 2008 1:56 PM
Not that I want to be accused of being a joyless sour puss…
Thanks for the warning!
I’m more with #22, but this claim that, ‘well, we’re not giving you no damn evidence since you wouldn’t change anyway’ always amuses me. Uh, gee, since we’ve never gotten a speck of meaningful evidence thus far, how do you know that overwhelming evidence would truly never convince us?
I figure it’s either “we’re interested in keeping our privileged knowledge for ourselves,” or “we’d better not concede anything at all to evidence, lest we be shown to be frauds,” or both. Often both, because the lack of evidence nags at many of them, while “faith” normally is meant to impute a certain superiority of “spiritual knowing” that the lowly atheist lacks.
OK then, give us the crumbs, why don’t you? Skip the resurrection, just have a truckload of spiritually inferior gold show up on my doorstep. If I still won’t believe, you can laugh at my lack of “faith” while I waste my life spending the money.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
@RGinB #19–
*blush*
He must be an alien.
On Glen, are you so willing to fob off your immortal soul for such shiny bauble.
A joke doesn’t have to be on anyone, sometimes things are just funny. Such as Dawkins suddenly having the magic powers of Jesus. But then, presumably you knew that already…
H. H., seriously: I can’t really see where, how, or why an “it’s just a joke”-type comment could be characterized by you as “mindless.”
Care to unpack that?
“Obvious,” yes. “Unnecessary given the presence of a thinking brain with the capacity for humor,” yes.
But “mindless”? No — unless you are dipping your toe into those all-too-familiar “any and all comments issuing from people who post appreciatively on P. Z. Myers’ blog MUST be mindless, Q.E.D.” waters.
Which appear to be pretty mindless waters, themselves.
Kneejerk = Kneejerk
Q.E.D.
And, yeah, lighten up, Francis.
Ok… but the article was missing the most important detail? What was the last thing Dawkins ate before he died? How am I supposed to know what random food item to worship if I don’t know what he trans-substantiated into?
*sigh*. I guess I’ll just have to make something up. It’ll have to be something PZ can’t desecrate easily with a nail.
JELLO! slurp!
About the Dole ad: I’m not too happy with Ms. Hagan either. Look at her statement:
* At their core, Americans aren’t Democrat or Republican, red or blue – they’re Americans, plain and simple. We ALL love our country, and we all value the role of faith in American life.
* Shame on anyone who says differently.
Well, according to Kay Hagan, shame on me, then, and shame on PZ and Daniel Dennett and many of the readers of this blog. I don’t “value the role of faith in American life”. I think it’s immensely damaging.
Shame on you, Kay Hagan, for assuming all Americans are theists. I wish the people of North Carolina had a viable third choice.
She did have a meeting with an Atheist group (which is what this whole thing is about). How many politicians do you see doing that? I think you are being a little hard on her.
What I want are bids, not chiding.
But I should be talking to Michael Egnor about that, shouldn’t I? He’s the one who sees all of the soul’s effects like….
Well, uh, never mind what they are, if you don’t already know what they are I’ll never be able to convince you, no matter what the evidence.
@ H. H. #21, #24:
Come on, H. H. In a certain way the article even backs the position of atheism. It points out the question: Why doesn’t God, if he exists, work a wonder to convince the non-believers, instead of expecting them to believe on the basis of the lousy evidence he provided?
Glen, channeling Salt:
Get thee out, devil!
I haven’t performed an exorcism in a while… feel better?
Thus spake H.H. @21:
Then you’ll really hate the story on the following page, Pharyngula Poster Needs Emergency Humour Transfusion.
bernard quatermass, the “it’s just a joke” defense is mindless because it can be used to defend anything whatsoever, and therefore isn’t a good justification for anything. Also, I thought I had already made it perfectly clear with my opening statement that I realized it was a joke, and so the repetition of that fact served no purpose. For my part, I wasn’t overly offended by the piece, I was just pointing out that the article’s main angle was highly reminiscent of a popular christian apologetic, and a especially dubious one at that. And since I’m a regular poster here at Pharyngula, I certainly don’t consider anyone who posts here to be mindless. In fact, I’m having an extremely hard time seeing the chain of thought which could even lead you to make such a stupid accusation. Perhaps it was just a kneejerk reaction on your part?
Yay! Finally, a really nice savior who’s consistent with his message and isn’t causing really big problems by going around saying things like he came to bring war and so forth.
That “water into wine” trick will nicely compliment some “loaves and fishes” types of miracles in these tough economic times. And finally there’s someone who can do something about the health care crisis in this country.
Too bad you have to be born an American to be voted President of the United States; otherwise, our savior Richard Dawkins would be a really good choice. I hope Joe Biden will be able to take over after Obama has had eight years.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 29, 2008
What I want are bids, not chiding.
Sorry, I am too poor to buy such a hot product. So all you can get from me is my chiding.
How about that, I am too spiritually poor to be a theist and too poor to be a materialist.
The Lord hath taken away, the Lord hath given. Blessed be the name of the Lord.
It’s obviously a ‘shop!
I can tell by the pixels and having seen a few ‘shops in my timeNo reflection!SOMG! Dawkypoo is a vampire!!!
(And it’s even worse than that. James Randi has died and risen too! They must be putting something in the atheist watersupply. Yeast?)
Of course Richard Dawkins’ death and resurrection is a made up story, but it’s not any less goofy than the incredible nonsense every Christian must believe. The belief in the resurrection of Jebus is why I think even the most moderate Christians are the most stupid, insane, gullible people in human history.
H.H.:
The Onion=Satire, Satire=Humor, NewsBiscuit=The Onion,
therefore NewsBiscuit=Humor.
Incidentally, the sidebar articles were hysterical.
Janine ID:
So you’re an immaterial girl?
“In fact, I’m having an extremely hard time seeing the chain of thought which could even lead you to make such a stupid accusation.”
The chain only has one link, Einstein: many people have done just that, e.g. accused a great many here of “mindless” following of whatever P. Z. says. If you doubt that, dig backwards and open your eyes.
And since my “stupid” accusation has, despite its apparent (to you) stupidity, caused you to stoop to words like “stupid,” I’ll stand by my previous assessment of you as “humorless.”
Personally I would rather be stupid than humorless, since the former admits the possibility of future learning, while the latter … oh, never mind.
Have a nice day, you great peckerwood.
To the overly defensive (and overly critical) comments regarding HH #21.
I think the key phrase in his comment is “The dogmatism of atheists is a fantasy believers use to comfort themselves about their own credulity.”. True.
Please re-read the comment carefully. The internet is an imperfect medium for getting across the jist and sense of an argument. You have misunderstood the comment.
#48, you are right right right.
And H. H., I apologize, if it matters.
I am having a lousy, lousy day and my knee did indeed jerk. Both of them, in fact.
What, that he doesn’t find the joke funny? Perhaps you misunderstand the criticism.
HH, if I might step cautiously into these waters, your interpretation simply doesn’t match that of some other readers, including me.
I found the humor in the article not from Dawkins’ “dogmatic” refusal to believe the evidence of divine power, but from the irony of his actually being divine. It’s not just that he was resurrected by God, but that he is apparently God himself, at least as much as Jesus was, and he’s uncomfortable with it. [Please assume quotes around the proper nouns in the previous sentence.]
Imagine a similar article, perhaps in The Onion:
“Bra-burning feminist is uncomfortable with being unexpectedly crowned Miss America.
“‘I didn’t even enter the pageant,’ the reluctant beauty queen confesses.”
I guess if you have to explain a joke…
Ummm… this is awkward.
I have already dedicated to myself to the Prophet Christopher Hitchens, so I can no longer call Professor Dawkins my lord and savior.
H.H.:
Holbach… is that you?
To tsg #50. (slaps forehead)
Please, (and this is the last word I want to say on the subject) go back and read the original comment. See if you can see how it could be meant any other way.
I get it, most people get it, bernard qautermass (thank you) has got it, now see if you can get it.
Me wonders, is this a cultural thing? Do some people take things too literally i.e can’t see beyond the words to see the true meaning. No wonder the world is trouble, even the people who agree are fighting each other!
(Hint: HH is on the same side as you)
bernard quatermass, thanks and no hard feelings. We’re all on the same side, when it comes down to it.
Ann @ #51, thank you for your take. I was being sincere when I was asked what people found humorous, as from my point of view it seemed a derogatory article. Yours wasn’t a perspective I considered. Thank you for taking the time to do what others would not.
Posted by: E.V. | October 29, 2008 2:54 PM
Janine ID:
So you’re an immaterial girl?
I am afraid that the content of all my posts here is proof of that.
Yeah, misunderstandings happen constantly on message boards and so forth. But a bunch of people must be having an especially bad day today. It’s not usually until comments are in the hundreds that the bloodbath begins.
And on such a light-hearted thread, too.
Have a better day,
~Jeanette
Just to clear it all up: It isn’t a real article. It is satire like The Colbert Report and The Onion. Faux news. I guess if you watched TCR or read the Onion while expecting them to be authentic news sources then it might throw you for a loop for a moment or so, but the evidence of a Poesian wink here and nudge there would reveal it to be satire or parody -surely.
If this does not proof that this is satire, you will not get the humor.
Are you showing us your wicked witty way with an ironic statement or do you need a hug today?
****************************************************************************
#58 addendum:
The article on Dennett was sincere and not a parody. Just clearing that up. (wanders off)
I’ve read it a dozen times and still don’t see what I’m missing. I interpreted the article the same way he described and still thought it was funny and not offensive. Maybe it’s my sense of humor, I don’t know.
And if I did misunderstand him, he could have responded better than “I knew there would be at least one poster who would throw the mindless ‘it’s just a joke’ response at me.” At that point, I no longer cared.
That’s not a problem. You see, Dawkins and Hitchens are actually the same person, even though they’re different people. With Charles Darwin, they make up the Atheist Trinity. Darwin is the Father, Dawkins is the Son, and Hitchens is the (Un)Holy Spirit.
Some people can only spot satire when it is not aimed at their particular sacred cow. A calloused indentation in the trapezius roughly the size and shape of a wood chip renders the sufferer unable to find humor even when many clues are in evidence. This can only be cured by slaughtering any sacred bovines and refusing to balance wood products on one’s shoulder in an attempt of provoking a fight.
Ann @ 51,
Gee, I’m glad you summed it up so nicely! I was groping for phrasing to describe just that interpretation, and you nailed it.
I especially liked the parallel you used to illustrate it; I like it so much, in fact, that I’m going to gratuitously blockquote it here:
*snortle*
Hitchens is The Vessel of Holy Spirits.
@61 Re: “I knew there would be at least one poster who would throw the mindless ‘it’s just a joke’ response at me.”
Yeah, that preemptive attack was a bit harsh, H.H.
What people find humorous is going to vary widely, and maybe there’s nothing that can be done about that.
I think the piece about Richard Dawkins is hilarious, and don’t see how it could be interpreted in a negative way without seriously over-analyzing the thing. Too much analysis ruins any satire.
“Come on, what would it take to convince you guys?”, the creationist asked rhetorically and without conscious irony, and with a book full to the brim of the kind of things that would qualify in his hands.
What, Christ Hitchens?
@62
Does this mean Ayn Rand is the virgin mother? All we need are a few saints and we can make our own rosary.
OOOh, a dark and vengeful god.
My $0.02
Knowing the site is satire, while reading, I was able to see both perspectives, although the humor perspective won out, 70%/30%.
What I found a little bothersome is what I think H.H. is alluding to. That is, the decision of the author to characterize a highly visible atheist as dogmatic, or at least, not willing to appropriately recognize the value of some really compelling evidence.
From the article:
IMO this is a clear “dig” at the atheist world-view that xtian believers would smugly get a chuckle from.
’nuff said by me.
A deity who will only smite if you do believe in them. That’s going to lead to some interesting apologetics.
Awesome.
“At that he touched a bottle of mineral water, turning it into Chateau Lafitte 1967, and slunk inside to drink it.”
That sounds like the best use of mystical powers I have heard for a while. I wish I could do that.
It’s probably true for everyone here, almost without exception.
She didn’t say it has to be a POSITIVE value.
@Alex #71
I read the same thing into it, but I took it as a good-natured dig rather than an attempt at offense. If a caricaturist on the boardwalk exaggerates the size of your nose, you can be insulted or you can laugh. I chose to laugh.
There’s enough hatred in the world without having to find it where it wasn’t intended.
To avoid confusion, #76 is me. I fat-fingered my nick.
Rob @ 73
I think I respectfully disagree. Here’s why:
In light of the religious bias of the source, I think she would intend the spirit of her message to reflect an attitude that the norm for “All” Americans is too positively value faith.
I agree, it is reading between the lines, but only a little, IMO.
WIN!
OK, I’m getting this hilarious image of Richard Dawkins playing the part of Graham Chapman in “Life Of Brian”… Pharyngulites are following him everywhere, pestering him. Until he finally gets pissed off and says “Fuck Off!”
…(wait for it….)
How Shall We Fuck Off Oh Lord!!??
Doesn’t it occur to you guys that Dawkins “disbelief” is as absurd in that situation as the idea that he was resurrected is absurd? One absurdity follows (depends upon) another absurdity, meaning that both his “resurrection” and his “continued unbelief” after such a miracle (to be fair, it’s not clear that God can be inferred from such a miracle, but something very out of the ordinary would be apparent), are being treated as ridiculous.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Will Dawkins write “The Atheist’s Afterlife” now that he’s been resurrected?
Of course there could never be any evidence for supernatural magic, and there’s nothing dogmatic about refusing to believe in childish stupidity. Many Christians are very quick to invoke miracles, when there most certainly is a natural explanation for everything, even if that explanation is unknown. I have tried to explain to some Christians there has never been any miracles and there never will be any miracles, but they are too stupid to understand.
tsg @76
For sure. I finished the article with a smile. I love satire.
I think the (minor) frustration I felt is that a xtian won’t “get” the strong irony of a dogmatic atheist, or the subtle irony of calling Richard Dawkins “militant”. At least, I don’t consider Dawkins *militant*. Hitchens – certainly. As far as the meaning of *militant* goes and it’s application for describing atheists by the religious is a whole other thread.
Bobc @ 83
“Of course there could never be any evidence for supernatural magic…”
Of course not Bob. I know that. However, IMO, for those who don’t understand the implications of what supernatural actually means, they could (incorrectly) conceive it is possible. This is how they are able to think things like spirits and souls and magical-woo could be effectual. They don’t understand the contradiction of applying the term to material reality.
So, from that erroneous perspective, I think they (i.e. religious) would perceive that small little portion of the article as the author characterizing atheists (and Dawkins in particular) as stubborn, thick-headed, and blind, and not getting that it’s actually just more irony.
for those who see this as an attempt to paint atheists as dogmatic, just look at it as an article from opposite-world in which christians are the ones who are evidently right, and the atheists are the dogmatic reality-deniers. it’s poking fun at those who think that that’s how the world really is, but apparently that kind of satire died a while ago.
*blushes*
Whoa, the images that brings to mind…
In the UK the newspaper commentators who are believers, alarmed at what they see as a vocal atheism (‘militant atheism’;’ new atheism’) have elevated Richard Dawkins to the level of a ‘prophet’ or ‘high priest’ of this ‘new’ atheism, or some other religious authority figure name? Anyone seen ‘pope’ mentioned yet!?
We can laugh at it, as atheists know that their non-belief is quite the opposite of a religious system or church, but believers apparently can never get away from that sort of view. And actually I find it a little hurtful! Having my rationist outlook compared to a religion – they know how to hurt!
I suspect the believers won’t be happy until they get a decent set of miracles out of Richard Dawkins. Then they could really call him a prophet of atheism with some truth! I hear that the magicians Penn and Teller, as well as being excellent magicians are also strong atheists – maybe they could help him bluff his way through a miracle or two for the benefit of the believers?
Eyeoffaith @67
I would be more impressed if Dawkins could turn Chateau Lafite 1967 (only one f by the way) into water.
At least it would then be drinkable. 1967 was a truly awful year in the Médoc. Nowadays it would only be fit for washing down Communion crackers.
Most recently they are all atwitter about Dawkins supposedly condemning Harry Potter for its ill effect on children.
Dawkins comments on the RDnet forum:
But apparently to some people, that still justifies calling Dawkins a “pompous fraud” over this because they want to “atheist bait”. (People, you have been baited!)
The exchange in the comments of the next post is priceless.
Q: “…If no intellectual defense of theism can be presented, why do theists insist on taking it on faith that there is one, somewhere?”
A: “Chet, this guy down the street said God talked to him, and he knew it was God and he had a vision. Apparently this has happened to others. I asked him and he doesnt seem very interested in giving a refutation of Dawkins […]”
#90
Indeed Dawkins did idley speculate that fairy stories for kids may not be entirely healthy with respect for future potential relious beliefs – and the ‘prophet’ got a bit of a tongue lashing from his ‘followers’ for his speculations!
His main mistake I think was not realising the strong trekkie representation in the scientific community!
It’s obviously reasonable, and refreshing, that any so called authority figure for atheists isn’t going to get the free ride that genuine prophets do from their followers.
That’s a good thing in principle, but I don’t see how Dawkins deserves a “tongue lashing” based on a misinterpretation of what he said.
Are you calling Star Trek a fairy tale? (Well, even as a fan I have to admit that sounds pretty accurate) Otherwise why should trekkies get up in arms about Dawkins’ comments?
Why say it was God who did it when we’ve got all these Alien Space Bats running around? And can he change the laws of physics? (I’d include a link to the Amazon.com page for S. M. Stirling’s Dies the Fire with my Amazon Associates I.D. included, but nobody ever buys a book I recommend. :( )
Does this mean PZ is a seraph?
I read part of the article about Daniel Dennett. Like him, I have been through the process of some major healing, and like him I thought long and hard about how gratefull I was for all the peolpe who helped me get back to health.
I started thinking about this after walking a 5K for a local breast cancer charity where I saw a family group of women carrying a sign thanking Jeebus for curing their mother of cancer. My thoughts ranged from how sad that they didn’t thank her doctors to how they didn’t acknowledge their own mothers efforts in her own healing process.
It was to a humbling but great experience for me to think of all the people and their efforts for helping me, but best of all, there was nothing supernatural about it.
Charles Tye @ #89:
>I would be more impressed if Dawkins could turn Chateau Lafite 1967 (only one f by the way) into water.
I can easily turn Chateau Lafite into water. Or at least into urine. If you buy me a bottle I’ll demonstrate.
Carlie at #94: No, PZ is not a seraph! Since we have a Darwin-Dawkins-Hitch trinity already (Christ Hitchens?), we now need a “Paul” to spread the atheist religion — and what do you think the P in PZ stands for?
Heheh, regarding #97’s “Christ Hitchens”, I just put the Turek v Hitchens debate on my iPod, and, in the narrow column, it just came up as “Frank Turek & Christ”.
Given how awful I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist was, I couldn’t figure out why I’d want to listen to that.
And, in the fine tradition of originating a religious C&B story, we will need to retroactively give Paul Zachary the birthname of Saul Zachary.
Who is going to take on matching our story line to some idiots’ prophesies?
At Canuck in #99: No, no! Christianity clearly isn’t just idiot prophecies — it’s something much more sinister! Clearly their myths are a mockery planted in the past by the atheist-religion’s devil (who on earth is that? Ann Coulter?) who knew our godless three-headed, er, um, god would come!
“Out, spirit of Coulter! Out! By the power of Darwin I command thee!”
Daniel Dennett could also make a good father for the Holy Trinity – he sure looks the part.
Dennett actually did “die” briefly and come back to life.
Since Hitch has now been water boarded – does this cleanse our sins?
So, would this be the same R. Dawkins who frets about the impact of Harry Potter on children?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3255972/Harry-Potter-fails-to-cast-spell-over-Professor-Richard-Dawkins.html
Sheesh, I thought that only fuckwits could be that dense…
For fuck’s sake, I already posted Dawkins’ reply to that lie in #90.
Prof Dawkins said he wanted to look at the effects of “bringing children up to believe in spells and wizards”.
“I think it is anti-scientific – whether that has a pernicious effect, I don’t know,” he told More4 News.
“I think looking back to my own childhood, the fact that so many of the stories I read allowed the possibility of frogs turning into princes, whether that has a sort of insidious affect on rationality, I’m not sure. Perhaps it’s something for research.”
———–
I don’t know, sounds like fretting over the implications of Harry Potter to me, concerned that there might be a “pernicious effect.” How is that different from what the fuckwits are doing?
So it doesn’t matter that Dawkins has said that he was not, if it “sounds like” that to you. How is that different from what ‘the fuckwits’ are doing?
Are we not all dead, like this thread, eventually?
(Post haste, as it were?)
The Cheerful Nihilist #107 “Are we not all dead, like this thread, eventually? (Post haste, as it were?)”
Yeah. Right. Except you forget that cells in the body don’t all die at the same time. (heh heh heh).
But in your case, it seems more like virulent vanity to see yourself as the official usher at the end of every thread. It’s as bad as the “Me First” imbeciles.
You wait and see that at least an hour has transpired after the latest comment, then you weigh in with some pithy concluding remark about ending the friggin’ thread instead of the topic.
How anti-LIFE you must be!
Your posts have less value than a punctuation mark.
Dan Dennett: STAY well young man! I mean that from the goodness of my heart!!!
But H.H., called #21, said unto the others, Except you see my point that believers are more dogmatic in their rejection of atheism than atheists in their disbelief, I will not get the joke.
And after eight days again the pharyngulists were within, and H.H. with them: then came NewsBiscuit, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Turn on thy Laptop.
Then saith NewsBisuit to H.H., Click hither on the story about Novelist Cleans Entire House, and behold the one about Tennis Dad in Hilarious Air Guitar Mime, and be not joyless, but smiling.
And H.H. answered and said, Oh My God.
NewsBiscuit saith unto him, H.H., because thou hast been shown that this article can be taken as a light hearted dig at both Dawkins and Religion and doesn’t benefit from over-analysis, because that is the kind of thing NewsBiscuit doeth, thou hast smiled. Blessed are they that have not seen all the jokes, because they have never for example heard of Tottenham Hotspur or understood that its peril is truly akin to that of Lehman Brothers, and yet have smiled.
…and verily God sayeth unto H.H. “For Christ Sake, get a life!”