Comments by Brian English

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

Comment #217024 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 8:15 pm

Rad I got 5 sisters and 4 brothers.

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

Comment #217023 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 8:15 pm

Splitter!

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

Comment #217020 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 8:12 pm

Coco, who was the nasty atheist who stole your precious faith? Or was it a coven thing? We are legion apparently.

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

Comment #217019 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 8:11 pm

Crap. Both of my kids look like me. I swear, I'm working on it, really.

Did you know that according to the Quran you're semen comes from your spine? There mustn't have been to many Eunuchs in Mohammad's times....

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

Comment #216995 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 7:05 pm

"When we behave in a disorderly manner, going whimsically our own way without any coordination with the head of or the other members of our community, it could be ecclesial Parkinson's."

Sounds more like ecclesiastical Huntington's to me. I think the Cardinal needs to go back to review his spiritual neuro-psychology.

This "spiritual warfare" had continued since the fall of Adam, raging "aided and abetted by well-known secret sects, Satanic groups and New Age movements" that revealed the "many ugly heads of the hideous anti-God monster".

An imagined first man, paranoia about secret sects, satanic groups and movements that like the church have no epistemological footing. How much woo can a sentence contain?

756. How Anecdotal Evidence Can Undermine Scientific Results

Comment #216959 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 6:06 pm

TWP, I think you're safe. Barely even notice that you're giving the bird.

757. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #216957 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 6:00 pm

Mitchell, I have that ability sometimes. Usually between after the 3rd beer and it disappears sometime after the 6th or 7th.

758. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #216948 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 5:47 pm

But to avoid any more confusion of topics

Well that's hardly the RD.NET way Steve. Confusion and personal incredulity are the coin. You're becoming a bit of a trouble maker here. As they say in Japan, the nail that sticks up gets hammered down. ;)

759. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #216940 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 5:37 pm

Steve, I'd suck at a debate. The beauty of typing stuff and being able to edit it is that you get time to think, then rethink it. Sometimes that leads to me seeming to know what I'm on about. Sometimes.

760. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #216916 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 5:07 pm

Demerit points for Steve. :D

I'll get my coat....

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

Comment #216913 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 5:02 pm

Joe, just out of interest, have you any proof of god's existence? The Quran cannot ever prove that god exists. God needs to be proven first as the Quran relies on god's existence. So, please prove that god exists. You wish to convert us, the only way to do this is to demonstrate that god exists using principles that we agree upon.

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

Comment #216731 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 1:02 pm

Al, it reminds of certain christian sects that say there are only a few chosen and the rest cannot be saved and it's their fault. Lovely.

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

Comment #216725 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Joe:

GOD HAS CLEARLY SAID THAT THOSE WHO HAVE MADE THEIR WHIMS AND DESIRES THEIR 'GOD' DEGRADE AND RUIN THEMSELVES....
TO THOSE WHO DENY GOD, CREATION, THE SOUL AND THE HEREAFTER

Isn't this the same god who hardened our hearts so we would not believe? Not our fault then is it?

764. How Anecdotal Evidence Can Undermine Scientific Results

Comment #216706 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 12:35 pm

Hi Ty90, join in and comment. You've probably noticed that the only folks who cop a bit of flak are the ones who aren't here to learn and assume they know it all. Which is why I cop a lot of flak, but not as much as I deserve ***ducks!***

The article: humans are great for post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). Whether the hoc is thimerisol, or prayer.....

765. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216385 by Brian English on July 23, 2008 at 5:29 am

Robert spaketh:

Would this be the Brian who cannot distinguish between:

P -> []P

and

<>P -> []P

I quoted what Wikipedia said Robert. I went there to check Goedels argument and that's what it said. Don't like that, take it up with Wikipedia.

As it is, this is your dodgy argument, which can be rejected:

If god possibly exists, then god necessarily exists.

Why would anybody accept this premise? But even if one were to accept it, we then have to ask, does god possibly exist? And even then, you've only established a logical proof (start with a certain set of premises, apply logic, get result because of formal nature of logic) not an empirical fact about this or any other world. It doesn't exist because we say it necessarily does. You can't conjure existence, you need to demonstrate it. Finally, there is nothing contradictory about saying There is no God who is a necessary being.

766. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216051 by Brian English on July 22, 2008 at 5:32 pm

Robert, if there exists the property of no-maximality in any universe then god cannot necessarily exist in all universes. Agree?

767. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216048 by Brian English on July 22, 2008 at 5:29 pm

It's not my error Robert. Why doesn't it work for you? After all, we're just postulating properties and hoping that in doing so we can conjure actual existence from hypothetical existence.

768. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216045 by Brian English on July 22, 2008 at 5:25 pm

Robert, does god exist? Please show this.

769. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216033 by Brian English on July 22, 2008 at 5:12 pm

Linky again.....Seasame street. Seems apt. I'm sure Robert would like to cast us as muppets. :)
Goedel's ontological argument

770. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216032 by Brian English on July 22, 2008 at 5:11 pm

No. You are confusing P -> []P with <>P -> []P.

Well, wikipedia seems confused. It says: If x has the property P, then x necessarily has the property P....

771. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216028 by Brian English on July 22, 2008 at 5:09 pm

By the identity of indiscernibles (q.v.) there is at most one being with all positive attributes

I think most kids would agree that Santa is all positive.

Let's postulate a property of no-maximality. In every world there exists this property, which means that god can't exist in any world because god is maximally positive.

772. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216024 by Brian English on July 22, 2008 at 5:06 pm

I'd be interested to know what your point of view is in placing god necessarily in all worlds? This doesn't seem like a transcendent god now does it?

773. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216021 by Brian English on July 22, 2008 at 5:05 pm

Well, it's axiom 4 in wikipedia's version of Goedel's argument:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof

774. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #215998 by Brian English on July 22, 2008 at 4:29 pm

More crackers? I was glad to get out of that one. People get quite stroppy if you don't toe a certain line.....

775. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #215989 by Brian English on July 22, 2008 at 4:23 pm

Steve and Goldy, how are you guys going? Anything interesting happen here in the last week?

776. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #215985 by Brian English on July 22, 2008 at 4:16 pm

By the way Robert, have you noticed that all ontological arguments make god exist in the world or universe of discourse? Thus god is not outside the universe or transcendent? This god, if it existed would contradict the god that a cosmological argument tries to conjure, as that god is outside the universe......

777. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #215983 by Brian English on July 22, 2008 at 4:14 pm

Robert, do you understand it?

If god exists in any world, god necessarily exists in all worlds

Does god exist in any world? For that you need something else, not an ontological argument.....

778. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #215977 by Brian English on July 22, 2008 at 4:07 pm

Hi Robert, any proof of God yet? Goedel's ontological argument doesn't do it and neither any cosmological argument. You seem to claim some great argument that Dawkins and others missed. Care to share it with us?

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

Comment #215969 by Brian English on July 22, 2008 at 3:44 pm

I have just a basic question...why do you ask for proof of God?

Because truth matters.

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

Comment #215921 by Brian English on July 22, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Hi guys, just back from the south pacific. I see Joe is still regurgitating propaganda. Any proof of god yet?

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

Comment #211379 by Brian English on July 15, 2008 at 11:52 pm

No dramas epeeist. I'm off on holidays so I probably won't visit the site for a week. I wonder if Joe will still be repeating the same inanities in a week?

782. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211341 by Brian English on July 15, 2008 at 8:02 pm

Don't look at me. I've given up on the rational debate angle. I reckon it's time to get nasty. :)

783. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211335 by Brian English on July 15, 2008 at 7:12 pm

The reasonable Brian English has left the building. The current occupier of my brain has this to say:

Kill them all! Let their god sort it out. If it exists.

That felt better. :)

784. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211332 by Brian English on July 15, 2008 at 7:07 pm

SRWB, are they coming up to you and telling you to believe a cracker is the body of a deity? If so, tell them it's only a cracker.
Is your mission in life to deconvert catholics? Maybe you'd better undermine the beliefs and faith that underpin belief in jeebus crackers.

I give up. Trying to be reasonable sucks. It's must easier being a knee-jerk responder. :)

785. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211330 by Brian English on July 15, 2008 at 7:05 pm

My little ill thought out rant above has given me an idea.

Let's see:

Unifying the idea of faith with emotional and physical investment.

1. Religious people always talk about having faith. Some describe it as meaning trust. Trust in Jesus.

2. Religious people invest heavily in their particular faith community. This has obvious benefits. Not least of which are community support, identity, belonging and others that contribute emotional pay offs. The costs are pecuniary, physical, temporal, emotional and require one to accept plainly wrong propositions about the world to prove that one is a strong member of the community.

3. What if having faith meant the undeniable emotional pull of not rejecting one's community, the investment one has made in irrational beliefs. Perhaps faith could better be described as fear of loss.

Thoughts?

786. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211326 by Brian English on July 15, 2008 at 6:57 pm

ed-words hold down alt and type 130 on the numeric key pad.

787. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211324 by Brian English on July 15, 2008 at 6:56 pm

PsyPro, I don't want to misunderstand you, but are you saying that because some Catholics did something, all Catholics deserve it?
As for the you know it, they know it part. Religious belief works by minimizing truth. It also requires costly investment in the community, i.e. tithing, demonstrating one's humility, weekly religious ceremonies, but especially claiming to believe the irrational. When a person has a lot invested in the community, and the hope of an afterlife, just pointing out that that cracker is no more than a cracker will push them into a corner. They're not just going to give up this investment because you point to the Elephant in the room, and I think it unlikely that driving them away will mollify the strength of their irrational beliefs.

Having said that, PZ will do what he will do, and I trust he'll have it all worked out.

788. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #211317 by Brian English on July 15, 2008 at 6:39 pm

Gregg, you make it sound like a bad thing. :)

QED = Quod erat demonstrandum

The complete phrase is:

Quod erat demonstrandum, demonstratus est.

That which was to be demonstrated, has been demonstrated.

789. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211315 by Brian English on July 15, 2008 at 6:35 pm

By one sided I assume you're referring to religious characterizations of materialists/atheists/secularists as being amoral and all that? I guess some believers do that, though not all.
The thing is, if we attack them, that'll help their persecution complexes along as well....

790. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211302 by Brian English on July 15, 2008 at 6:03 pm

I'm all for standing up and arguing against their beliefs, especially in public. I think PZ and Dawkins among others are great at this. I guess I'm only against attacking people instead of beliefs.....

791. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211299 by Brian English on July 15, 2008 at 6:01 pm

Phil, you do know that on the south Pacific islands where cannibalism was practiced human flesh was called 'long pork' don't you? Because of the similarities in taste.

So, deep fried jeebus cracker may taste like pig.

792. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211298 by Brian English on July 15, 2008 at 5:59 pm

Dace and troodon. I think you both make good points in demonstrating the absurdity of the belief. If a cracker that's been transubstantiated has no observable differences from one that hasn't, how can one tell? and therefore how does one know there's a difference?

I'm can imagine one reply. you have to have faith....sigh...

793. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211286 by Brian English on July 15, 2008 at 5:39 pm

If Donohue really believed in transubstantiation he would be demanding scientific tests to prove his case, but he will never do that because he knows the whole concept is complete bullshit. I'm getting so sick of the attempts by religionuts to limit our free speech.

No. This is the ingenious part of transubstantiation. The cracker is still a cracker because all its 'accidents' such as taste, molecular structure, appearance are those of a cracker. The 'substance' has changed from the substance of a cracker, to the substance of jeebus. So, testing can't refute this belief. The whole concept of substance vs accidents is philosophically dodgy, but just because there's no reason to believe it's true, you can't show it to be false. It's a gap that can fit jeebus. ;)

794. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211283 by Brian English on July 15, 2008 at 5:36 pm

I agree Goldy, but we can rethink our position and retract a statement where went overboard. Or we can act like I do, and dogmatically hold any absurdity once it's been expressed. :)

Poor bastard. The curse of 8teist is a strong one.

795. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211278 by Brian English on July 15, 2008 at 5:30 pm

Phil, good idea, I see a few minor problems with it. The whole obtaining of skin graft, and the assumption that transubstantiated jeebus tastes like skin graft. But all in all, it may work to convince Catholics that symbolic cannibalism isn't so wonderful.

Is it cannibalism or deity eating?

796. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211277 by Brian English on July 15, 2008 at 5:29 pm

So, you're saying that debate on an online website is an unguarded moment? I think people getting so angry that they lump a disparate group into one simple label, while understandable, may not be what we're aiming for in an 'oasis of clear thinking'.

Just my 2C.

Don't worry. I'm off on holiday tonight. When I get back in a week, I'm sure I'll be the knee-jerk atheist of old.

797. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211270 by Brian English on July 15, 2008 at 5:19 pm

Goldy, you seem to be confusing a description with a prescription.
It is natural for humans to generalize (description). It's not necessary that we just assume that's the only way we can act (prescription).

Now, where's my beer?

798. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211266 by Brian English on July 15, 2008 at 5:14 pm

Goldy, if generalizations cannot but be made, then we're just as irrational as the rest. :D

I know you are against generalizations, so that remark isn't aimed at you. ;)

799. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211261 by Brian English on July 15, 2008 at 5:07 pm

If Catholics hadn't been so aggressive to Webster Cook then I wouldn't agree with trying to offend them by showing disdain for their crackers,

Fallacy of overgeneralization me thinks. Some Catholics did this, not all.

800. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211257 by Brian English on July 15, 2008 at 4:55 pm

elad-usa. You've put into words pretty much my point of view. It's about getting people to see the inconsistencies in their world view. Not attacking them or straw-men. Although, now and then, a some well aimed ridicule can work. Just not all the time.