1. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #203969 by phatbat on July 4, 2008 at 1:46 am

Enlightenme..

Did you go to the science cafe on monday? I didn't go, was it good?

2. Evangelical Christians sign up to a 'Church within a Church'

Comment #203628 by phatbat on July 3, 2008 at 9:11 am

56. Comment #203568 by DoctorE

P.S. Im not gay :)

Don't worry - your secret is safe with us ;-)

3. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #203517 by phatbat on July 3, 2008 at 4:12 am

Brian,

He was entertaining because he was a twat.

4. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #203511 by phatbat on July 3, 2008 at 3:47 am

244. Comment #203499 by Quetzalcoatl

LOL - nice one, he goes back a long way.

It's funny he took the chance to disappear on the mormons thread when we got side-tracked talking about beer.

He'll probably pop up again soon as if he didn't just duck out.

5. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #203481 by phatbat on July 3, 2008 at 2:31 am

224. Comment #203448 by 8teist

That's hilarious that Robert O'Brien has got a trophy for 'Fuckin idiot of the month' named after him.

I had quick look but i couldn't see what had initialy caused the trophy to be named after him. How embarrassing for little Robert.

He'll probably come on here next and try and discredit Ed Brayton next making out he doesn't care about it.

good spot.

6. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #203066 by phatbat on July 2, 2008 at 10:50 am

I second that - What has the issue of whether a dog is unclean or not got to do with whether or not it should appear in an advert?

7. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #203048 by phatbat on July 2, 2008 at 9:41 am

epeeist

In the second of those photos where ur all sat round the table - is the man with black hair on the right call Will Dixon?

8. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #203029 by phatbat on July 2, 2008 at 9:06 am

Just my two cents, but if you like Paulaner, give Warsteiner a shot. I like it more. Plus the Paulaner Oktoberfest is definitely their best.

Cheers - I'll look out for it.

9. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #203025 by phatbat on July 2, 2008 at 8:56 am

This is my current beer of choice...

http://www.unibroue.com/products/fin.cfm

This line makes it sound good:

it has a vigourous presence in the mouth

10. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #203022 by phatbat on July 2, 2008 at 8:53 am

Little Bobbit - You still haven't finished dealing with ontological and first cause arguements yet.

11. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #203019 by phatbat on July 2, 2008 at 8:52 am

Oh, yes! First time I encountered that was at the cafe in the Cologne Chocolate Museum.

That sounds like an incredibly tasty cafe.

12. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #203017 by phatbat on July 2, 2008 at 8:46 am

I think so. Is it out of Munich?

Yeah - the label on the pump is this one:

http://www.oktoberfestnw.com/Assets/Paulaner_logo.jpg

13. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #203014 by phatbat on July 2, 2008 at 8:42 am

My local pub sells a lovely german beer which is my favorite at the moment, it's called Paulaner - anyone else had it?

14. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #202982 by phatbat on July 2, 2008 at 7:46 am

536. Comment #202925 by Robert O'Brien

phatbat - "Oh what a surprise, another day, another bout of Robert avoiding dealing with the problems with the ontological arguement."

Little Bobbit - You keep repeating this, limey, yet I've responded to all the (anemic) objections I've seen. You've not raised any yourself, probably because you are not remotely competent in logic/mathematics.

No I am not competant in logic/mathematics except in an informal way plus what i learned at college, but more importantly i haven't come on here trumpeting my interlectual abilities have i? YOU did.

I didn't need to raise any new objections as you were still having difficulty answering Brian's question posed on the problems with the ontological arguement. Now you're having same difficulty with first cause.

Now you still haven't even demonstrated that you even understand the ontological arguement let alone dissected the critisism of it here. You've just posted things like 'you lot just dont apprehend it' 'that's not my problem' 'i've got lots of books on QM in my library, how about you?' 'my cock is so ineffective and underused i have to make up for it by unjustifiably bigging up my interle.....oops sorry you didn't actualy say that did you.

Do you not understand there is a very big difference between all your opposers here and you. They explain why you are wrong, you just say they are wrong. As i said before by just saying 'you don't understand the arguement' you render yourself indistinguishable from someone who doesn't actualy know what he's talking about. And don't start using epeeist's 'Ain't going to do it' as an example of him doing the same and there fore justifying you doing it. Because for one, you have been doing it for 3 days now already.

This must be an example of English humor. (Or should I stick in a superfluous "u"--"humour.")

Well it is an example of humour and i am english so you could define it as that. It is usualy quite funny when people slip in the fact that they've either met someone famous or been somewhere exotic when it has nothing to do with what they are saying at the time. It's a very transparent signal that they are trying to make up for some inadequacies. If you american's don't find it funny then i guess it must be english humour, but i'm not surprised YOU didn't get it Little Bobbit.

15. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #202948 by phatbat on July 2, 2008 at 7:07 am

547. Comment #202937 by Robert O'Brien

I am not typically interested in making friends with theomachoi. (Although, I was cordial to PZ when I met him in person last November.)

LOL - priceless

16. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #202817 by phatbat on July 2, 2008 at 3:14 am

Brian,

He did didn't he, I think he instead decided to reply to diacanu's insults and goldy's bible points.

17. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #202793 by phatbat on July 2, 2008 at 2:08 am

Oh what a surprise, another day, another bout of Robert avoiding dealing with the problems with the ontological arguement.

He then tries to deal with the first cause problem by posting a paragraph which actualy conflicts with the first cause arguement and then quickly forgets all about it.

I just can't understand it. Why would someone who said;

you might be impressed by what passes for thinking here, but I am not. This is not my first time engaging rabble, and it won't be my last.

and

I would have to take a chisel to my head to descend to the average level of intelligence here; thus, in the future, if you think you spot an error in one of my posts, just assume it is your mediocre intellect at work.

and who is obviously so very proud of his intellectual ability and his library, want to avoid displaying the fruits of his supremacy to actually back up his point.

Come on little bob, don't pretend you don't care enough to bother because you keep coming back here everyday so that won't fly. And just saying that we haven't understood your point properly instead of explaining where we're going wrong doesn't work either as it renders you indistinguishable from someone who doesn't really understand what he's talking about.

By all means Bobbit continue down your current path and carry on serving as a very usefull demonstration of the weak intellectual position the theistic one is. I'm sure all those people who watch these threads and don't comment, who still consider themselves waivering on these issues will find it very interesting.

EDIT - Sorry i forgot, is the reason you keep coming back here because you've been banned from most other sites for wanking?

18. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #202205 by phatbat on July 1, 2008 at 3:32 am

Oh dear Robert has been caught wanking over at pharyngula, brilliant.

I think it's OK for someone to ban someone from a serious site, where they might want to keep threads on target, if they want, it's their site, and once you've given someone their turn to speak and they decide to waste it and also fill up threads with rubbish that everyone else has to trawl through then you can't really complain. Kind of like in a public speaking situation, if someone has their say, has their point dealt with and then keeps shouting out and interupting proceedings, making it take longer then most people would probably want him escorted from the building.

But i prefer to have less rules like this site so that you can get stupid people who have an unjustifiedly high regard for their own intelligence posting what they think are gems only to get shown as the shit they are by the regulars here.

I wonder when Robert will actualy demonstrate his amazing arguments which really demonstrate his understanding of the problem with the ontological arguement. I notice from his last session that he cherry picked just a few posts to misunderstand but left Brian's question alone. He's probably franticaly trawling the web for some authority to appeal to and then he'll post us the link.

19. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #202185 by phatbat on July 1, 2008 at 2:27 am

Thanks Quetz, Steve & Oystein

I think i understand a bit more - still very confusing though.

20. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #202158 by phatbat on July 1, 2008 at 1:24 am

This is the thing that is difficult to get your head around sometimes. Is it right to think of the 'gaps' between planets and stars, etc as also expanding at this great speed. So what we think of as just empty space through which galaxies move, is like a fabric that is also expanding just as the galaxie's are doing relative to each other. Except the galaxies have extra movement within this space, or gaps.

Am i somewhere near the mark?

Would it make any sense to ask the question what is the universe expanding into. Would it look like that space we see between stars and planets? like in the diagram at the top of the page. Or is it just better not to think about that.

21. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #201669 by phatbat on June 30, 2008 at 3:05 am

370. Comment #201667 by mordacious1

Do you mean Robert? He's confusing enough without changing his name.

Thanks mordacious - all sorted now.

22. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #201659 by phatbat on June 30, 2008 at 2:20 am

Oh dear, looks like predictions are coming true. Robert has decided to ignore the tough questions put to him and cherry pick a couple he "thought" he could deal with.

Robert came here so proud with comments like this:

8teist, you might be impressed by what passes for thinking here, but I am not. This is not my first time engaging rabble, and it won't be my last.

So tell us Robert when are you going to start engaging, instead of just telling everyone which amazing argument you subscribe to, and then proceeding to just restate it over and over again with your fingers in your ears.

and then theres this:

Comment #201180 by Robert O'Brien on June 29, 2008 at 11:28 am

"Section 10 here dispatches Godel

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/incompatible.html"

Please. Drange is a low-watt bulb, like just about every atheistic philosopher. I suggest pondering this:

http://huperborea.blogspot.com/2007/04/skorokhod-on-determinism-and-chaos.html

Order and disorder are "incompatible" and yet maximal order and maximal disorder are not only compatible but are the same.

Well at the moment you haven't actualy done any explaining yourself. You've just said this philosopher has said this. All the others that disagree are just wrong. But you have shown yourself unable to actualy deal with the holes poked by Brian and Mphil. Looks like a failed appeal to authority.

and this:

Comment #201095 by Robert O'Brien on June 29, 2008 at 2:44 am

I am a proponent of the ontological (as formalized by Kurt Gödel and emended by C. Anthony Anderson) and cosmological (as presented by either Mortimer Adler or William Lane Craig) arguments for the existence of God. (Yes, I have read Dawkins' chapter on classical theism. His attempt to discredit these arguments = EPIC FAIL.)

Well looks like you and RD are in the same failure boat then doesn't it. I'm glad you didn't bother explaining what the actual failings were because that just makes you look all the more impotent now that you have had your own epic failure with others actualy explaining where and why you've failed.

It's a good job that you realising you've been beaten is not a requirement for it to be true, and infact makes it all the funnier to watch.

Of course you could fix this by responding to Brian and Mphil's points about the ontological arguement. And by the way, just saying 'you lot just don't understand' doesn't actualy work, it just makes it look like you are evading something you don't understand.

Edited for name

23. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #201434 by phatbat on June 29, 2008 at 4:28 pm

i suppose we just need to accept that Robert won't actualy answer the tough questions. Or he'll give some half arsed response which doesn't deal with the issue and then, when probed further, will say i've dealt with that already.

24. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #201424 by phatbat on June 29, 2008 at 4:23 pm

Robert certainly gave his arguments a grand, complimentary introduction. I'm wondering when he is going to start using them on us.

25. The Flea Delusion

Comment #201104 by phatbat on June 29, 2008 at 3:27 am

156. Comment #201095 by Robert O'Brien

Yes, I have read Dawkins' chapter on classical theism. His attempt to discredit these arguments = EPIC FAIL

perhapse you can explain what he's missed.

26. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200462 by phatbat on June 27, 2008 at 5:08 pm

and don't tell me i'm miss-reading your adolescent drivel answer a straight question

27. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200460 by phatbat on June 27, 2008 at 5:06 pm

so tell me idiot - do you think there could be such a thing as a half paedophile?

28. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200458 by phatbat on June 27, 2008 at 5:05 pm

Half atheist - lol - that doesn't even mean anything. just cause a sentence is grammatically correct doesn't mean it means anything.

Unless idiot is saying he has multiple personality disorder he is basically trying to pretend that the belief in creator gods is something different from the belief in fairies and that it needs an extra level of surety to declare yourself as not believing in it.

ROFL - half atheist.

29. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200325 by phatbat on June 27, 2008 at 10:11 am

Re: theidiot

I am so glad theidiot's rantings are down in print for all to see, that way he can't deny saying it.

Oh my fucking God! Phatbat read what I wrote again. In fact, since you don't know how to read, take it your mother and ask her to explain for you. And if your mother is as dumb as you, then go ask a HS teacher.

OK lets read it again.

They are quick to provide the evolutionary explanation for why we love, yet they seem miserably clueless as to why we hate.

So either we are miserably clueless as to the reason we hate or we are not. You stated that we were clueless or seem that way. Which is why i wrote this:

seem clueless? perhapse you could explain why evolutionary explainations of our emotions exclude hatred from their explanitory power.

meaning that we do have the ability to explain human emotions incluing hate and thus you are wrong.

Twat.

30. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200315 by phatbat on June 27, 2008 at 9:49 am

76. Comment #200314 by theIdiot

Ever notice I go by the name "the idiot"? Accusing everyone of being dipshits, without claiming I have the potential to be one too, would just be too cruel.

you're doing more than just claiming the potential - you are claiming to be a dipshit with us. Which begs the question why would you try and insult people by accusing them of being like you?

31. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200297 by phatbat on June 27, 2008 at 9:17 am

70. Comment #200260 by theIdiot

"but for good men to do evil, that takes religion, than it logically follows that this is also true "but for evil men to do good, that takes religion."

er, no it doesn't, it's a completely seperate issue. Make the logical case if you think that is true.

Strangely one finds this oddity in the unbelievers argument, that it's nature that leads us to compassionate behavior, not one's religious upbringing, yet for some reason they work in reverse when in comes to hatred. They are quick to provide the evolutionary explanation for why we love, yet they seem miserably clueless as to why we hate.

seem clueless? perhapse you could explain why evolutionary explainations of our emotions exclude hatred from their explanitory power.

Do we take it from this that you are a creationist and don't believe evolution happened.

Ah silly man, do you think such practices were foreign to pre-islam Saudi Arabia, where the pagan religions that dominated had no bearing on morality at all? Religion wasn't the source of the patriarchal structure of the pre-Islam Saudi Arabia, nor is it the source of it post-Islam. Judging that this structure is all most universal for all civilizations at one point in time, a learned perspective involves far more than religious scapegoating. A social context doesn't emerge out of religion, religion emerges out of it's social context.

The origin of such practices is not disputed nor the issue. The issue is that it still goes on now and it is likely to go on as long as nearly an entire religious body of people idolise mohammed as a perfect example of personhood, and consider anything he did as good.

And relativist might argue with you, that your notion of a lack of compassion here, is the product of western arrogance and ignorance. A society might view the notion of an individual taking in a child of family who couldn't afford to take care of her, in a marriage contract that postpones sex until she is of an appropriate age, to be an act of compassion. In fact, I'd even argue that most individuals who support such acts, see it as such.

But hey, who the fuck are you to tell a Saudi what you think is right or wrong, to impose your western morality on him?

We are people who's moral code is actualy based on whether an act does actual harm to people. Not based on whether it supposedly pleases some imaginary friend. Since that little girl cannot simply choose to unmarry herself when she grows up and decides if she wants to be married to the person chosen for her then she is basicaly enslaved to the person of her father's choosing.

Twat.

32. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200288 by phatbat on June 27, 2008 at 9:01 am

Re - theidiot

Bloody hell - this guy really knows how to come across like a twat doesn't he. Sounds like a petulant little 18 year old who hasn't learnt how to compose sentences yet.

Other than that his posts are basicaly full of shit. He seems to be well practiced in the art of not really making whatever argument he's trying to make.

also check this out:

Now, I'm not arguing my fellow dip-shits

At least he considers himself one of us dipshits, lol

33. Band T-shirt draws charge

Comment #199332 by phatbat on June 25, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Yeah the RD.net article is the reason i found out about it - i may well go along to one of those.

Thanks for the info matee.

34. Science is not philosophy

Comment #199329 by phatbat on June 25, 2008 at 2:25 pm

54. Comment #199026 by TeraBrat

My my tera, yesterday you were typing an open letter on your disgust at the bad attitude of some, unnamed, people posting on this site who were being rude. Today you have been rude to someone (Mphil) saying he doesn't know what philosophy means in a condescending manner, and then not apologised for it. And then said you are sickened by the fact that a lot of people are too nice to certain people.

You are now starting to sound a bit petulent. If you are prone to ill informed accusations then do the right thing and just say sorry afterwards, you must know that gets a lot more respect in this life. And if you are going to complain about too much rudeness on this site on one day don't be stupid enough to be rude the following day and then complain about people being too nice.

But seriously if you haven't already turned to religion out of protest please stick it out here and you will learn to deal with all these things you don't like and grow an extra layer of skin or 2.

best

35. Band T-shirt draws charge

Comment #199315 by phatbat on June 25, 2008 at 2:03 pm

27. Comment #199308 by Enlightenme

Ah - small world indeed - i had thought about going to that science cafe thing - i signed up for the email updates but haven't been to any yet. What is it like? Do the audience get really stuck in?

36. Band T-shirt draws charge

Comment #199297 by phatbat on June 25, 2008 at 1:07 pm

22. Comment #199286 by Enlightenme

And what can I hear *right now* from my back garden? - Bon f'kin Jovi, playing at a soccer stadium 5 minutes away from me.

No way - i can hear it too, i live in clifton just past the top of clifton vale - what about you enlightenme?

37. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #198840 by phatbat on June 24, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Tera

Some people are used to pisstaking and name calling and other people are not.

When most of these 'offensive' posts are written they are directed at specific posts by the individual who is the target for said 'offense'. Thus taking the idea to task and exposing it for what it is.

Now this is exactly what you haven't done with your (probably inadvertant) broad brush stroke of disdain for this site in general. You should pick out the ideas and posts that you have a problem with and deal with it. This is what everyone else is doing. This kind of emotional response is what all too easily develops into a prejudice against a group. If you are not careful you will develop a prejudice against atheists because of some of your anecdotal experiences. This causes you to want to seperate yourself from the atheists and the only way to do that is to become a theist.

Now i think you must agree that this would be a bit silly wouldn't it.

38. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195894 by phatbat on June 19, 2008 at 2:05 am

8185. Comment #195756 by asfalios

Hi all,
correct me if I am wrong but in 6:14 to 6:26 of this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsAtc0ezpdc

does the professor suggest that there is possible evidence of design?
Your opinions?
thanks

I think that is the bit that Richard is talking about in the article on this page 'Lying for Jesus'

It is about the 8th paragraph from the bottom (ignoring the block quotes) and begins 'Another example....'

I think this explains what Richard was talking about

39. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195006 by phatbat on June 17, 2008 at 2:20 pm

I can see what Steve is saying actualy.

If we allow Brian's method then we need to refuse to acknowledge design/appearance of design because that is a claim that needs to be backed up. We don't ask for the case to be made for the designer until they have made the case for design.

We also shouldn't mention that a 3rd option is that anything just appeared, we should instead just say that it could be something that no-one has thought of yet (after all the universe is a mysterious place, and we've all heard that before haven't we).

We could hammer home the appearance of design being a statement with out substance by all the "bad design".

I think this should be less prone to attack.

Any takers?

40. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194728 by phatbat on June 17, 2008 at 8:06 am

147. Comment #194704 by ketch22

At one time evolutionists postulated there were 180 'vestigial' structures in the human body. Today this list has shrunk to virtually zero.

Virtualy zero or zero?

No organ should be removed without good reason!

Which is a very different issue from it not serving any purpose and in somecases causing great harm.

41. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194723 by phatbat on June 17, 2008 at 8:04 am

Comment #194710 by irate_atheist

A vague resemblance, visually, to George Galloway.

Now you could be onto something there, i'm not convinced that is who i'm thinking of but there is a vague resemblence. (sorry Epeeist)

42. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194721 by phatbat on June 17, 2008 at 7:58 am

Comment #194689 by epeeist

Well it must be a famous person then. I can't help but think the person i'm thinking of has an irish accent.

nevermind, one day it'll come to me..

43. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194683 by phatbat on June 17, 2008 at 7:29 am

144. Comment #194663 by epeeist

Well, you spoiled my second intention move, but never mind.

Sorry Epeeist.

I think that even if he didn't already know what was coming there is very little he can do to avoid it except what he already did.

BTW epeeist - I've always thought ur avatar might be a famous person but never been quite sure. Someone set me straight the other day and said it was actualy you. I can't put my finger on who you look like, have you ever been told you look like someone in the public eye, or do you live in either the Portsmouth or Bristol areas of england, which if so, i might have seen you around.

44. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194653 by phatbat on June 17, 2008 at 6:17 am

140. Comment #194624 by pobalob

Personally, I think questioning why one believes one god over another is merely a distracting sideshow.

Yes, it is a valid question but I ponder the merit of asking the Thor followers why they do not follow A.N.Other god or the J-Christians the same query.

It could be a case of putting the cart before the horse but it is a very useful tool in getting the theist to try and squirm out of using the very arguments that an atheist could then use against them.

Hence, above you saw that Ketch pretended it was a silly question that didn't deserve a response. Now he knows full well that he tried to look for an answer and couldn't find one that wouldn't be just as valid against his own god so he sidestepped. People will see this.

Trying to get them to come up with a positive case for design is also an extremely good technique. His constant avoiding of the question is very telling to all that might view it.

45. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194260 by phatbat on June 16, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Quetzalcoatl

Thanks Quetz - I'ts been bugging me for ages now - He does look like someone famous though (maybe not that famous) but i can't put my finger on it.

46. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194247 by phatbat on June 16, 2008 at 2:50 pm

Frankus1122

You might want to edit for spelling too:
"grammar"

Nah - the word evolved mate.

;)

47. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194240 by phatbat on June 16, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Isn't it strange how someones avatar sets a mood?

Does anyone know if epeeist's avatar is of someone famous as it looks very familiar but i can never think who it looks like?

48. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194232 by phatbat on June 16, 2008 at 2:44 pm

7540. Comment #194224 by ReceivedTheGift

I am sorry, but there are just too many in your community that think otherwise for this to be so clear cut.

So how many then? - or perhapse what percentage of our side think otherwise?

49. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194216 by phatbat on June 16, 2008 at 2:32 pm

7528. Comment #194204 by Steve Zara

The more people like you post, the more we hone and refine our arguments in support of reason. Ironically, you help such arguments evolve

Well said.

And thank you gift receiver for doing this in such a public setting, so that all those people who read this and may have been unsure about the supposed clash of evolution and cretinism, can see how week the ground is on your side of the fence.

BTW i love the way you fail to acknowledge when your arguments have been dealt with and then move on to the next one, and then return to one of the previous arguments (that was dealt with already) and say it all over again.

EDIT for grammer

50. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193950 by phatbat on June 16, 2008 at 8:32 am

7433. Comment #193943 by Steve Zara

So is this like a solid membrane of ice or many seperate floating ice crystals?