Guano (1)

Comments that seem to me to be in violation of the game rules will be moved here, and closed to further comment.  Do not regard having your post moved here as a reprimand, merely as a referee’s whistle. 🙂

Feel free to comment on them at any other peanut gallery of your choice.

1,658 Replies to “Guano (1)”

  1. Alan Fox Alan Fox says:


    Hoping this can end it for this thread. Noyau is for rule-relaxed spats.

  2. Patrick Patrick says:


    This thread raises a moral question re: saving a baby or frozen embryos. Nevertheless, the fact that “rude, mean, insulting” communication is not only condoned, but actually called “very pretty” (a “tripping balls” acid-taking theory of ‘design’) is rather damning. TSZ is certainly far from the ‘moral high road’ compared with UD, a site I criticise as strongly and directly as anyone at TSZ.

    Despite hotshoe_’s self-identification as “rude, mean, and insulting”, I saw none of that in the comment you are referencing. Here it is again, for your convenience:

    Hint: you CAN’T prove it, Mung. It only takes one black swan to disprove a claim that “every swan is white”.

    Sorry, kiddo, I’m at least one black swan, whom you know personally (for an internet value of “personally”).

    I only think the natural world looks “designed” when I’m tripping balls.

    I do think that acid tells a kind of truth, but when acid tells me that every leaf is an individually designed jewel of green perfection … I can pretty much be sure that’s the opposite of reality.

    In reality, I think that the natural world is messy, ad hoc, ill-fitting, scabrous, greedy, exploitative, and evolved. Sure, I also think it’s beautiful and wonderful (we do have hummingbirds, after all) but that’s orthogonal to thinking it’s “designed”. Never, as a little kid chasing dragonflies, did I ever think that it was “designed” — or “planned” or any other synonym for “designed”. And as soon as I was old enough to understand the basic biology, I knew that the theory of evolution was correct in the overall picture of how the magnificent oak grows the way it does while the wild roses grow the way they do.

    Getting into college level inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, and molecular biology, there has never been any need to postulate a designing agent that said to itself “I’ll just stick these two things together; they’ll work better that way”. I see molecules. I don’t see “design”.

    Sorry, your “objective fact” is neither.

    Rather than spewing invective, how about explaining, with reference to specific quotes, what you find objectionable about this arguably pretty post?

  3. Gregory Gregory says:

    If we’re really going to have a conversation about varieties of ‘design/Design’, patrick, that’s best for another more concentrated thread. As for an even playing field of communication (since you have repeatedly shown yourself as an anti-religious atheist too), first tell what you interpret as “spewing invective” in my comment:

    Right now, this place feels very, very unfriendly; it feels like a loud, angry, mean, rude, insulting (and rather PROUD of it!) den of anti-religious atheists (not mere ‘skeptics’) ready to chomp at any hint of (natural) theology.

    “the natural world looks ‘designed’ [only] when I’m tripping balls.”

  4. hotshoe_ says:

    Gregory: Right now, this place feels very, very unfriendly; it feels like a loud, angry, mean, rude, insulting (and rather PROUD of it!) den of anti-religious atheists (not mere ‘skeptics’) ready to chomp at any hint of (natural) theology.

    “the natural world looks ‘designed’ [only] when I’m tripping balls.”

    Oh for Maude’s sake, Gregory, if you continue to have problems with my comment, either take them back to the Natural Religion thread where I said that, or take it to Noyau.

    Or even start a new thread. I’d be happy to talk about mind-expanding drugs for a while.

    You are capable of participating in a responsible way. That is, I think you are. You could prove that you are.

    If you aren’t, then at least don’t derail this specific thread about baby-saving morals with your endless horrified fascination with me.

  5. Elizabeth Elizabeth says:

    Whatever one thinks about the ethics of abortion, I find it extraordinary that anyone can compare the moral issues raised with the issue of whether one finds a piece of writing “pretty”, I did think it was a rather lovely post, and the one following it too. Is Gregory shocked because someone said balls?

  6. Gregory Gregory says:

    “Is Gregory shocked because someone said balls?”

    Lol! 😉 🙂 Your views of ‘design’ are filtered through apostasy, Lizzie. Canadians laugh rather well compared with stiff, haughty USAmericans, thank you very much. 😉

    ‘Tripping balls’ and doing ‘acid’ may set a standard of ‘pretty’ for you, Lizzie. But most people would disagree (not having done acid and rejecting the desire). I’m simply surprised at how far you will go to defend atheism against theism to ignore the beauty and ‘pretty’ in a theistic worldview. You must have been really badly damaged mentally (cognitively) by reading Dennett’s “Freedom Evolves” to have leapt from religious faith in your 50s into such a chaos of aesthetics, politics, ethics, metaphysics and even ontology as ‘skepticism’ provides you now.

  7. Gregory Gregory says:

    So, I responded to Lizzie and then got blamed by her for it. This is a moderation joke!

    “Is Gregory shocked because someone said balls?”- Lizzie (this thread)

    Lizzie gets to derail, but others can’t? Resist the urge. And don’t rub it in as a Moderator after you’ve guano’d yourself as if you were not an instigator.

  8. walto walto says:

    Another notch.

    One more thread shitted up by Gregory.

  9. Gregory Gregory says:

    Alan Fox,

    For goodness sake, Alan, then it’s about time you get this “shitted up” moronic USAmerican bitch off me.

  10. Gregory Gregory says:

    “I say, for example, that a given pattern of fitnesses “selects for” a particular allele? / Is that the kind of ‘agency’ you mean?”

    No, ‘patterns’ are not AGENTS.

    (A moderator at TAZ is now acting as an AGENT to protect walto from his ‘shitted up’ comment)

  11. Gregory Gregory says:

    Alan Fox,

    So, you support the ‘shitted up’ comment?!

  12. Alan Fox Alan Fox says:


    I can discuss this freely in the noyau thread.

  13. Gregory Gregory says:

    These recent days, Alan, you should just send to noyau or guano immediately anything ‘walto’ writes about or addressed to me because he is a diabolical ‘man on a mission’ to oppose anything and everything I say. He is a depraved atheist bureaucrat who happens to teach philosophistry. Iow, he is mad.

    My fair and clear question to Joe remains.

  14. Gregory Gregory says:

    Neil Rickert,

    Simply reported? You’re simply an atheist apologist bullshitter, Neil. With TAZ priviledges.

    That’s first. It’s not reporting. And it’s provoking & not in ‘good faith.’

  15. Gregory Gregory says:


    Angry, angry condescending walto. Not a teacher. Just a bureaucrat angry atheist. (But hey, why not keep his posts, TAZ moderators and guano mine? They will support atheists and NEVER caution them.)

    “Somehow, I’ve managed to avoid getting thrown out of the house.”

    Yeah, they’re gullible because you’re an atheist – it’s preferential treatment at TAZ.

  16. petrushka says:

    Just a well meaning request to people who tell me or other nonbelievers what we really think or believe:

    Please eff yourself with broken glass.

    I talk about what i think and believe. I do my best to refrain from psychoanalyzing other posters. I may think they are wrong or silly or even stupid, and I may say so, but I do not tell them what they really think.

    If I do want to know what someone thinks, I ask.

  17. fifthmonarchyman says:

    Hey hotshoe

    I love you to. You are kinda cute when you talk dirty. 😉

    Do you kiss Darwin with that mouth?


  18. hotshoe_ says:

    fifthmonarchyman sez

    Hey hotshoe

    I love you [too]. You are kinda cute when you talk dirty.

    Do you kiss Darwin with that mouth?



    No peace.

  19. keiths keiths says:


    “Blurt and backpedal” is an accurate description of your MO. Fercrissakes, you’ve blurted out entire books that you’ve later regretted writing:

    Unfortunately, I’m the author of the books Anarchic Harmony and Unconditional Freedom. I don’t recommend them.

    Blurt and backpedal.

  20. William J. Murray says:

    Keith consistently quote-mines me in order to mischaracterize my worldview and philosophy. I’ve corrected him multiple times but he refuses to accommodate those corrections. I’m not going to continue spending my time looking for past threads from which keiths is quote-mining and in which I’ve already corrected him afterwards. I’ll be happy to explain my worldview if there are any serious inquiries, but this post is to let others know that keiths characterization of it should not be taken seriously.

  21. walto walto says:

    keiths: Blurt and backpedal.

    There are pretty big dollops of babble and bloviation in there too. I might go with “Blurt, babble, bloviate, and backpedal.”

  22. William J. Murray says:

    walto: There are pretty big dollops of babble and bloviation in there too.I might go with “Blurt, babble, bloviate, and backpedal.”

    So, why is it that you need to say things like this? I don’t see any reason for it other than to attempt to marginalize and ridicule another person. Is that it?

  23. William J. Murray says:

    It’s interesting that even though walto has often been at the recieving end of keiths’ quote-mining and mischaracterizations, here he is apparently all too willing to jump in with keiths when he’s doing it to someone else.

    Oh well. I guess the need to ostracize and ridicule some common “other” outweighs any moral restraint for some people.

  24. walto walto says:

    I’m sorry; you’re right. There’s no need for ridicule of that type. I could just think that stuff without posting it.

    And anyhow, who the hell am I to chastise anybody for babble OR bloviation? Those two are among the five things I do best!

  25. walto walto says:

    I will say, though, that I haven’t seen you tee off on Gregory for his practices. (He’s running at about 94% ridicule on this site.). Mung either. Y’all are both quick to criticize “the other team” only. At least I’m an equal opportunity pain in the ass. keiths is too, for that matter.

  26. keiths keiths says:


    At least I’m an equal opportunity pain in the ass. keiths is too, for that matter.

    William just provides more opportunities than most. He feels like he’s being singled out. TSZ can be a unpleasant place for those who find it rectally painful to have their mistakes noticed.

    ETA: Insert a Richardthughes “butthurt” joke here.

  27. Mung Mung says:

    Gregory’s probably bored out of his skull about now. Not that this thread isn’t just all exciting and interesting and captivating and all. *retch*

    ok, walto, two of the other things you do best aren’t allowed on this site. So what’s the one thing that’s left?

  28. keiths keiths says:

    An amusing instance of William quote mining himself, from 2013:

    You know things are getting tough for William when he stoops to quote-mining his own comments. (BTW, moderators — please don’t move his comment to Guano, even though he does falsely accuse me of lying. I’d like the accusation to remain in full view) :

    So now you are just flat-out lying. From YOUR OWN link where I supposedly “recommended to us just last year as a current account of his beliefs.”:

    BTW, I don’t know which book you ordered, but they don’t equally examine the views I express here. Anarchic Harmony is more of a 100-page anti-authority, anti-convention rant than anything else, but I’ve always been fond of Robert Anton Wilson’s introduction. Unconditional Freedom is a more in-depth explanation of my views. Please keep in mind that I wrote both of those about 20 years ago, so my views have changed and developed over that time.

    As William knows perfectly well, the embarrassing quotations don’t come from either of those two books. They come from a third book, Instant Enlightenment, that he recommended to us in the very same comment that he quotemines above:

    Both of those books are now out of print and are now only available via the second-hand market. For something more current, you might try “Instant Enlightenment”, available as a digital download from Cheap, at $2.50, and brief (as the term “instant” indicates) at 40 pages.

    So the embarrassing quotations don’t come from something written 20 years ago. They come from a book that William recommended to us on this very blog as “something more current.”

    Your behavior is pitiful, William.

    I admit I have some fault in this – I had completely forgotten about “Instant Enlightenment”, and for whatever reason your reference to it didn’t even register.

    More “blurt and backpedal”. William blurts out an accusation…

    So now you are just flat-out lying.

    …and then has to backpedal once again.

  29. keiths keiths says:

    Rich’s reaction to William’s powers of “manfestation”:

    And in this fearless framework you can develop amazing powers:

    * Move slowly forward in time
    * Become completly visible, even in full daylight
    * Change your philosophy constantly whilst accusing others of sophistry


  30. Richardthughes Richardthughes says:

    Blurt, Back peddle & Butthurt LLC.

  31. keiths keiths says:


    I myself find all of this discussion incredibly boring. I’m only answering questions.

    Oh, really? That contradicts what you just told us:

    On the contrary I have spent a lot of time on this. I’ve racked my brain Ive talked to non-christian theists Ive done word studies on the role of Christ in the OT

    I’m even researching the topic right now. That is why I keep asking you how you know things in your worldview.

    Do you think that Jesus approves of your lying when it is done for Christianity’s sake?


    I would much rather be discussing something we could potentially agree on like science.

    Of course you would rather change the subject. You are being asked questions about your faith that you are unable to answer. It’s embarrassing.

    For you, belief clearly comes first. Poor attempts at post-hoc rationalization come only later, after your facile beliefs are challenged.

  32. keiths keiths says:

    You’re not fooling anyone, Mung.

  33. Mung Mung says:

    Taunts are not arguments.

  34. Richardthughes Richardthughes says:

    Reciprocating Bill,

    Over AtBC, that vile den of villainy and making fun of KF, I once suggested an avatar for our beloved Bob’O, which he now uses. I’m happy to provide the same service for Mung:

  35. Richardthughes Richardthughes says:

    Mung: I admit I was lost reading that OP. So I too thank you.

    Aren’t Dembski and Marks the greatest though!? Cant’ wait for the second edition of NFL.

    The many Mungs of Mung. Is Mung a portmanteau of Dung and Mong? Or maybe Mum and Dong?

  36. Mung Mung says:

    Hey Richardthughes!

    Maybe you could come up with something interesting to talk about that didn’t require knowledge. 😉

  37. Richardthughes Richardthughes says:

    In waiting to participate in your next faux persecution post. They’re the best. Go and help Barry out? He seems to be finding that ‘dying for beliefs’ doesn’t necessarily make them true, and has butthurt.

  38. OMagain says:

    Mung: Taunts are not arguments.

    lol, just realizing that now are we? You’ve a lot of history to scrub then now you are starting to become self-aware.

  39. OMagain says:

    Mung that’s why we think atheists are insane

    Well, it says more about you then anyone else, that you are prepared to endlessly debate people you consider insane.

  40. Gregory Gregory says:

    “perhaps it is not a good idea after all.” – KN

    No, it’s not a good idea at all. On that you’re right. It just self-serves your secular Jewish perspective. It’s happy-clappy agnosticism-atheism in the USA. 🙁 It’s ‘unnatural’ on a global scale (but you don’t seem to care to wonder why).

    Sorry, KN, but your “I understand your point quite well” is on a D-league & falling level, and “no doubt quite badly” as you’ve stated it you admit.

    Are you actually defending Judaism in any way other than simply ethnically, i.e. are you defending Judaism religiously? This is the thread for it at TA/SZ, after all. Your ‘orthoprax’ vs. ‘orthodox’ dodge to Erik is rather see-through.

    Even your ‘philosophy’ is highly suspect to trained eyes. You 1) don’t sound like you know what you’re talking about re: ‘ideal democracy’ aside from a highly distant and detached, disenchanted analytic sophistry, and 2) have admitted that politically, you self-identify as a socialist (neo-quasi-)Marxist, emergentist, quasi-empiricist, scientism-ist, naturalist, quasi-pantheist, compatibilist, soft reductionist, pragmatist, LGBTist, environmentalist, and whatever else unmemorable (largely highly marginal confused quackery). Do you really think your ‘ideal democracy’ is any more than a simple façade you’ve created to tempt yourself as a comfortable underdog ‘god’?

    “I explicitly said that I’d stopped referring to myself as an atheist” – KN

    And yet at the same time coming out of another side of your ‘secular’ ‘skeptical’ mouth the label seems quite welcome.

    Do you really think, KN, that most USAmericans could actually take this ridiculous secular fantasy you are pushing seriously and embrace it as their own? Is that what you’re busy writing long posts sheltered here at TA/SZ with your now familiar enough atheist ‘comrades’ trying to enact?

    Your “It is possible that there was … [i]t is possible that there wasn’t” just makes you sound confused about religion. And simply suggesting that someone ‘constitutionally’ doesn’t recognise this easily in your blog-written words is both laughable and sad. Own up to it or go see your Rabbi and stop pretending. Better is possible if you drop your sad, disenchanted, deluded philosophistic pretensions.

  41. Gregory Gregory says:

    “In the trivial sense, has the Bible not proven itself reliable in terms of archaeology at least?”

    That’s not a course that KN will ever teach; he’ll stick instead to inculcating youth with his self-confused and long-winded philosophistry disguised as ‘knowledge’ 😉

    It not uncommon for a ‘secular Jew’ to try to strip ‘religion’ of all meaning. So, there’s no such thing as ‘religious archaeology’, just ‘archaeology of religion’. There’s no ‘religious language’, just ‘language of religion’. And there’s no ‘religious truth’, just ‘truth about religion’, which to the atheist Jewish apostate carries predominantly if not totally negative self-abominating meanings. It’s often a fear that has turned into a loathing.

    Since he walked away from religious Judaism and entered into his ‘skeptic’ period, I doubt KN has thought much on the topic of ‘religious truths’ about himself. He’s simply ‘not sure’, as with many of his wishy-washy pronoucements here at TA/SZ. Most people, however, e.g. the vast majority of normal USAmericans, at least face tensions within themselves about spirituality and/or religion. They don’t block out their theology/worldview; they try to learn more about it, at whatever rate & stage they are endowed.

    KN instead – great ambassador of ‘skeptic’ philososphist at TA/SZ that he is – often reduces higher and deeper themes to simple statements about ‘ethics.’ He takes something greater than he can understand and shrinks it to something that he seems to think he can ‘wrap his mind around.’ In thus so doing, he’s become wrapped in a small package, so horizontal almost to the point of disappearing flat disenchanted worshipping Sellarsian pitiful squawk.

  42. Gregory Gregory says:

    “In other words, he is as anti-liberal and anti-secular as the Communists he hates.” – KN (Tweedle Dee)

    Honestly, KN, you don’t even know what you don’t know. Happy in your ignorance! And just like in this case, as it is with your scientistic atheism, you simply make stuff up as it suits you.

    Go back to your playpen. hotshoe will likely stick the atheist knife in deeper while your religious Jewish religious heritage will cringe, and yet you’ll actually welcome it. But hey, they ‘love’ your philosophistry at TA/SZ, KN, which is why you feel entitled to ‘with pride’ use the phrase ‘us’! 😉

    “Alternatively – fuck ’em.” – Allan Miller (Tweedle Dum)

    Oh, Allan. Don’t imagine I think more of you than scum. But a good, ‘fair’ moderator for TA/SZ consequently for that reason. 🙂

  43. Allan Miller says:


    Oh, Allan. Don’t imagine I think more of you than scum. But a good, ‘fair’ moderator for TA/SZ consequently for that reason

    Scum I may be, but I’m not a moderator.

  44. Kantian Naturalist Kantian Naturalist says:


    The only sophistry here is all yours.

  45. Gregory Gregory says:

    Kantian Naturalist,

    Nobody could believe you but a fool, KN, with your convoluted self-righteous ideologies. You admit you ‘over-reacted’ and that you have unstable ’emotional energy’. Admission accepted.

    I and others easily see through your ridiculous Sellarsian atheist empiricism, upon which you’ve built your pathetic ‘contribution’ to knowledge. Let us know if you ever want to take us seriously instead of embracing your typical playful illusions.

    It sure would be nice to have a religious Rabbi here to cleanse the remainder of the lesson you are being taught time and again by Erik’s clear thinking (compared with your woolly disenchanted ideas), though you’ve thus far maintained oblivious self-righteous sophistry. Nevertheless, I don’t count you as completely lost just yet; only without much hope due to intentional evasion.

    But instead you’ve got ‘atheist groupies’ ass therapy for you here, which Elizabeth has gathered at TA/SZ, initially to resist IDism. Surely they make you feel welcome in your apostasy, KN, real Judaism be damned.

    You could have actually admitted that your ultimatum was misconceived, but it would of course just make you look more wishy-washy than you already do. This kind of psychosis is what makes ‘philosophy’ in the USA look idiotic.

  46. Gregory Gregory says:

    Kantian Naturalist: Not for me — I’m over with quarreling with Gregory for now.

    It’s never been a quarrel. KN simply lies down in his confusion, pretending to be a philosopher while he’s actually quite obviously a philosophist. Defending atheism half-heartedly, wanting not to be disenchanted, KN nevertheless clearly displays the fruits of his atheist Judaism here at TA/SZ. What could possibly change this approach other than KN visiting a new rabbi and ceasing his pretense to wisdom? Anybody’s guess…

  47. Patrick Patrick says:


    You were so close to not being a lying, quote-mining, scumbag, but you just couldn’t pull it off. Here’s what I wrote (as you well know):

    I’m not the one interpreting the text. Obviously even a purely literal reading requires some interpretation the part of the reader. That does not mean that all interpretations are equally literal. At some (fuzzy) point the interpretation diverges enough from the common meaning of the words that it can no longer be called literal.

  48. lcer lcer says:


    put a sock in it

  49. Gregory Gregory says:

    “Dostoyevsky was not a philosopher, but this doesn’t mean he didn’t have a philosophy. He had a philosophy (love of wisdom and more or less systematic thought) from which his writings sprung forth. Same with Tolstoy. Same with Nietzsche.” – Erik

    We are agreed. And it is telling that KN has made his ‘philosophy’ into his ‘religion.’ He’s deluded himself into running away from his Jewish roots into secularism cum atheism. Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard would object, but bottom-dwelling philosophistry like KN’s likely wouldn’t come up on their radars.

    I’ve read a lot of Nietzsche, btw, and you’re not missing too much wrt goodness.

    “I’d happily say that Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky were philosophers, and indeed quite excellent ones. … I don’t think it’s actually important to have a clear demarcation between philosophers and ‘philosophical writers’.” – KN

    The Kate Tempest quote above was for you, KN. The ‘clear demarcation’ you seek is that you are a philosophist, not a philosopher. Parents should beware of your disenchanted teachings if they would allow their children to listen to the horizontal garbage you promote here.

    KN debts Nietzsche’s gay science, unsurprising: “The strongest and most evil spirits have so far advanced humanity the most.” Bullshit fake ‘superman.’

    “It is a matter of complete indifference whether something is true, while it is of the utmost importance whether it is believed to be true.” – Nietzsche

    Kate Tempest would simply kick Nietzsche in the balls and walk away with just about everyone clapping.

    I prefer this from Twilight of the Idols: “For seventeen years I have never tired of calling attention to the despiritualizing influence of our current science-industry.”

    Poor little quacky scientism proponent Sellars: KN’s hero. : (

  50. hotshoe_ says:

    GlenDavidson: Not that I think the “challenge” had any merit to it, but I figured it would be easy enough to meet.

    Not that Eric will have the spine to either retract or apologize for his mistreatment of KN.

    God, how I hate these dirty little theist “scholars”.

Comments are closed.