Comments by Brian English

701. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #217916 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 6:50 pm

Goldy, my girly man, bigamy = two women and polygamy = many (2 or more) women. ;)

702. Islam subway ads cause stir in New York

Comment #217910 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 6:45 pm

Carto, are you in public? If not, then you're in private, so no harm done. Except maybe to your computer which is not my concern. :)

703. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #217908 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 6:42 pm

I love how you guys use natural cause to explain everything you know but once it doesent work you say: "Oh well I'm sure theres a natural explanation for that, its just because it might be beyond our realm of understaning, being that we're all just a bunch of big brained apes living in a Universe with perhaps no purpose, so if there is some sort of "devine plan", us figuring out the answeres to these questions might not be part of it. We might get hit by an asteroid tomorrow."

How is saying we don't know the answer more arrogant than saying I have no evidence or proof, yet I know the answer?

Please provide proof that a god exists.

704. Islam subway ads cause stir in New York

Comment #217892 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 6:29 pm

Goldy, I'll let your wife work that one out

705. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #217885 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 6:24 pm

The bible is no source of information for any person who doesn't already believe that God exists and the bible is his word. It presumes that a god with certain attributes exists. Before the bible, which you admit is imperfect can be used as any form of guide a reasonable person would ask for some convincing proof that a god, not just your God exists. Do you have this proof?

Then you can prove that that god is your God. Then you can prove that the bible is his word.

706. Islam subway ads cause stir in New York

Comment #217878 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 6:18 pm

OK, everybody who has an itch to scratch please get a room. ;)

707. Islam subway ads cause stir in New York

Comment #217871 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 6:13 pm

Goldy, you girly man!

708. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #217864 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 6:05 pm

You ask him where the big bang came from, and he doesent know.

This is why saying that the big bang came from anywhere is arguing from ignorance. You can't claim creation if you don't know there was creation.

Please demonstrate that the big bang was the beginning of the universe and that it was caused and that the cause was your particular creator.

709. Red hot enlightenment led me to believe in one fewer god

Comment #217863 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 6:03 pm

I just had a bad idea. I think us Aussies should get together and have an Aussie RD.NET/atheist conference. We won't invite Richard, basically because I don't think he likes us Aussies much and is quite busy. It should involve lots of boozing and crap talking, similar to what happens here on the site but the boozing will be communal.

710. Red hot enlightenment led me to believe in one fewer god

Comment #217857 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 5:55 pm

Dong is another penis metaphor.

711. Red hot enlightenment led me to believe in one fewer god

Comment #217855 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 5:52 pm

dong is indeed a penis metaphor as well as an engine metaphor. Any comments I made that seemed to disagree with this statement have been stricken from the public record.

712. Red hot enlightenment led me to believe in one fewer god

Comment #217851 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 5:48 pm

You're an English teacher? Please read my posts charitably.

EDIT: I just reread your post. My reading skills suck. I've delete the bit that just restated your point. The shame!

713. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #217844 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 5:41 pm

Who created the BIG BANG!!! Who did it? It was obviously someone or "thing", look at this glorious Christian homo sapien typing away on his computer, me! What worries me is that you atheists can have this truth, and be on this high mountian top with me, just something as simple as faith. Its Gods gift, and there are no exchanges...

How do you know the Big bang was the beginning of the universe? How do you know that the universe doesn't cycle through big bangs? You're assuming there was a beginning, and assuming a creator, which is nothing more than arguing from ignorance. This seems to rest on the idea that everything has a cause. An idea that we know to be false.

714. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217204 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 3:13 am

OK ladies and lads. I'm off. See ya.

715. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217202 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 3:11 am

It sounds like an idea of Descartes. Something along the lines of, we can trust our thoughts and perceptions because god is perfect and honest and this guarantees the truth of these thoughts. Interestingly, he also uses this line of thinking to prove that god exists, that is, as we have reliable thoughts and perceptions we can know that god exists. Seems somewhat circular. But then again, it's been ages since I read his meditations....

716. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217199 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 3:08 am

Steve, I guess we're wrong as a society to label people insane, give them powerful drugs and lock them up from society. After all, if what goes on in one's mind is infallible, then those people really are being commanded by god or aliens to do us in. N'est-pas?

717. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217195 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 3:00 am

Steve. I was reading a book on Christian apologetics last night. (I need to get a life I know.) Anyway, this guy rejected Hume's idea because he said that to claim that we cannot know the truth about reality is making a statement that we do know something about reality. It was quite a clever ploy. Hume said something along the lines that we can know about reality, but we cannot know about things that don't affect reality. Of course the apologist was trying the old 2 for 1 trick. Presuming that reality includes god for free. Which is begging the question when the book is trying to demonstrate god......

718. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217194 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 2:57 am

Steve wins, sorry Quetz. He's wiser. And he mentioned David Hume in a favorable light. That always gets bonus points in my calculations. ;)

719. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217192 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 2:54 am

Good point Quetz. I see you are indeed wise. Perhaps I was a bit hasty before in rejecting you outright. If you can turn the water in my fridge into Boag's Premium beer so that I may get drunk now I would be more amenable to worship or yourself. :)

720. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217189 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 2:48 am

Roland_F, the reason I like the approach of starting with a god is I don't have to waste heaps of time getting up with Biblical studies, exegesis, Biblical history and all that other stuff. I'm just lazy. :)

EDIT: Also, the question of any god, let alone the God of the bible existing seems to me to be reasonably important to the whole issue. If they can't show a god, then the Bible is no more than another book of fabulous claims. If they do show a god, they've still got a lot of work to do. Let them have the burden of proof.

721. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217184 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 2:37 am

Steve, haven't you already agreed that a god exists? Notwithstanding the fact that you think it has the attributes of Quetz. A little fudging here and there and you may get a triune deity....

722. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217180 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 2:35 am

That's probably a good summation of my pathological need to be a pain in the arse. Even if it's Quetz' divine derriere...

723. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217176 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 2:33 am

Steve, I think the point is this:
Start by proving Jesus.
Then prove that he fits the description.
Then prove miracles....

To me this is the wrong way to go, I start from the top:
Prove a god exists.
Prove that it has the attributes of God
Prove that the Bible is the will of God

but Quetz is about to smite me, so I'd take what I say with a pillar of salt. :)

724. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217175 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 2:31 am

Still causing trouble and ruffling feathers Steve? I mentioned the proverb about the nail that sticks out getting hammered down didn't I? ;)

725. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217173 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 2:28 am

Are you intimidated by my divine countenance?

As I deny your divinity, how could I be intimidated by it? This is like Christians threatening me with a hell I don't believe in. Religions always resort to the same veiled threats and coercion. I really had high hopes for the Quetz. I thought this time I'd found the one true god. Oh well, back to the ouija board.....

726. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217167 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 2:21 am

You feign error to test believers. Feigning is dishonest. You are a deceiver.

727. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217165 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 2:17 am

Why would you test anyone Quetz? You already know what it's a man's heart. It's only cruel to test them. You're not perfect! Saying that you fake mistakes to test worshipers contradicts your statement that you're not a deceiver! A contradiction cannot exist. You can kindly disappear into a puff of logic now. Hurry up!

728. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217163 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 2:16 am

I think one can say, as far as one can say anything about history that Caesar or Alexander the great lived. These type of historical figures did so much, and were recorded by so many sources it's not open to question. Jesus, on the other hand can not be given the same status. However, I understand where Steve and Oystein are coming from. We can allow that there may be a person, or persons around whom the myths and miracle stories accreted without allowing that gods and magic exist.

729. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217158 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 2:10 am

Quetz is a trickster god? A deceiving god? How can that be perfect?

My faith has surely been tested. Any god who would deceive his worshippers to test their faith is not worthy of worship. I'm becoming an Aquetzist. I deny the divinity of Quetz.

730. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #217113 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 11:55 pm

Joe, can you prove that god, any god, exists?
You just post quotes that demonstrate nothing. I don't care what any body's opinion is. Either god exists or god doesn't. The Quran cannot ever prove that god exists so stop pretending it has any value . If you can't show that god exists, then you have nothing to say to me and you can kindly fuck off.

Put up or piss off please. :)

731. Cardinal accuses Anglican Communion of 'spiritual Alzheimer's'

Comment #217100 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 10:48 pm

Did you get out and point at this girly clothes and laugh?

732. Cardinal accuses Anglican Communion of 'spiritual Alzheimer's'

Comment #217098 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 10:44 pm

Hi Laurie. Tropics were very nice indeed. Plenty of warmth, beer, and relaxation....

733. Cardinal accuses Anglican Communion of 'spiritual Alzheimer's'

Comment #217096 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 10:32 pm

Oh, can't say I'm up with the latest on evolution of the package. I guess when you're not in water like fish or amphibians you need a warm, moist place to do the conception thing. So sperm has to be delivered internally before gestation/egg laying. Perhaps a delivery system with hose/injector did the job better than just lining up cloacas or whatever it was that reptiles and birds do...

You can tell I have no idea about this.

734. Cardinal accuses Anglican Communion of 'spiritual Alzheimer's'

Comment #217093 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 10:18 pm

TWP, all humans start off female. It's only when the ones with the XY combination begin pumping female hormones around that they become androgenized. Weird, but male hormones like testosterone can't pass the blood/brain barrier, but female ones can. These hormones are then converted into testosterone when they enter cells and this leads to all that male stuff happening.
So, if you want to turn a female embryo into a male, give it female hormones....

735. Cardinal accuses Anglican Communion of 'spiritual Alzheimer's'

Comment #217091 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 10:15 pm

I was going to say a monkey doing the funky monkey with another monkey but then thought that's way to much monkey business going on for one sentence....

Thank you, I'll be here for another hour or so. Try the veal!

736. Cardinal accuses Anglican Communion of 'spiritual Alzheimer's'

Comment #217086 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 10:07 pm

TWP, are you saying that animals get married? Why wasn't I invited to my goldfish' wedding then? Oh, they're living in sin. The shame!

737. Cardinal accuses Anglican Communion of 'spiritual Alzheimer's'

Comment #217083 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 10:02 pm

TWP, that reminds me of a story about Mohammad. Apparently he saw a monkey doing the you know what with another monkey, then the rest of the troop attacked the female monkey and Mo jumped in and stoned her too. I didn't know monkeys were religious or got married, but apparently they are and females are treated the same (poorly) so I guess they need hymens too....

738. Cardinal accuses Anglican Communion of 'spiritual Alzheimer's'

Comment #217081 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 10:00 pm

Ciao Goldy.

Coco, I'm flumoxed. Why a clownfish would need with a hymen is beyond my powers.

739. Cardinal accuses Anglican Communion of 'spiritual Alzheimer's'

Comment #217076 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 9:58 pm

8teist, it's been a while since the Catholics and Proddies have had a blue. Might be time? Maybe get some hard men from Northern Ireland to organize it?

740. Cardinal accuses Anglican Communion of 'spiritual Alzheimer's'

Comment #217072 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 9:53 pm

I guess clownfish must be pretty promiscuous then. If they need a hymen and no other fish does. I didn't even know that fish did the funky monkey. I thought the female deposited her roe and the male swam after and shot his wad onto the roe....weird.

Perhaps Nemo was a randy little bugger?

741. Cardinal accuses Anglican Communion of 'spiritual Alzheimer's'

Comment #217071 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 9:51 pm

From ye old wiki:

The hymen has no known anatomical function. It has been proposed that its function in evolutionary terms is as an "honest signal" of virginity

742. Cardinal accuses Anglican Communion of 'spiritual Alzheimer's'

Comment #217069 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 9:49 pm

Evolution? Bah, God made Eve with a hymen so that insecure husbands could know if they were marrying a virgin!

743. Cardinal accuses Anglican Communion of 'spiritual Alzheimer's'

Comment #217064 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 9:31 pm

You're probably right Rad, but would you destroy your new car if you saw it parked in a lot with other cars? It seems many religious types would destroy a sister or daughter for hanging out with (not doing anything more) some other guys or gals. That probably relates back to some feeling of insecurity and loss of control (over property) or something.

I probably just presumed too much and should put my pop-psychologist hat back in the box. :D

744. Cardinal accuses Anglican Communion of 'spiritual Alzheimer's'

Comment #217059 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 9:23 pm

Coco, I presume the reason virgins are appetizing is either 1) property rights, you can be surer your kid isn't someone else's if your wife hasn't done the funky monkey before as she won't be pregnant and may stay faithful to you if she's a good girl. This means someone else's kid doesn't inherit your stuff. 2) You don't have to worry about an god awful performance because hopefully she'll be so ignorant of sex that a sexually repressed guy's pathetic thrusts and painful groping will be considered her duty and 3) maybe she won't then enjoy it (thus not be tempted to do said monkey with any other guy; see point 1).

That's what I presume is behind religion's view that female sexuality is a dangerous thing and thus they must be virgins or pregnant to be good....

745. Cardinal accuses Anglican Communion of 'spiritual Alzheimer's'

Comment #217057 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 9:14 pm

Coco I believe the hymen is immaculately reconceived or something.......

746. Cardinal accuses Anglican Communion of 'spiritual Alzheimer's'

Comment #217049 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 8:58 pm

Goldy, stop ya winging. You get to chat with me because of similar timezones.
You mean you dont wanna chat with me? ***pouts***

747. Cardinal accuses Anglican Communion of 'spiritual Alzheimer's'

Comment #217038 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 8:27 pm

CocoCantare, I believe there's a 'converts corner' on this very site that hosts conversion stories.

748. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #217035 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 8:25 pm

Txpiper wins an imaginary pair of cufflinks with God's own invisible likeness. Remember, it's not idolatry if you can't see the idol!

749. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #217032 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 8:23 pm

Is it possible for women to reach a peak if they can't feel anything?

Always bringing logic into the argument aren't you!

Perhaps they only wanted boys, so if the woman couldn't issue that would seal the deal so to speak. I think however that FGM is a part of some cultures, not necessarily the Arab culture that spawned Islam.

750. Cardinal accuses Anglican Communion of 'spiritual Alzheimer's'

Comment #217030 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 8:20 pm

Yeah there's been a few. I don't remember any of them much. Beer and memory don't seem to get along. I know I mooned some relatives at one wedding a decade ago. :D