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 BAEOZ


751. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66310 by BAEOZ on August 29, 2007 at 4:56 pm

Sam is a seriously good article writer. Loved those last sentences, as Janus said, so do I.

752. There is no God and Dawkins is his Prophet

Comment #66303 by BAEOZ on August 29, 2007 at 4:36 pm

As to the problem with the infinite regress, other thinkers have already come up with alternative solutions, which Dawkins does not seem to be aware of. One is that God is unique inasmuch as he is his own cause and that God therefore is the very solution of the regress problem.

And I could postulate a giant donut, mmm sweet donuts, that is the divine torus and is calling us to eat donuts with pink icing, for that is his favorite type. This donut has always been and will always be. Being a torus, it is circular, with a hole in the middle, and thus has no beginning or end, it just is. This removes any problem of who baked the divine donut, no infinte baker and flour regress problem. Of course, this donut cannot not be measured and is not of this world, it is this world, so don't even try.
QED. The creator of the universe is a divine donut, and those who don't eat donuts are bound not to be sweet enough to be accomodated in its heavenly hole.

To reiterate
a false premise implies any conclusion.

Thanks Quine!

753. Another view

Comment #66254 by BAEOZ on August 29, 2007 at 1:16 pm

Wendelin:

My dad and I are living proof that acupuncture works.

No, you and your dad, with all respect, are living proof that belief in the efficacy of a treatment, acupuncture, works. It may be that sticking needles into various points of the body works, or just by having these needles inserted into the body makes you think they work and the brain takes it from there. It may be some other cause. I'm not sure which is the case, and I don't know where the evidence lies. I just thought I'd point out the flaw in your argument.

754. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #66112 by BAEOZ on August 28, 2007 at 10:43 pm

Bonzai:

There wasn't a shred of evidence to support Einstein's general relativity when he worked it out, data caught up with him later

You are equivocating if you're comparing Einsteins THEORY of relativity with religious explanations. His was a scientific theory, which means it has falsifiable hypotheses. These were/are tested and where the evidence agreeds with them, they are deemed to be tentatively valid. If the evidence disagreed with them, they would've been modified and/or chucked out. The point is the theory can be tested and refuted. That's a normal part of science.
Religious "theories" aren't falsifiable and thus all evidence and no evidence agrees with them. That's why the tooth fairy is as well supported and just as meaningful as god. They are meaningless explainations in the real world.

755. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #66097 by BAEOZ on August 28, 2007 at 4:32 pm

PaulEmecz, you seem to be saying, that science doesn't have all the answers. That is not anything revolutionary. We may never be able to have all the answers. But that isn't a problem and you can't use that as a prop for theistic belief.
You have to propose something positive and examinable and some way that each person can verify your belief, without first holding that belief. In short, you need proof for the ordinary man.
Pointing at science and saying that it doesn't fill all the gaps in our knowledge, therefore god exists or your faith is valid is faulty reasoning. Now, if you can't give a logical, evidence based positive thesis for you belief in god, and specifically your form of catholic belief, that demonstrates why it is valid and not any other faith then you have no business holding that belief. If, as seems to be the case, you hold it because you don't have all the answers, and want the answers, it's just wishfull thinking and intellectually dishonest.

756. Fallen Pastor Seeks Aid to Pursue Studies

Comment #66095 by BAEOZ on August 28, 2007 at 4:20 pm

Dr. Benway, I think I've heard of your aquaintance from Nantucket.

Ted Haggard is completely heterosexual, glory how he blew ya!

757. Anger over 'blasphemous' balls

Comment #66034 by BAEOZ on August 28, 2007 at 1:52 am

Hugo, I find that a lot of drunken argument in pubs boil down to "My football teams better than yours because you're a knobhead!" or similar. Football needs alchohol to make an idiot, religion does it all by its self....

758. Fallen Pastor Seeks Aid to Pursue Studies

Comment #66033 by BAEOZ on August 28, 2007 at 1:50 am

No limerick from Richard Dawkins? I'm sure it wouldn't been pithy as well as ribald....

The was a man from the cape,
who tried to roger an ape.
He said: "You hairy fool,
you've busted my tool"
As he bent its arse outta shape.....

759. Fallen Pastor Seeks Aid to Pursue Studies

Comment #66011 by BAEOZ on August 27, 2007 at 7:49 pm

My turn!

There was a man from South Yarra,
who tried to fuck a sparrow*.
He couldn't succeed in this dirty deed,
because the bones in its arse were too narrow.

*this rhymes when done with lazy aussie accent. ie. sparrow and narrow sound like sparra and narra....

760. The world's oldest bacteria

Comment #66007 by BAEOZ on August 27, 2007 at 7:26 pm

Darwin's evolution theory. It predicts that life never returnms to the same genetic level.

It does? I though it explained speciation and adaptation through natural selection of chance mutations.
Clarification please any Evilutionists who are loitering. Is Richard Dawkins hanging about with time to burn?

761. Fallen Pastor Seeks Aid to Pursue Studies

Comment #65982 by BAEOZ on August 27, 2007 at 4:54 pm

Russell, very cool.
Ted Haggard is openly ripping off the flock. No wonder they use that term, they are happy to be shorn regularly....Sad.

762. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #65810 by BAEOZ on August 26, 2007 at 8:36 pm

Ewan D:

Sandals in the Bin

Gold. Champagne comedy gold!

763. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65615 by BAEOZ on August 25, 2007 at 6:11 am

This'll probably fall on deaf ears. But Danielos, you do realise the chistian conception of the trinity, at least the catholic conception a logical falsehood?
It states that god is the father, son and holy spirit, but that they are three distinct persons. This violates the transitivity part of identity. That is, if god is these three beings, then each of these beings must be the other. The father must be the son who must be the holy spirit. If this is not the case, then the law of identity is violated and the trinity is false.
G = god, F = father, S = son, H = holy spirit
G = F, G = S, G = H, by transitivity, F = G = S = G = H. But the definition of the trinity says they are not the same person in the one godhead. Thus......So F != S != H Therefore god doesn't equal god.

764. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #65513 by BAEOZ on August 24, 2007 at 2:30 pm

What to think? This woman didn't give a crap about helping people to not suffer, she just helped them suffer. She thought the worst crime in the world was abortion. The fact that she didn't believe in god seems to show that she projected her own nihilism onto the poor unfortunates. Or maybe she's a saint and I have a misunderstanding of what that word means.....

765. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #65011 by BAEOZ on August 22, 2007 at 4:07 pm

My 2 cents:

I do not live by faith. Faith is belief without evidence, and is thus dishonest. I do not have faith that a god punished all people for the mistake of one woman, and that he later incarnated himself so that he could feign death to take away the punishment he inflicted, so long as we surrender reason and freedom to this god. This is because there is no evidence to support this horror story. I do not have faith in any god for the same reason. When people of faith present evidence and reason instead of metaphysic and emotion, I may change that stance. Until then it is imperative that faith is kept in the private sphere, and that reason guide the ship of state. Sadly, faith is a treacherous master and many under its yoke are trying to force people who don't share their faith into following their faith driven morality and lifestyle. This is a grave danger for all lovers of freedom.

Meh, I can't write, but I think they get the idea.

766. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #64944 by BAEOZ on August 22, 2007 at 1:08 pm

Biz:

but it is my conviction that a truly comprehensive and accurate understanding of science ultimately leads one to the conclusion that the physical world is a contingent entity, and could not exist without the force of will of a higher power.

Wishful thinking doesn't count as reason. Follow the evidence, not emotions.

The church also preaches abstinence, which is obviously many times more effective than condoms at reducing one's chance of getting the AIDS virus.

Yep, it's that simple isn't it. A wife can just say no to a husband who's been banging prostitutes with aids can't she? He will understand and not force her anyway just cause he's horny and the church says she must obey him. Maybe if he'd used condoms with the pros or her, aids wouldn't spread. But whilst idiot cardinals, who don't understand nature, tell all that they should just keep it in their pants and that condoms are bad, we'll not have this check on the spread of sexually transmitted diseases in believers.

We can choose to repress our instincts. I'm still a virgin. Sure, it hasn't been easy, but I've chosen to wait until I am married. And trust me, if a 20 year old male can do it, anyone can do it ;-).

That explains your attitude. Repression, pure and simple. Just because we're human and not animal doesn't mean sex is bad. Sex outside of marriage between two consenting adults who aren't in other relationships, like college students out for a bang, is very healthy and fun. It doesn't lead to anger and frustration, because while you can deny nature, you can't avoid its effects and they'll twist and turn you.

767. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #64924 by BAEOZ on August 22, 2007 at 11:59 am

It seems there's a lot of this bowing before religion BS.

768. In Google Earth, a Service for Scanning the Heavens

Comment #64920 by BAEOZ on August 22, 2007 at 11:34 am

Wow, if you look just south of the centaur there seems to be some cross structure in the stars....That proves it. God placed crux australis so that we would know he is the divine creator and jebus our saviour. Google is the way of salvation....And god must love us southerners more than you northerners...

769. Poll: Which religion do you associate with?

Comment #64824 by BAEOZ on August 22, 2007 at 1:55 am

Saw this poll on Pharyngula, now known as the site of the future matyr PZ Myers (Praise be upon him), and skipped over to Larry, everybody talks to me, King's site. And voted. Atheists kicking butt scientology style*.
Just waiting for Henri Bergson to appear and tell us we're sheep, following the flock, who live a slave mentality. He's probably right too. After all humans and sheep are social animals, then again so are dogs, maybe we're all wolfs, or even a herd of cats.....

*An online poll in an Australian paper about scientology was quite negative, then over night, thousands of positive votes came in from overseas due to an email or three from Aussie scientologists. Vaguely similar to this poll being posted on many atheist sites....tenuous?

770. A Matter of Faith

Comment #64801 by BAEOZ on August 21, 2007 at 11:31 pm

german-atheist:

would you rather watch richard dawkins and some high ranking english clergyman discussing religion (as they did some time ago on tv) sitting on the shitter?

Yes, I would. That truly would be conscious raising. A nice, tiled shitter. Something we could imagine in a Roman bath house perhaps. With a water piece somewhere in the mid forground. Nice bushy shrubs sitting in pots in the background. And the sound of birds gently chirping in the distance. Then, right when the Bishop is admitting the whole god thing is a scam, he strains due to stress and an almighty fart is sounded and we cut to RD maintaining his demeanour whilst all around; camerguy, sound guy, bishop, loose it......"Bishop, I didn't quite hear your last comment due to the flatus. Did you say that you don't believe in god?"

I'm bored, sorry.

771. Rational Atheism

Comment #64794 by BAEOZ on August 21, 2007 at 10:29 pm

So I can't return fire on theists who declare that they "know" everything there is to know and I'm amoral and the inheriter of all that's nasty in the world (as well as hell bound), for not accepting their certainty of belief?

Bummer......

And.....First Post again!
Numero uno! Ichi Ban! Numerus unus! Number eins? etc. I need to get a life.

772. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64605 by BAEOZ on August 21, 2007 at 1:57 am

PaulEmecz:

"I can't kill someone because I wouldn't want to be killed? Let's see." These are the final words that the altruists hear.

What a sad strawman you set up to knock down. You want absolute morals, and try to pretend that those who've put forward the golden rule would treat it as an absolute moral. It's childish. I don't want to kill you, but if you put my life in danger, then I'd stop you,even kill you if need be. I've never said anything else. Killing is obviously bad, but there are exceptions. It's not an absolute.
You don't have an argument. You resort to equivocation, as I've noticed a lot of theists do. You dismissed Rachel's logic not because it wasn't logical or evidence based, but because it didn't appeal to your need for a god inspired morality. That is dishonest, and very sad.

773. PZ Myers sued for a negative review in a blog post

Comment #64597 by BAEOZ on August 21, 2007 at 1:26 am

His response is to sue Seed Media and Paul Z. Myers for "Assault, Libel, and Slander."

What a wally. Grow up man. If he put out a book pretending to be scientific, he has to expect scientists to critique it. It's how the peer review correction mechanism in science functions. If he doesn't want to be ridiculed, he mustn't publish ridiculous material as science.
Will I be sued now?

774. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64576 by BAEOZ on August 20, 2007 at 6:54 pm

Paul, that's plain silly. Have you ever noticed that many cities around the world are built on or near permanent water sources? Wow, I guess that's an amazing occurrence! To amazing to be random. There must be divine purpose, all those water sources just placed there for the benefit of the cities. Oh wait! the cities developed where there was permanent water. Similarly, you've got it all back to front, due to human egoism. The universe isn't shaped to permit life. Life is shaped by the universe. Humans are a very small part of it, not the reason behind it. The universe is indifferent to us. There's no reason to suppose that the universe was created for life, only that life developed within the limits of this universe.
As for your claim that consciousness is some evidence of god. Again you're begging the question. Science can explain a lot of consciousness now, and unless you can show that it can't have a natural explanation, which you can't, it demonstrates nothing not of this universe.

775. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64568 by BAEOZ on August 20, 2007 at 6:03 pm

PaulEmecz:

What I'm saying is that God has made a physical world where causality moves forwards in time, but that the world need not be that way. He has also made a universe with a moral reality. Rachels says this reality exists without God, but I would then ask where it comes from. I think God created morality, and what God created is good. We cannot even comprehend what it would mean to say that God could have made a world where what is bad is good and vice versa, or where laws of logic don't apply. The fact that morality is good and reasonable is, to me, a sign of a good creator

What you are saying is that you believe god exists. You have no evidence for the existence of god, so you choose a metaphysic that presupposes that the universe and all it's "laws" are evidence of god. This may be entirely logical in itself as a metaphysic, but equally you could posit all sorts of untestable metaphysics to prop up your belief. This metaphysic cannot be shown to true or false as there's no evidence, except the material world, which as far as we know is the only world. Thus the only question is what is the probability of it based on the evidence we have, and that is about zero. We have no evidence of another realm or wolrd. So, it's dishonest to say that god created the universe until you prove god exists, or atleast there is a high probability of god existing. To do this, you can't refer to the universe as proof, because that's begging the question. You need something that cannot be explained by natural means, not ever. Something like a big Monty Pythonesque hand comming down and loud booming voice would be a start.

776. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64554 by BAEOZ on August 20, 2007 at 4:55 pm

PaulEmecz:
Your concept of morality is that if god said it, it's right. But god can't tell you what's right or wrong.
Plato sorted this one out centuries before the myth of Jesus sprang up. In his Eurypthro.
Does god say something is right because he commands it to be right? Or does he say it because it just is right without him, and he's just stating the obvious?
If it's because he command it to be right, than right is nothing more than a capricious wish of a dictator. And he could command molestation of babies to be right. But he can't, think about it, you know it would never be right for everyone to do this. Thus god can't command right and wrong.
In any case, morality can't come from god.


Further, the 10 commandments are as much about idol worship as morality. Don't worship other gods, lest god gets pissed off and smites you is not a moral precept. Thou shall not kill is just stating the obvious and as for not coveting your neighbors wife and livestock, that just shows the small, parochial mindset of the jews at that time. Hardly the best effort in morality.

P.S. have you reread the chapter in Rachels & Rachels and come up with a logical argument for why their conclusion is false?

777. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64421 by BAEOZ on August 20, 2007 at 3:22 am

That's the book. In the chapter: "Does morality depend on religion?" he points out how god can't command or design that something is right or wrong. The best a god can do, is realise somethings wrong or right and proclaim it. There's plenty of debunking of religious claims to morality. I mean god can't say child molestation is right, and if he can't control that, then he can't control what's right or wrong anymore than you or I. Read the chapter, and if you think it's wrong, argue why.
Here's a quote that summarizes the chapter nicely:

Right and wrong are not to be understood in terms of God's will; morality is a matter of reason and conscience, not religious faith; and in any case, religious considerations do not provide definitive solutions to most of the specific moral problems that confront us. Morality and religion are, in a word, different.

778. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64401 by BAEOZ on August 20, 2007 at 1:36 am

PaulEmecz:

BAEOZ, please agree - we both accept that without God there cannot be any morality (and here I mean by morality the idea that one action is RIGHT and another WRONG, that behaviour can be good or bad, that we should do one thing and ought not to do another).

I couldn't disagree more. Please read "The elements of moral philosophy" by Rachels & Rachels. You have no idea of what you write. When you've read that, tell me why morality comes from god. It quite clearly explains how morality has nothing to do with the supernatural.

779. Artificial Life Likely in 3 to 10 Years

Comment #64370 by BAEOZ on August 19, 2007 at 8:20 pm

Biz:

DESIGNING an artificial cell does not lend a shred of credibility to the notion that life arose RANDOMLY.

Who said anything about randomness? Evolution isn't random. And abiogenesis posits self-replicating chemicals that undergo natural selection of the evolutionary nature. Not random.

780. The Politics of God

Comment #64367 by BAEOZ on August 19, 2007 at 7:55 pm

Great article. I just preordered the book from Amazon. Richard Dawkins has a lot to answer for. I've bought so many books this year on philosophical and atheistic themes since I've read and had my consciousness piqued by the god delusion. He's evil I tell you!
Russell, if you're about, which Plantinga books do you recommend? I thought of just getting the warranted christian belief book. Is that enough to get the gist of his philosophy?

781. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64358 by BAEOZ on August 19, 2007 at 6:18 pm

PaulEmecz:

If you have a morality that's based on some form of the greater good, if the consequence is the same in the end, what difference does it make, and to whom, what we did?

Well it doesn't make a difference, the universe is suppremly indifferent to our existence. The reason we have morality is because we can suffer and we can see that other creatures, including humans, can suffer. We can feel that suffering from our own experience. We don't wont to suffer, and as empathy or compassion means the act of suffering with another, we naturally disdain acts that lead to suffering of another. Thus empathy and enlightened self interest are why we have morality.


Maybe we do have to live forever, or outside time, for morality to make sense.

And maybe leprechauns exist. Doesn't add anything to the argument to bring in fantasy.

782. The Pentagon Sends Messengers of Apocalypse to Convert Soldiers in Iraq

Comment #64227 by BAEOZ on August 18, 2007 at 6:06 pm

Thor, it's frustrating, but hasty toweling hit on the one of the points I was trying to make about how do you tell one revelation from another?
For example, an alternate worldview might be:

. Rather, in a fairy-created universe, there can be nothing but evidence for the existence of fairy. Such a universe - and I believe this is such a universe - declares fairy's existence and His glory at every turn. It can do no other. Even evidence that is popularly considered to weigh against the existence of fairy, can be re-evaluated, and if fairy exists, must be

Thus the fairy exists, and created this universe. I do love the sophistry, that if this was that type of universe that had a deity (no evidence for this, only an emotional need to justify), and if we re-evalute evidence that doesn't suit the hypothesis of the deity so that it now seems to support the hypothesis (complete intellectual dishonesty) and if he believes the deity exists (wishful thinking), then the deity must exist!

783. The Pentagon Sends Messengers of Apocalypse to Convert Soldiers in Iraq

Comment #64136 by BAEOZ on August 18, 2007 at 1:43 am

Thor:

Many of them simply say that evidence-based reasoning doesn't apply to god in the same way as it does in other areas.

That seems to be their modus operandi.

"No, reason is not applicable here, god is not a testable hypothesis, he simply IS etc..." then I can only disagree - I cannot think of any way to seriously argue with this position.

This is where I ask; How do you know this? You can't know anything without a first hand example. Even arithmetic is not understood until you experience plurality and from this abstract number.
To know god exists, and accept revelation, bible, eschatology, what evidence do you have to connect the other world with this world? Without evidence, your belief is dishonest.
If they say revelation. How does your revelation warrant the standard of knowledge, whilst a schizoprenic's visions don't? How is it that other prophets of religions you don't follow are not truly prophetic when he has the same amount of evidence? Either all are, or all aren't. And assuming they all are, we have a contradiction, which makes them all wrong.
It may not convince a theist, but at least it's logically consistent (to me) and relies on knowledge we all share in this world.

Richard Dawkins has recently complained in one of the comment sections that everyone seems to gather there to spout off on any issue that comes to mind instead of perusing the forum section for longer debates on issues they are interested in.

I don't frequent the forums. I'm lazy and can't be bothered to read a long thread to see if they've gone over what I want to go over, and then hope someone who can be bothered debating with me is hanging around. That probably makes me lesser in Richard Dawkins' eyes, which is not a concern for me (nor him I imagine) and hopefully I won't get kicked off the site.
Peace.

784. The Pentagon Sends Messengers of Apocalypse to Convert Soldiers in Iraq

Comment #64066 by BAEOZ on August 17, 2007 at 1:33 pm

_J_

sheer arrogant arse-brained presumptuous fuckwittery

That about sums up faith in 6 words. Brilliant.

Dr. Benway:
Don't let the sneaky theists trick you into thinking metaphysics changes the meaning or role of evidence.

Right on Dr. They know what evidence is. They just try to push their favorite metaphysical wedge between any gaps they can find in our understanding so that god has a place....

785. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63964 by BAEOZ on August 17, 2007 at 4:03 am

Steve99:

No, I said 'we don't', partly because we aren't in an organised *anything*, especially not a religion.

Mea culpa. I beg your pardon.

786. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63959 by BAEOZ on August 17, 2007 at 3:06 am

Steve99:

But we don't
You are in an organized religion? I wouldn't have picked that one. Oh well, c'est la vie.

787. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63942 by BAEOZ on August 16, 2007 at 11:35 pm

Hey V, how's it going? Impressive post there. Demonstrates a breadth of experience this little devil is yet to aquire. The seeming impermeability of faith to reason and evidence is frustrating at times. Oh well, once more into the breach, then once more, then.......

788. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63931 by BAEOZ on August 16, 2007 at 7:09 pm

Dr. Benway:

Even if Dawkins or Josh comes on here with your IP and your home phone number: deny deny deny. Keep 'em guessing.

I could give you further advice... but then I'd have to kill you.

You're my hero. Teach me more of the dark arts. I still maintain you're evil, but I can't resist the lure of the darkside....

789. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63923 by BAEOZ on August 16, 2007 at 6:20 pm

Spritual1:

No, really, I am an imposter. I just thought these posts are so much more interesting when someone presents wacky ideas. Sorry. Darwin2 where are you?

Seeing we're coming out. I'm a fundamentalist, polygamist Morman from Scrotum Utah who pretends to be a militant atheist from Melbourne, Australia to attract another wife. Carry on.

[EDIT] I just read the above posts between you and roach. Damn, my attack was pointless. Another wasted moment in atheist artillery fire....

790. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63918 by BAEOZ on August 16, 2007 at 5:53 pm

Spiritual1:


And as for souls existing, there is plenty of evidence summarized and presented in books by writers just as esteemed as Dawkins: Crick, F. The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul. 1995, for example.

Well that's it, if Dawkins esteems the guy, I, being a true Dawkobot, must esteem a belief that you say Crick, F holds...
Oh wait! I can think for myself. Fuck off with your arguments to authority. There's no evidence for the soul, it violates the 1st law of thermodynamics which has a shitload of evidence and I'll prefer as reasonable than to anything you repute to Richard Dawkins (PBUH) or Crick F. If there seriously was evidence, and Crick F. had this evidence, he would have received the Nobel prize in physics and probably all other natural sciences.

Dr. Benway:
So God's revealed Himself to you but not to me. I wonder why. Are you more lovable? Or perhaps I am more evil and deserving of hell fire?

Yes, you are quite evil.

791. Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy's Couch

Comment #63787 by BAEOZ on August 15, 2007 at 10:57 pm

Russell Blackford:

I thought that one introduced himself as Barry

That explains it. My name's Brian. :)

792. Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy's Couch

Comment #63785 by BAEOZ on August 15, 2007 at 10:46 pm

Russell Blackford:

Pity you weren't able to stay. (It was nice to meet you, though

Spooky religious moment? I can be in two places at once and not realize it? Just kidding. I wasn't able to get away from the airport in time to make it to your talk. Thus, it must've been someone else who looked like a tassy devil and took my identity....Glad it went well. Good on you for getting up and doing something.

793. Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy's Couch

Comment #63777 by BAEOZ on August 15, 2007 at 9:33 pm

Russell Blackford:

Nick isn't like a religionist claiming to know the truth, let alone like one who wants to impose his "truth" on others or terrorise children with it.

Great! I don't get an upgrade to my life when the designer installs Vista Designer of the Universe edition then! There goes that fantasy!

How'd the talk go last night Russell?

794. Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy's Couch

Comment #63767 by BAEOZ on August 15, 2007 at 6:53 pm

Sidfaiwu:

The conclusion I am starting to come to is that metaphysics is interesting, but useless when it comes to producing knowledge

Amen to that brother. I've come to the conclusion that most metaphysics is intellectual wankery thought up to make a belief system seem reasonable. It it interesting, but totally devoid of what we might call useful or reliable evidence. The antitheis of knowledge. But I could be wrong. :)

Dr. Benway:
So all you shithead cunts can go fuck yourselves. Assholes.

Tuffy would never have said such vulgarity! For shame, bring back the tit-avian!

795. Atheists and believers have got religion wrong

Comment #63621 by BAEOZ on August 15, 2007 at 5:40 am

Seems like he's too clever by half. Not sure he had a point, except that by setting up a strawman that "new atheists" think everybody is dumb so then he can treat us the same a believers in shared silliness and knock us all down in one hit. Who's the smug boy then?

796. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63545 by BAEOZ on August 14, 2007 at 6:44 pm

Darwin2:

One amazing thing I find in the posts to me is that only a very small number of posters can openly admit that objectively and scientifically speaking God might exist and consciousness may continue after death. At least I can scientifically and objectively state that my subjective beliefs may be totally wrong.

I can openly admit that god can exist. I don't know how I could admit it scientifically, as science requires repeatable, tests of a falsifiable hypothesis. The fact that god can logically exist as an idea is not science and it's not a measure of probability. Invisible pink unicorns and Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot can logically exist. The only question is it reasonable to believe that they do exist? To me, this requires something like scientific evidence, something that can be verified by any human who so desires. Without any concrete verification, it's just metaphysical daydreaming.

797. Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris: The Unholy Trinity ... Thank God.

Comment #63521 by BAEOZ on August 14, 2007 at 4:35 pm

in all its scabious and purulent magisterial arrogance.

A nice turn of phrase if ever there was one. Love it.

798. Saudis to build their own version of Eden Project

Comment #63363 by BAEOZ on August 14, 2007 at 3:07 am

I thought Saudi Arabia was full of Wahabists, who took a literal reading of the Quran. The world according to them, in my limited understanding, is only a few millenia of age. So is this a fantasy park for them? Or am I typically misinformed?

799. Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy's Couch

Comment #63361 by BAEOZ on August 14, 2007 at 3:04 am

I want an upgrade of the OS to Micro$oft universe 2.0. That's the one in which I have embedded links to hot babes when I'm a teenager......It's a thought experiment...
Oh, and I get a hot ferrari plugin too!
And I want the "I'm as clever as Einstein" plugin.

800. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #63312 by BAEOZ on August 13, 2007 at 9:33 pm

Dr. Benway:

For everyone's sake, just say "no" to procto-epistemology.

RAmen Dr. RAmen.

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 | Next