Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by epeeist


1. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178766 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 2:33 am

Comment #178765 by scooternyc

And so early to be so sarcastic - I'm impressed and amused!
It might be early for you, but I have done half a morning's work here.

I note that Artful seems to have left us. No doubt he will appear in another thread as though he hadn't got anything to answer.

2. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178763 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 2:27 am

Comment #178760 by scooternyc

Their morals are so subjective
No they are not.

*stamps foot*

Religious morality is objectively valid. It says so in the bible.

3. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178759 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 2:23 am

Comment #178754 by Quine

It is short, but dense with thought.
I think I must be reading it in Winnie the Pooh mode - "I am a bear of very little brain and long words bother me".

As I say, I do wish theists would go and read some other books. I don't necessarily expect them to agree with and accept the contents of, say, Aristotle's "Nichomachean Ethics" or Quine's ontology, but I do expect them to be aware and knowledgeable of other positions.

4. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178745 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 1:49 am

Comment #178742 by Quine

Well, it seems to have gotten much more difficult for the faithful to float the usual theological circularity around here.
At MPhil's suggestion I am attempting to read "On What There Is". I am finding it tough going. I really wish that theists had more than one book in their library.

5. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178735 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 1:31 am

Comment #178731 by Artful_Dodger

Not any more than your presupposing the non-existence of God makes your argument circular.
If an entity X is postulated to exist, and no substantive evidence capable of withstanding intense critical scrutiny is present to support the postulated existence of entity X, then the default position is to regard entity X as not existing until said supporting evidence materialises.

I accept that there are lots of things in the universe that cannot (yet) be explained by methodological naturalism. So far all the things that we can explain have not needed an additional entity X.

I put it to that if you want to posit an additional entity then the burden is upon you to show evidence for its existence.

Some while back I posted a set of lemmata. They must have been apposite since MPhil was kind enough to re-use them. I would suggest that you need to fulfil them one by one if you want us to accept your god exists:
  1. The Universe was created
  2. The creation was performed by a deity
  3. The deity is interventionist and keeps interfering in the universe
  4. The deity happens to be that of an iron-age Semitic people from one region of a small planet circling a star in a galaxy of some 100 billion others, the galaxy being one of some 150 billion others
  5. All of this is documented in the "holy book" of that particular set of people


You might want to try and establish a couple of auxiliary premisses
  1. The deity is omni-maximal, i.e. omniscient, omnipotent and omni-benevolent
  2. All other creation myths, gods, demi-urges and supernatural beings are false

6. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178727 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 1:02 am

Comment #178717 by Artful_Dodger

Epeeist, there is nothing metaphorical about the fall, except (possibly) the images, the word pictures, that were used to describe it. The tree and the fruit and the talking serpent may not be literal, but the all too real narratives that they are intended to illustrate: of defiance against God,
To take Rian's comment further. Not only are you presupposing a god (which makes your argument circular), but a particular god. Why is the story of the creation and the fall (including Ningizzida the talking serpent, lord of the tree of life lifted straight from the Epic of Gilgamesh) any more true than that of Hiranyagarbha the golden embryo or the meeting of ice and fire in Ginnungagap. Note that neither of these two mythologies has a fall. In fact the idea of a fall is an exception in mythology.

7. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178716 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 12:49 am

Comment #178713 by Artful_Dodger

The one that is relevant to this thread is the very existence of the faculty of reason, which is not reducible to natural causes.
You have proof for this assertion?

Even if it were true it doesn't necessarily point to your particular deity, or a deity at all.

8. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178709 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 12:30 am

Comment #178704 by riandouglas

I did note that, but isn't the term "god" a generic term and not a proper name?
Yahweh, Zeus, Thor are all gods, right?

No they are all myths.

Whoops, sorry. Zeus and Thor are myths, Yahweh is real.

And of course there aren't just literal and metaphorical bits in the bible. Large amounts of it are just the myths of a cattle-sacrificing (see Leviticus for the excruciating details) primitives. There is is no reason to give them more provenance than, say, the Kalevala, Hávamál or Mabinogion.

9. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178706 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 12:25 am

Comment #178702 by Artful_Dodger

Epeeist, read the rest of my post. Of course there is a range of literary devices in any text.


Fine, I can accept that. However, since you didn't answer my second part then I am free to conclude that the whole of Genesis is actually a metaphor. I have as much authority to declare this as you.

Given that it is, then the whole story of Jesus is an irrelevance since there was no literal fall only a metaphorical one.

10. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178700 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 12:08 am

Comment #178695 by riandouglas

Artful_Dodger: Let's first establish the willingness to take seriously the possibility of God speaking through "words".
Ah, you're simply presupposing a god. It's better than going all the way to Yahweh & Jesus, but it still needs justification.
No he isn't, he is presupposing his "God" (note the capital G) and at the same time implicitly denying the existence of other gods. How about literal and metaphorical in the Rig Veda?

11. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178686 by epeeist on May 11, 2008 at 11:29 pm

Comment #178521 by Artful_Dodger

I have answered the literal v metaphor question.
No you didn't. You gave one particular instance.

What you didn't provide was the general decision procedure. Nor did you tell us who gives you the authority to determine that something which is supposedly the direct or indirect word of your god is a metaphor.

12. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178476 by epeeist on May 11, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Comment #178464 by Artful_Dodger

"I'm a passionate Darwinian in the academic sense (...), yet I am a passionate Anti-Darwinian when it comes to human social and political affairs."

I really can't get over the fact that nobody on this site is willing to challenge Dawkins on the glaring inconsistncy here.
You really are a tosser aren't you? The only reason you raise this is to cause quarrel dialogue.

Who says we get "everything" from natural selection? Do you really think that Beethoven's Opus 131, Homer's Illiad, Newton's Principia or even religion are a direct product of natural selection?

I had a moan on another thread about the way theists seem to conduct arguments. Your post typifies what I said, emotive language, loaded questions and simply bad reasoning.

And by the way - you still owe me a description of how you separate the literal from the metaphorical in your "holy book". And who gives you the right to do it.

13. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #178456 by epeeist on May 11, 2008 at 1:01 pm

Comment #178451 by Nairb


The first important step is to Perceive muslim behaviour in society AS IT IS.

The above article is factual but not representative.
You mean like this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1524023/Honour-killings-increasing-in-Britain-as-women-stand-up-for-their-rights.html

EDIT: Fixed the URL

14. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #178349 by epeeist on May 11, 2008 at 9:39 am

Comment #178310 by Stuart Paul Wood

"Thought" for the day" - 5 minutes given over to some platitudinous religious wanker of one description or another.
The only one I have ever had time for on this has been Lionel Blue.

These days I just switch to Radio 3.

15. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #178318 by epeeist on May 11, 2008 at 7:30 am

Comment #178247 by Paula Kirby

Just in case anyone's interested in a completely DIFFERENT take on this event, this is the review posted on www.christianstogether.net:

http://www.christianstogether.net/Publisher/Article.aspx?id=112791
I don't think I am going to thank you for that Paula, I could lose less brain cells by downing a bottle of Uzbekistanian vodka.

Just one long jeer from end.

The thing that gets me is the dishonesty of much of the so called arguments that theists seem to put together. This and the cardinal's speech on R4 embody just about all the fallacies from Nigel Warburton's wonderful little book "Thinking from A to Z". Emotive language, bad company fallacy, hasty generalisation, poisoning the well, argument by force and by improper authority, the list goes on and on.

The one that is currently making me angry is the special pleading that is occurring on another site that I am contributing to. Within two posts we were at the "argumentum ad hitlerum", Hitler was an atheist therefore all his crimes are down to atheism. Conversely when you present the sacking of Beziers in the Albigensian crusade the demand is that you show exact causality for it being a religious crime.

While similar practices are made by non-theists there doesn't seem to be the immediate recourse to the vicious tactics that theists employ.

16. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #178293 by epeeist on May 11, 2008 at 5:26 am

Comment #178211 by huzonfurst


Speaking of wanking, isn't that precisely what religion is?
Well it certainly is what Atum was all about - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atum

At least he sounds to have some fun creating the world.

17. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #178292 by epeeist on May 11, 2008 at 5:23 am

Comment #178084 by fides_et_ratio

Serious question Diacanu. What is reason?
You know, 30s of looking would have got you to http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/practical-reason/

Or were you attempting a different leg to the Trivium, i.e. rhetoric?

18. British Airways takes beef off the menu to avoid offending Hindus

Comment #178069 by epeeist on May 10, 2008 at 11:56 am

Comment #178055 by Nova


This newspaper is right-wing and is just plain lying when they say that it was to avoid offending Hindus
Look at the bottom of the page - the Evening Standard is part of the Mail group. A paper so thoroughly nasty that irate_atheist won't even take a copy for his cat to crap on.

A paper whose principle method of selling itself was to give its readers a daily hate.

19. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #178038 by epeeist on May 10, 2008 at 10:28 am

Comment #177937 by fides_et_ratio

Why was the Cardinal's lecture given such prominent billing on a national news programme AT ALL?
Clearly an admission that the Cardinal's response to Richard Dawkins et al should not be given a public forum.


Fides - see that little symbol that I have emboldened in the quote from Paula, it means she was asking a question.

20. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #178036 by epeeist on May 10, 2008 at 10:22 am

Comment #177743 by Apathy personified

Your assertion that the Cardinal represents millions, probably true, but i bet the views of RD are far more popular.
You have changed fides words slight.

The cardinal would presumably claim to represent god, the millions that tag on behind just have to get with the message.

21. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #178034 by epeeist on May 10, 2008 at 10:15 am

Comment #177708 by fides_et_ratio

What about 'The Root of All Evil' or even the countless invitations to discuss the subject on TV, the wireless, and in the print?
What about "Thought for the Day", "In the Light of the Spirit", the "Heaven and Earth Show", "Songs of Praise", "Sunday", "Sunday Worship" to name just a few off the BBC. All of these are regular programmes for the religious.

What about regular programmes specifically for atheists or secularists?

22. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177392 by epeeist on May 9, 2008 at 2:38 am

I had some musings on this on another thread. This effectively confirms my thoughts.

The thing that troubles me is that as the (relatively) reasonable people in the CofE and Catholic church disappear then all we will be left with are the real nutters, the bible literalists, creationists, follows of Wright, Hagee and the Phelps family. And that is only the Christians!

23. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #176901 by epeeist on May 8, 2008 at 9:53 am

I deny Bunnahabhain, I deny Lagavulin, I deny Bruichladdich, I deny Ardbeg.

Well I deny them to most visitors, I keep this kind of spirit to myself.

24. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176899 by epeeist on May 8, 2008 at 9:45 am

You know there is one thing that I am sure clearmind can explain.

Given the central thesis of Ben Stein's wonderful movie - if evolutionists evolved into Nazis, why do we still have evolutionists?

25. Home-schooling special: Preach your children well

Comment #176897 by epeeist on May 8, 2008 at 9:27 am

There was a recent report showing that children who had gone to pre-school had a reduced risk of leukemia (http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=29990286-3bef-4773-97e8-3d65f7f9cf77&k=74971).

Given that home schooled children presumably mix with fewer children then this presumably means they are in the higher risk group. Assuming that prayer doesn't manage to keep it away.

26. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176871 by epeeist on May 8, 2008 at 7:58 am

Comment #176855 by ligfietser

The problem is, in Europe, fear of muslims IS de facto used as a disguise for racism, and Wilders is a poster child of this.
It is used by the extreme right to stir up racism and there are racists who do not distinguish between religion and race.

However it is also used by some Muslims, who are not averse to equivocating between race and religion to suit their views.

And there are those of us who just loath the religion and recognise that there are black, white, brown and yellow Muslims.

27. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176753 by epeeist on May 8, 2008 at 12:46 am

Comment #176685 by Goldy


No, gravity is just a theory. we are stuck to teh ground by air pressure and microscopic velcro.
Untrue, the proper description was made by Shayne Dark, i.e. lintelligent design.

It is lint that sticks us to the ground (he doesn't specify what kind of lint, so I can see future schisms on this though).

28. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176752 by epeeist on May 8, 2008 at 12:40 am

Comment #176640 by MPhil

Facts are non-temporal.
I have a slight, I think, semantic problem with this.

Measurement systems do have a temporal aspect, they improve over time, my Ph.D. would not have been possible 25 years earlier than I did it. As such the facts were not ascertainable or were or limited accuracy until appropriate measurement systems were put in place.

29. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176430 by epeeist on May 7, 2008 at 10:07 am

Comment #176421 by Podaar

Lets see if I'm learning...Dembski was the mathematician who tried to calculate the odds of human complexity by calculating backwards? His basic mistake was the assumption that life as we know it is a 'desired' end result?
It was that pesky flagellum that he got wrong - http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Desperately.cfm

See point 2.

30. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176417 by epeeist on May 7, 2008 at 9:35 am

Comment #176370 by Podaar

Uuuuh, I think you mean million. Yes?
Hey, cut him some slack. He wasn't off by as many orders of magnitude as Dembski.

31. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176309 by epeeist on May 7, 2008 at 6:56 am

Comment #176308 by seeker_of_truth

Do you think there was a global flood as described in the bible?
If so, when?
Sometime in ancient history I believe there was a widespread flood, possibly global, and not localized as we know floods to occur today. It becomes difficult to deny the possibility when you consider such flood stories exist in almost every ancient culture of the world.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html
It might just possibly because people preferred to live near water rather than in places where there aren't any?

And if you are going to reference talkorigins then you might want to include this one too - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html. An amount of it is relevant to any global flood.

32. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175960 by epeeist on May 6, 2008 at 9:34 am

Comment #175952 by irate_atheist

I note that Seeker has gone, for now. Perhaps he is trying to count his toes before learning such trivialities as logarithms and differential calculus.
It is a pity that putting mathematics on the site is so difficult. All it would have taken is the showing of the first order rate equation and its solution for the limits of detection.

33. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175936 by epeeist on May 6, 2008 at 8:57 am

Comment #175930 by seeker_of_truth


I would have thought by the lack-of, by this point at least, it would have caused a thinking man to have already reached a conclusion on this.
Oh, we reached a conclusion on you ages ago. You are a lying little creotard. Just giving you the benefit of the doubt and illustrating to others who read the posts on this site that there is no difference between your time wasting and that of wooter.

34. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175924 by epeeist on May 6, 2008 at 8:44 am

Comment #175922 by seeker_of_truth

You guys are sure making a big deal about something still in the imagination phase.
Well, Al is busy elsewhere, so I will call it.

Time of death 16:41 UTC. Cause - consistently avoiding the question.

If you want to move on the scripture quotes and threats of eternal damnation now self-seeker then we will know where we stand.

35. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175919 by epeeist on May 6, 2008 at 8:39 am

Comment #175915 by seeker_of_truth


http://radiocarbon.library.arizona.edu/volume43/number2A/azu_radiocarbon_v43_n2a_157_161_v.pdf

I didn't see where my question was answered in this link. Could you please 'dumb it down' for me in your own words? Thanks.
We aren't responsible for your education. That is ultimately your responsibility. Of course, if you want to delegate it to your mom in your home school then that will be fine.

4000 year old dinosaur reference?

36. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175912 by epeeist on May 6, 2008 at 8:29 am

Comment #175898 by seeker_of_truth

May I presume since no one has disputed this or offered an alternative explanation of why C-14 is invalid beyond 50k years that my above, stated discourse is agreed upon?
No you may not. Stop evading the issue, where is the paper on a 4000 year old dinosaur.

This is the third time you have been asked to provide the evidence for a 4000 year old dinosaur. Unless you can supply it at this time of asking I intend to invoke Calilasseia's maxim.
If an entity X is postulated to exist, and there exists in turn no substantive evidence supporting the existence of entity X, then the default position is to regard entity x as non-existent until said substantive evidence materialises.

37. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175871 by epeeist on May 6, 2008 at 7:20 am

Comment #175866 by seeker_of_truth


Now imagine you find dino-bone fossils in a geological column that we assume, yes assume, is 70 million years old - yet these bones test at 4,000 years average under C-14 with no known contamination of any kind. Do we go with the assumption [based on evolutionary theory] or the more scientifically verifiable process of C-14 dating?
I don't believe you have given us the reference to this putative 4000 year old dinosaur.

I believe I asked you for this before, peer-reviewed and in a reputable journal as I remember.

After all, if you don't give this then why waste space with such dribble.

Oh - and go look up the word consilience with reference to dating methods. I believe I have given you this one before but it doesn't appear to have sunk in as yet.

38. The detail in the Devil

Comment #175856 by epeeist on May 6, 2008 at 6:53 am

Comment #175833 by Cartomancer

America's first strictly academic daemonologist eh? Pfft. We've had academic daemonologists in Europe since... well, since the Middle Ages to be exact.
And if you are going to go for a definitive volume rather than a crappy work of fiction then why not go for one written by a king - http://www.amazon.com/Demonology-King-James-I/dp/1585096660

39. Research Volunteers Needed

Comment #175814 by epeeist on May 6, 2008 at 5:23 am

Comment #175809 by MPhil

If Bill Gates had never used a computer, hadn't done what did - hundreds of millions of dollars less would have gone to charities...
He does a lot of charitable work true, but don't take it at face value.

Look at the tie up between the Gates foundation and drug companies for example (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2002/may/18/medicineandhealth.microsoft and http://www.alternet.org/story/47713/)

40. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175804 by epeeist on May 6, 2008 at 4:45 am

Comment #175803 by Fanusi Khiyal

Just to drive the point home, Muazzam Begg will be talking about how terrible Gitmo was in Cambridge, to slobbering audiences.
Good of you to anticipate the appearance and reaction of the whole audience.

Your point would have been better made without the emotionalism.

41. Record-setting Laser May Aid Searches for Earthlike Planets

Comment #175799 by epeeist on May 6, 2008 at 4:05 am

Comment #175797 by rod-the-farmer

Can someone suggest a link that would explain how this works ? Is this another one of those interference things ? Maybe with a diagram ?
Here you go - http://www.rp-photonics.com/frequency_combs.html

42. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175778 by epeeist on May 6, 2008 at 2:38 am

Would it be useful to arrange a Mensur match between MPhil and Bonzai?

43. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175764 by epeeist on May 6, 2008 at 2:13 am

Comment #175758 by _riverrun_

Couldn't agree more. That was precisely my point. Lost it seems. I assume that my statement that "Sam Harris is wrong on every count. The time of the attacks, the rational, and the noble intent are nothing but vacuous assertions from mainstream reportage," is equally without function.
I suspect that most of your audience disappeared before they got to that paragraph.

Perhaps you ought to try reading some Hemingway?

44. Life after Jehovah's Witnesses: website offers help to followers who lose their faith

Comment #175756 by epeeist on May 6, 2008 at 1:46 am

Comment #175753 by sphardy


http://exjw-reunited.co.uk/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=77
Ye gods and little fishes, one of the posters is from Horsforth in Leeds, not too far away from where I was brought up.

A little too close for comfort.

45. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175755 by epeeist on May 6, 2008 at 1:27 am

Comment #175749 by keith

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and even less enthusiasm to make the effort to find out.
Agreed, pretentiousness masquerading as intellectualism. But of course it is your problem if you don't understand it.

It actually fails one of the first maxims of good design - form follows function.

46. The emerging moral psychology

Comment #175733 by epeeist on May 6, 2008 at 12:18 am

Comment #175731 by Spinoza


(perhaps we should/could continue this on some sort of Messenger or Facebook chat?... I would be interested in engaging your scepticism about quasi and Cornell realism...)
Please keep the conversation here. I, and I suspect a number of others, find it interesting. And if it isn't rational and clear thinking then I don't know what is.

And it is vastly better than the lunacies of the recent theist drive-bys.

47. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175412 by epeeist on May 5, 2008 at 11:17 am

Comment #175410 by babrock

Sam gets a rather large amount of critisism for racism, for taking positions just like what he is taking here.
There seems be a standard practice by certain Muslims of equivocating between religion and race. Certainly in the UK this may be something to do with the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006). While prosecutions have been brought for racial hatred I am not aware of any for religious hatred.

48. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175393 by epeeist on May 5, 2008 at 10:40 am

Comment #175369 by al-rawandi

Although, put enough 56 IQ's together and you have another problem.
As the fat yellow man said - "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers".

49. Research Volunteers Needed

Comment #175325 by epeeist on May 5, 2008 at 8:40 am

Comment #175324 by StephenP

If you're using IE, then you need to enable these in the "tools" menu.
Rather than do this, just install Firefox from www.mozilla.org. Then install Adblock Plus, Adblock Filterset G and the British English dictionary from the downloads site.

Believe me, you won't go back to Internet Exploder.

50. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175322 by epeeist on May 5, 2008 at 8:33 am

Comment #175304 by al-rawandi

Well compared to Anna, I am all over the map. I am pretty left on some issues and I don't consider myself right at all.
"Right wing" - two words to characterise someone's whole political viewpoint seems to be a good example of black and white thinking.

From a number of the posts that Al-Rawandi has made it is obvious that he has nuanced (is that an insult to an American?) views of the political landscape. The same is probably true of most people here (though there are a few examples of fairly rigid ideological positions).

The only thing that could be worse is to reduce the characterisation to a single word, say, "socialist" for instance ;-{)

More Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 | Next