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 irate_atheist


451. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176304 by irate_atheist on May 7, 2008 at 6:44 am

935. Comment #176300 by seeker_of_truth -

I read that post of yours and then could not grasp why you carried on wittering about C14 dating. You even asked us to explain - in plain terms - why C14 dating for organic items of age approx 50,000 years plus is worse than useless.

I'm getting tired of wrestling an eel.

I'll ask you three straight questions that demand three straight answers.


1. How old do you acknowledge the Earth to be, and why?



2. How old do you acknowledge the Universe to be, and why?



3. What's your fucking point?

452. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176262 by irate_atheist on May 7, 2008 at 3:25 am

187. Comment #176256 by Chris Walsh -

JESUS SAVES!!!

Shearer scores on the rebound.

453. The detail in the Devil

Comment #176254 by irate_atheist on May 7, 2008 at 2:53 am

65. Comment #176246 by 8teist -

C is for cookie! That's good enough for me!!!

454. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176245 by irate_atheist on May 7, 2008 at 1:55 am

918. Comment #176019 by seeker_of_truth -

This list has been destroyed by us already.

Personal opinion and belief are not evidence.

455. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176243 by irate_atheist on May 7, 2008 at 1:51 am

898. Comment #175954 by seeker_of_truth -

Good morning.

Comment #175942 by irate_atheist

That was not a question for you and even if it were, what happened to "in your own words"?

I have read the Wiki page along with dozens of others over the years and given my explanation for the limits of C-14.

Seriously now, can no one here do the same?
Simple words for a simple person, then. Here we go. The half-life of C14 is such that after approx 50,000 years of decay, the radioactivity of a once organic object is low enough so as to be virtually indistinguishable from background radiation levels.

The article epeeist referrred you to, shows a technique being pioneered to reduce the effect of background radiation, thus increasing by 20-35% the timespan that C14 dating can be used for.

If this is not simple enough for you, get a dictionary and look the words up.

456. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175952 by irate_atheist on May 6, 2008 at 9:21 am

895. Comment #175946 by The Reverend Dark -

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.

epeeist - creotard - I like it. It also sounds somewhat like a creosoted leotard. A thin layer of clothing that stinks and does little to flatter the wearer. Also highly appropriate.

457. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175942 by irate_atheist on May 6, 2008 at 9:00 am

885. Comment #175927 by seeker_of_truth -

Please explain in your own words how you substantiate the above claim. In other words, why is C-14 valid under 50k and not over 50k?
Just read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

May I specifically draw your attention to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Measurements_and_scales

This article is quite well written and as 'dumbed down' as it needs to be.

That you don't understand the basic physics behind the practicalites of radiocarbon dating is blindingly obvious to all on this site. You're making a laughing stock of yourself. Continue if you so wish, but the laughing will just get louder.

458. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175917 by irate_atheist on May 6, 2008 at 8:38 am

877. Comment #175914 by Star Spangled Eagle -

Spot on. You hit the nail right on the head.
Edit: But now you've posted something, I may disagree. Oh no - you're still spot on.

459. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175886 by irate_atheist on May 6, 2008 at 7:48 am

859. Comment #175880 by The Reverend Dark -

Rev - you missed this one:

Why waste space with such dribble when you can simply address the actual issues? Personal insecurity dilemma that needs bolstering with all-to-easy rhetoric?
As prime an example of argumentum ad fucktardum as has ever graced these pages.

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

Comment #175882 by irate_atheist on May 6, 2008 at 7:45 am

14. Comment #175881 by steveroot -

Which makes it all the more retarded: they could refuse to drink/eat blood, but still receive it by transfusion. I know what Irate would say
To wit: Buffoons.

461. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175877 by irate_atheist on May 6, 2008 at 7:34 am

856. Comment #175866 by seeker_of_truth -

Imbecile.

462. The detail in the Devil

Comment #175875 by irate_atheist on May 6, 2008 at 7:27 am

14. Comment #175853 by The Reverend Dark -

He could, of course, be trying for the 'prick-of-the-month' award, a recently instituted honour. With Ben Stein winning in April, contenders have quite a standard to live down to.

463. The detail in the Devil

Comment #175850 by irate_atheist on May 6, 2008 at 6:43 am

8. Comment #175844 by Stella -

Someone, give this guy a copy of The Crucible!
I disagree slightly. Give the man an enema and find a matchbox small enough to bury him in.

464. Is Liberal Catholicism Dead?

Comment #175843 by irate_atheist on May 6, 2008 at 6:34 am

I'm really not that interested in the opinions of a group of self-deluded, wilfully ignorant, man-fools.

465. The detail in the Devil

Comment #175841 by irate_atheist on May 6, 2008 at 6:30 am

My first reaction was, 'oh, for fuck's sake'. On closer examination, my considered opinion is, 'oh, for fuck's sake.'

He returned Stateside after his studies as America's first strictly academic demonologist, always stressing that he has always done his best to keep his research as unbiased as possible.
Would that be unbiased as between fact and fiction?

Please, someone, say it before I do...

466. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #175795 by irate_atheist on May 6, 2008 at 3:44 am

6127. Comment #174992 by epeeist -

My musings on the subject.

When it was reasonable to be religious, it would be expected that a large number of reasonable poeple would be religious. Now that it is, let's make no bones about it, completely unreasonable to be religious, one would expect that new converts to religion would be exist on the more unreasonable end of the scales.

A parallel would be flat-earthism. In a world where very few ventured beyond the next village, it would have appeared reasonable to be a flat earther. In this day and age, it is not reasonable to believe the earth is flat. Only the most ignorant and downright stupid do.

I would contend that a polarisation between what can be considered reasonable and religon is inevitable, as collective knowledge advances.

467. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175352 by irate_atheist on May 5, 2008 at 9:44 am

Stand and deliver.

Your freedom or your life.

468. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174990 by irate_atheist on May 4, 2008 at 3:42 am

849. Comment #174989 by tba93968 -

It seems we are giving every chance to the religious to convince us but with each one I listen to I become less convinced of their claims.
This is because, in the words of Gerald Ratner, "It is total crap."

469. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174988 by irate_atheist on May 4, 2008 at 3:31 am

6125. Comment #174986 by epeeist on May 4 -

Dear boy, we don't need evidence to say that it has totally tanked. The subject of this movie is, after all, a matter of faith...

470. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174985 by irate_atheist on May 4, 2008 at 3:25 am

6103. Comment #174809 by MPhil -

I believe I called the incumbent pope a 'cunt' on another thread. The epithet still stands.

471. Truly Bizarre : Indians Throw Babies 50ft From Roof To Thank God.

Comment #174984 by irate_atheist on May 4, 2008 at 3:23 am

I'm going to abandon my usual neytral stance on these matters to pronounce a guilty verdict on all parties involved with this:

1. The parents for doing this.

2. The local priests for encouraging this.

3. The government for not forcefully intervening in this.

4. All religious apologists and practitioners everywhere for making this fuckwittery possible.

472. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #174982 by irate_atheist on May 4, 2008 at 3:14 am

Note to self: All empires end. None end happily ever after.

473. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174350 by irate_atheist on May 2, 2008 at 8:15 am

376. Comment #174320 by al-rawandi -

What's even worse is that Teratonis neglects to mention oil even once in this post.

No doubt he'll claim it comes under 'energy(conserved, finite resources)', but you and I know that's not true. He's really talking about wind power in relation to possible future baked-bean shortages.

474. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #174346 by irate_atheist on May 2, 2008 at 7:54 am

325. Comment #174340 by epeeist -

Policeman to man parked on 'School' markings: "Do you know what it says under your car, sir?"

Man: "Er...Ford Motor Company?"

475. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #174343 by irate_atheist on May 2, 2008 at 7:51 am

324. Comment #174335 by al-rawandi -

1) The italics are closed. Don't stoop to lecture me. You could have closed it yourself if you were so inclined.

2) So what? find a way to regard it as amusing.

After all, ID in Florida is linked to oil:

Oil money plus the Bush clan plus hanging chads = ID in Florida.

Did you know that oil was also linked to the death of Jerry Falwell? Baby oil, that is. At least, that's what the rent boy purportedly said...

Have a good weekend :)

476. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #174333 by irate_atheist on May 2, 2008 at 7:29 am

319. Comment #174253 by Teratornis; 322. Comment #174322 by al-rawandi -

Some observations from a bystander to this puerile pre-pubescent pissing contest.

Background note:

http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2005/LuftTestimony051020.pdf

It is somewhat simplistic when Teratonis implies that we (and I am speaking as a UK citizen) invaded Iran purely because of petrol/oil. It is certainly a large part of the strategic thinking behind US policy in the Middle east, but the messianic zeal of Blair et al cannot be discounted.

However, given that the first Iraq war was about oil - no one with a sensible view of world oil markets would have desired one S. Hussein to control the Iraqi, Kuwaiti and - worse case scenario - Saudi oilfields. If we say the second Gulf War was the conclusion of the first, and that oil was the primary cause of the Iraq invasion, it is right to say one of the primary reasons for invasion was oil. Some of the other reasons for invading do, regrettably, aslo reduce down to oil.

1. Discount WMD, which was always a smokescreen. (For Bush a screen to hide the reasons outlined by Al-Rawandi - plus the oil motive, and for Blair a smokescreen to allow regime change for the humanitarian imperative).

2. Discount the so-called 'War on Terror', which no one can sensibly claim involved Iraq to any significant degree prior to the invasion. Another samokescreen for Bush et al.

3. Discount the 'Democratic goverment' motive (at least on the part of the USA.) US foreign policy does not really stack up on this score. US foreign policy is have freindly governments around the world. When people of other nations democratically elect governments the 'good ole US of A' doesn't like, do they say, "That's democracy, it's a principle we support", or do they push for sanctions (Hamas), or trade insults (George W vs Hugo Chavez). Blair may genuinely believe it was possible, but then again, Blair genuinely believes it is possible to dead men to rise up and walk. Presumably on water, if any is around.

4. We cannot discount 'ousting Saddam' as a cause. But we must first understand why ousting Saddam have have been so important. For Bush possibly a personal vendetta for him and his neocon brethren, for Blair the "no man is an island" mindset. But, maybe, his previous behaviour vis a vis Iran/Kuwait (concerns aboutoil control, again?) provides the prime motive for ousting Saddam.

5. Flex muscle in the face of Iran. Maybe. Or North Korea or other 'axis of evil' states. Maybe that's a part of it. Show no weakness - appease not.

Oil is way down the list. Besides most of our oil doesn't even come from the Middle East, a fact ALWAYS ommitted by you.
I'm not so sure it's so low down the real list. That most of US oil comes from the middle east is, in fact, irrelevant. That 66% of the worlds proven oil reserves (http://www.iags.org/futureofoil.html) is, is very important.

A note on global oil prices:

Al, you note that:, 'it is an inelastic commodity'. It would be more accurate to say that ...both the supply and demand of oil exhibit low short-to-medium term price inelasticity.

World oil demand is rising. World oil production is finding it more difficult (more expensive) to keep up with the increase in demand. neither of these are related to the - inevitable - decline of the US dollar.

The supply curve is inexorably shifting to the left. Inelasticy on both sides results in the rapidly rising price. Some of the price rise - perhaps $40 per barrel - is due to speculation which, in effect, is shifing the demand curve to the right. But most of the price rise is due to the increasing cost of supply per barrel and the rising global demand, notably in China (currently)and - just you watch it happen - India.

Economist's/historian's 'get out' clause: The above may, in due course and with the assistance of hindsight, be shown to be wrong.

477. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #174317 by irate_atheist on May 2, 2008 at 5:52 am

1908. Comment #174308 by epeeist -

The man's beyond any of my epithets. He is so far beyond them he's gone all the way round to the start again. So far, in fact, that he's reached 'twit' on the second pass and is still accelerating towards 'halfwit'.

478. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174302 by irate_atheist on May 2, 2008 at 3:45 am

805. Comment #174296 by epeeist -

Next thing you'll be telling us is that he didn't speak English. Blasphemer!
Even worse than that, he supports Hampshire and is backing them at 3-1 for the championship.

479. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173815 by irate_atheist on May 1, 2008 at 9:10 am

254. Comment #173814 by Bonzai -

I don't think the Tamil tigers and the Kamakarzis(sic) have any systematic doctrine that encourage suicide attacks,
*Cough*, Emperor God...

480. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173808 by irate_atheist on May 1, 2008 at 8:58 am

628. Comment #173756 by seeker_of_truth -

Well, fuck my old boots. Now you think you're an astrophysicist. Wonders will never cease.

Read this, in Nature:

http://www.nature.com/nature/links/010208/010208-3.html

Read this, from UCLA:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html

Read this as an alternative method for dating the universe:

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/star cluster/globular/2002/10/image/g/


Or, as a summary, this article at Berkeley:

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~dperley/univage/univage.html

Please - refute these - and collect your Nobel Prize on the way through.

481. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173788 by irate_atheist on May 1, 2008 at 8:46 am

617. Comment #173709 by Brian English -

Yeah, well, I'm not responding to your post.


#;-)

482. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #173771 by irate_atheist on May 1, 2008 at 8:30 am

1846. Comment #173656 by Richard Morgan -

And in seeking relief from our pain, grief, anguish and frustration I suppose we all end up doing what Steve Zara expresses as "Whatever works for you."
"Whatever works for you" can damage others, restrict their freeedom or intimidate them. Rights and responsibilites go hand in hand walking down the road together.
I don't know how to qualify "miracles", but perhaps finding God in Richard Dawkins' "clear-thinking oasis" could fall into that category!
It falls into the category of wilfull self-delusion and inability to face the facts.
"We can love, because he first loved us" these words are at the heart of my epiphany experience.
Really? So all those aboriginals whe never heard of Yahewh or Jesus never fell in love or cared for each other? In fact, no one in the 100,000 years of human existence did until a homicidal maniac took his son for a dark brooding walk up the mountain? Get real.
If only I could share with you the "Big Bang" in my heart...
The heart is the organ that pumps blood around your body.
Love does not exclude science, reason and logic, but I have discovered that God's love, revealed through Christ, embraces all that, and then opens a door on eternity.
Got any independantly verifiable evidence for this assertion? No - I thought not.
"God so loved the world..." is where it all started.
If you're refering to the world as 'it', no, 'it' clearly didn't. If this refers to your 'epiphany', well, any dream will do, right?.

The problem seems to be that, despite yourself, you can't let go of the nonsense. I would blame your parents much more than I would blame you, if blame were what it were about. They primed you. They tricked you. THe suckered you in when you were at your most trusting and vulnerable.


Anyway, enough of all that.

Take care, enjoy the sunshine and remember that the French really don't know how to drive safely ;-)

Edit: I reserve the 'multiplying insults' for those that piss me off. Right now, I just feel a little saddened that a man who once stood on the sunlit uplands of reason, has descended once more into the mire of irrationality.

483. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172160 by irate_atheist on April 29, 2008 at 9:29 am

5697. Comment #172147 by Steve Zara -

Indeed. And as you are aware, I am married to someone who was brought up to believe it to be the case - and because of isolation due to illness - utterly believed it. Beyond the point of reason or any facts presented. Actually, it is not worrying - it is terrifying when encountered close up.

(I currently have no evidence for the ongoing 'voice of god'. But if, in my position, outward appearances are now normal, would you go looking for any evidence?)[/personal]

Edit: Night all. Going home to cook for the mrs and junior.

484. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172154 by irate_atheist on April 29, 2008 at 9:19 am

I cannot currently be arsed with this thread or the author of the article. Sorry.

485. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172146 by irate_atheist on April 29, 2008 at 9:11 am

5690. Comment #172134 by Kardashovel -

For me, the evidence is there,
Whereas for those of us with at least some understanding of the complexity of the human mind - and it's self-deceptive abilities - it is not.

486. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172131 by irate_atheist on April 29, 2008 at 8:56 am

332. Comment #172125 by Steve Zara -

How did Big Ears evolve?
Trivial. This was covered in an earlier textbook on the subject:

"All the better to hear you with, my dear..."

There is also a book on basic construction techniques you may wish to consult for DIY projects. Brick - not straw - is recommended as a preferential building material for houses.

Edit:
I am in impatient mood today.
I'm not. But I am very hungry.

487. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172127 by irate_atheist on April 29, 2008 at 8:53 am

5686. Comment #172115 by Kardashovel -

My theory is that he is creating Himself, and the universe, by repeatedly interacting with it and making adjustments.
That is not a theory. You clearly do not understand - despite our best efforts - what a theory is.

You are making an unsubstantiated assertion.

488. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172122 by irate_atheist on April 29, 2008 at 8:50 am

328. Comment #172118 by seeker_of_truth -

Congratulations. You too can cut'n'paste a generalised dumbed-down statement.

What are your qualification in this particular field?

489. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172119 by irate_atheist on April 29, 2008 at 8:48 am

Ah. epeeist. Just the man to step into the ring when I start to reach out of my comfort zone.

So, this Humphrey's chap reckons the earth was created about 65.5 million years after the end of the cretateous period. What a true genius he must be.

490. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172094 by irate_atheist on April 29, 2008 at 8:25 am

321. Comment #172092 by riandouglas -


Ooh!!!

Sleep tight. Not too many nightmares please.

Mwahahahahaha..

491. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172090 by irate_atheist on April 29, 2008 at 8:14 am

319. Comment #172089 by riandouglas -

You clearly live in the wrong country.

492. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172085 by irate_atheist on April 29, 2008 at 8:08 am

311. Comment #172065 by seeker_of_truth -

Plain lucky - and cheating. See about 3/4 of the way down this page:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/07/18/

Edit: 317. Comment #172084 by riandouglas -

See the above link. More full of holes than a leaky collander. Like cretinists claims, the more they spew out, the less water they hold...

.

493. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172076 by irate_atheist on April 29, 2008 at 7:57 am

312. Comment #172067 by bugaboo -

Speakly plainly, they are rank hypocrites.

They are the ones that know better. They are worse than the run-of-the-mill,,unintelligent, uneducated and deluded individual.

They have no reasonable excuse for claiming to believe what they claim.

494. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172064 by irate_atheist on April 29, 2008 at 7:46 am

5666. Comment #172061 by Kardashovel -

Of course, you are under no obligation to play this game, because God didn't talk to you... yet.
Would that be in the same way he spoke to Peter Sutcliffe?

495. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172060 by irate_atheist on April 29, 2008 at 7:37 am

301. Comment #172042 by Steve Zara -

Hardly controversial. A good working hypothesis, supported by observations, could almost be a half-decent theory.

305. Comment #172047 by seeker_of_truth -

Also notable is that the majority of scientists on that list are in unrelated fields to Darwinian biology.
Not notable at all considering "And very few born after the publication of 'On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection' by Charles Darwin..." The omission is yours and yours alone. Or perhaps no one who really understands evolution is a theist..? I don't know.

None on your list worked in the field of semi-conductor physics, either. But that is also irrelevant.

But to take one as an example, Lord Kelvin. His mistake (if it can be called that) was understanding Darwin's theory but getting his maths wrong (due to a lack of knowledge of nuclear physics) as regards how old the sun is. Had he been around after Einstein et al, I sincerely doubt he would have been a theist. The maths - and the facts - would have worked for him.

496. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172036 by irate_atheist on April 29, 2008 at 7:06 am

5651. Comment #172023 by Kardashovel -

Zero evidence supplied for any of the assertions you make.

Sorry to sound boring, but, Evidence Please.

497. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172032 by irate_atheist on April 29, 2008 at 7:04 am

294. Comment #172024 by seeker_of_truth -

So, a notable abscence of anyone born in the 20th century. And very few born after the publication of 'On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection' by Charles Darwin...

498. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #172031 by irate_atheist on April 29, 2008 at 7:01 am

69. Comment #172021 by riandouglas -

As I understand it, it's difficult to be a christian without believing in the life, death and resurection of Jesus as historical fact.
And despite the complete lack of evidence for this 'greatest show on earth'.

499. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #172020 by irate_atheist on April 29, 2008 at 6:36 am

67. Comment #172017 by Steve Zara -

An 'indeed' from the good doctor. I must be learning as I go here ;-)

Actually, I was just thinking about how much logic, philosphy and science I have absorbed from this site - even whilst hurling (un)warranted abuse.

Edit: But not accurate typing, it would appear. I must get a keyboard upgrade with EasySpell(TM).
I can already see at least five logical fallacies in ysntw's first post - I may only have spotted one or two before posting on this site.

500. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #172016 by irate_atheist on April 29, 2008 at 6:24 am

65. Comment #172012 by ysntw -

am comfortable with the idea that God works through evolution, and believe that there is evidence for this conclusion when one studies the history of the Ancient Near East and the way in which the Hebrew Bible is composed.
1. You're comfortable with it. Not evidence.

2. Nothing 'works through' evolution. Evolution occurs as a result of random mutation and natural selection. You are talking about artificial selection. Completely different.

3. What is this 'evidence' that you speak of that somehow relates the composition of an ancient book of fiction with a (relatively) modern, observed and well-proven scientific theory?
I would enjoy to talk with anyone about this further.
Talk away, we're all listening.

More Pages: Previous | 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