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

Comments by epeeist


751. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #163262 by epeeist on April 18, 2008 at 5:37 am

Comment #163248 by Philip1978


Clearmind's response might be

Te audire non possum. Musa sapientum fixa est in aure
His posts are more "Merda taurorum animas conturbit" and are "Non Gradus Anus Rodentum"

752. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163214 by epeeist on April 18, 2008 at 4:28 am

Comment #163199 by Egomaniac

belief in a higher power is a generally accepted reality.
So you can add argumentum ad populum to the other fallacies you have committed.

Comment #163201 by Egomaniac
Do you think that there cannot be such a thing as a truth for which supporting facts cannot be found?
That's not the way it works. I asked you a question. You need to supply an answer first before we can move on to the next piece of dialogue.

I note you are trying the same tactic here.

Comment #163208 by Egomaniac

I'll give you an explanation for how God created matter out of nothing as soon as you give me an explanation for how matter created itself. It's a paradox, and it gets us nowhere.

753. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163191 by epeeist on April 18, 2008 at 4:04 am

Comment #163184 by Egomaniac

I understand that Ben Stein's movie is probably deserving of some criticism (I myself see it's shaky on a number of things).
Grit your teeth and admit it, it is a dishonest piece of propaganda.

I think you're a little premature in asserting that ID is completely devoid of merit. While I believe in evolution, I also find it to be astoundingly difficult to believe that the first form of life could have assembled itself randomly.
Argument from personal incredulity.

ID is completely devoid of merit. Look at Kuhn's description of the characteristics of science - accuracy, consistency, broad scope, parsimony and fruitfulness in the production of new research programmes. Add in Popper's ideas on testability, falsifiability, empirical strength and lack of ad hoc extensions. ID meets none of these. It simply is not science. As Behe had to admit in the Kitzmiller-Dover trial any definition of science that admitted ID would also have to admit astrology. You aren't going to argue that astrology is a science are you? If you are then I would point you at - http://www.cavehill.uwi.edu/bnccde/ph29a/thagard.html

754. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #163175 by epeeist on April 18, 2008 at 3:46 am

Comment #163171 by clearmind


(Wooter, with his hermaphrodite invisible friend "logic" and his Mona Lisa painted by Piccasso is irrelevant.)
Invisible logic, hmm I forgot the magic word. You are right. Logic is invisible. Since NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED. What do you have? Visible(!) blindwatcmaker, menotthinking, any kind of sieves except the logic sieve, me and my logic will pass.
Eepist: Just between you and I. You look really funny when you mentioned invisible logic? Are you all right?
So was I right, or was I right?

755. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163173 by epeeist on April 18, 2008 at 3:42 am

Comment #163168 by Egomaniac


You say atheism is non-belief in God(s)... what I am using as a definition is that atheism is disbelief in God(s). It is therefore the belief that there is no God (or gods).
Try ~(exists x) G(x)

At some point you are going to have to justify why you think the class of gods contains one member and why that member just happens to be the god you worship.

756. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163142 by epeeist on April 18, 2008 at 3:02 am

Comment #163136 by Egomaniac


OK, I can respect that. I don't think this is a matter where truth can be proven factually, though, so you may end up having to go with what you think is best for you, if you ever want to settle on anything.
So what is truth if it is not correspondence with the facts?

757. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163135 by epeeist on April 18, 2008 at 2:57 am

Comment #163115 by Egomaniac

Of course, there's also the fact that he implies that people who believe in God are insane...

Shorter OED gives "insane" as:

adjective 1 in or relating to an unsound state of mind; seriously mentally ill.
While "delusion" is given as
noun a belief or impression that is not in accordance with a generally accepted reality.
You will note that the two are quite different in meaning. Either you are letting your presuppositions influence your interpretation or guilty of committing the fallacy of equivocation.


Now, getting to comments by actual posters (without naming names):

"I thought this movie would be good for a laugh, but apparantly [sic] not."
You say you were redirected here from the "Expelled" site. Does that mean you are a follower of ID?

What you have to realise is that ID is simply not science. It fulfils none of the requirements pieced together by scientists and philosophers of science in the past centuries. Claiming it is science is dishonest. Further, many (all?) the personal reports of people being dismissed from posts for being proponents of ID have been shown to be incomplete or wrong. The interviews with PZ and RD were done under false pretences, another piece of dishonesty.

As you will have noticed the film has also purportedly used material which they plagiarised or for which they have not obtained permission to broadcast. This is theft.

Hence the negative comments about the film and its proponents on this site.

And it isn't just this site. Go and read the reviews from other places, such as Fox news. A compilation can be found at www.expelledexposed.com

758. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163107 by epeeist on April 18, 2008 at 2:13 am

Comment #163104 by Brian English


Steve, before I disappear did you read my question about Goedel and his attempt to prove the non-existence of time using relativistic space-time?
Didn't he consider the whole universe as rotating? Given this you could travel along a spiral path and return before your time of your departure.

759. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #163077 by epeeist on April 18, 2008 at 12:51 am

The timing of this is completely coincidental to the release of a piece of fucktardology this weekend isn't it?

760. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162722 by epeeist on April 17, 2008 at 10:58 am

Comment #162717 by Santi Tafarella

The film is, based on the trailers, full of stupidities, but it has value as a cultural product, and it adds to reflection upon our culture--it does not detract from it.
This is a definition of "value" that I do not understand.

Beethoven wrote some wonderful music, his opus 131 is one of the most sublime pieces of music I know.

He also wrote "Wellington's Victory". Why do you not here this played in concert halls? Because it is a very bad piece of music. It has virtually no cultural value.

This film is a propaganda piece pure and simple. From the reviews I have seen it isn't even a good propaganda film. Some propaganda pieces may have some cultural value, for example the films of Leni Riefenstahl, but this isn't in that league.

761. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162704 by epeeist on April 17, 2008 at 10:11 am

Comment #162701 by Santi Tafarella

Let me be clear: Just because people make money from a film does not mean that they relinquish their free speech rights.
Who intimated that the film should be squashed? However, free speech rights apply equally to critics of the film.

As to the right of the film to use copyrighted material. Personally I loath the way copyright has been extended for the benefit of the media industry and especially the DMCA. But in this case material has not been used for an open and unfettered dialogue or for parody. It has not been quoted from for the purpose of criticism or scholarship. It has been used for the purpose of propaganda. If nothing else the original producers of the material should be at liberty to point this out and disassociate themselves from this usage.

762. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162669 by epeeist on April 17, 2008 at 7:58 am

Comment #162661 by brother john


The wrangling does bother me. There is something dispiritingly unproductive about it.
We have had a spate of cut and run posters recently. At least one of them was directed here from an "Expelled" web site. Their aims, in general, seem to be to start quarrel dialogue. I would agree that this is unproductive.

Now there is a variety of other dialogue that goes on here. Some of it is irrelevant (discussions on the collision regulations), some of it speculative (the reason that RM left the site for FCOS). Look under the covers and you will find a significant amount of forensic debate, as well as critical discussion. Look at the conversations with Kardashovel and thisisme for examples.

It is only by this kind of dialectic that we learn and advance. It might seem chaotic and some of it may seem to be overly assertive, but it is much friendlier than most sites on the Internet and it offers a substantial variety and depth of intellect.

Where else could you easily have access to physicists, biologists, engineers, mathematicians, philosophers, Arabic scholars, historians all from different countries with different backgrounds.

763. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162643 by epeeist on April 17, 2008 at 6:59 am

Comment #162637 by brother john

I am sitting here quite bamboozled. Just read a selection of the above posts.
Oh come on, we don't bite. Well not people who come here with a serious point to make. OK, well not too hard anyway.

Is love the greatest power found in the human race? Or is it not?
False dichotomy. You are assuming that there is a once-and-for-all greatest power.

764. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162625 by epeeist on April 17, 2008 at 6:39 am

Comment #162620 by Bonzai

We have gone through this before. This is a strawman, No moderate I have heard ever said any faith is good, regardless of content.
In everyday conversation I would agree with you.

However, in some limited situations you do get the automatic deference to faith though it may be coupled with the "that's not my god" defence.

765. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162611 by epeeist on April 17, 2008 at 6:13 am

Comment #162605 by Steve Zara


So that labels not just the admirable and robustly sane Quetz, but also me, epeeist, Benway, AlanW, Philip1978, Cartomancer MPhil and many, many others as loopy.


Wooter posts nearly every day...

766. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162610 by epeeist on April 17, 2008 at 6:10 am

Comment #162602 by NFT


I tend to think that Rule 17 would be clearer if it said something along the lines of: "If you are in a small boat and see a bloody great supertanker bearing down on you, get the hell out of there before it hits you." But maybe I am being simplistic.
I used to teach that as rule zero.

One of the scariest places to sail around the UK is across the English channel. There are large vessels passing you at the rate of 1 every 10 minutes or so and they are constrained by their draft in most cases.

And the other place is the Firth of Clyde with the bloody submarines going at a ridiculous speed and half submerged so you can hardly see them.

767. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162595 by epeeist on April 17, 2008 at 5:42 am

Comment #162590 by clodhopper

While we're discussing lying, consider this...
I refer you to my post - http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2456,The-simple-falsehood-at-the-heart-of-Expelled,PZ-Myers-Pharyngula,page3#161172

I note that David has not followed this up. Let's be charitable and assume that his duties are occupying him.

However, if I was caught out like this then
  1. It might be because I simply misread it for some reason or other. In which case I should post a follow up correcting my mistake
  2. It might be because I had misread it because of my presuppositions about the OP. Personally I would be extremely embarrassed about this and would offer my apologies
  3. If however I had posted it with malice aforethought then I would probably keep quiet about it, lie low for a while and then post something else as though nothing had happened.

768. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162579 by epeeist on April 17, 2008 at 5:03 am

Just responding elsewhere and I had a horrible, horrible thought.

Wooter couldn't possibly be an RM sockpuppet could he? Tell me it isn't possible.

I think I need a cup of tea.

769. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #162576 by epeeist on April 17, 2008 at 4:59 am

Comment #162572 by phatbat

The computer cannot reproduce there for how could it not have a designer. You are not comparing like with like. If computers reproduced, and each time they did the offspring was slightly different from the previous one then we wouldn't be so quick to say it must have a designer.
This will probably make it around the 119'th time that he has been told this. His reaction is the same every time, he sticks his fingers in his virtual ears and goes 'La La La'.

What you will almost certainly see next is a post full of words in capitals accusing me (at least) of bad mouthing him. This will be almost completely incoherent (as opposed to his normal incoherence).

Considering the guy supposedly has a BA and MA (though he won't say where from) I consider that in his purported job as a teacher in primary school (which one and where he won't say) he is pretty close to committing child abuse.

Oh and wooter - my wife teaches at this school - http://www.withington.manchester.sch.uk

Compare this openness with your own. Compare the results this school gets and its ethos with yours.

770. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #162565 by epeeist on April 17, 2008 at 4:31 am

Comment #162562 by mixmastergaz

Clearmind: Are you taking the mickey? Others are conversing with you as if you're serious, but your posts so far read like hoaxes to me.
More and more they look like hoaxes to me too.

However, as jon_sociologist has noted, the responses are not for wooter, they are to demonstrate that this is indeed a clear-thinking oasis to others who come here. Wooter, with his hermaphrodite invisible friend "logic" and his Mona Lisa painted by Piccasso is irrelevant.

771. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162540 by epeeist on April 17, 2008 at 3:51 am

Comment #162517 by NFT


The potential conflict between Rules 17(a)(ii) and 17(b) might provide fertile ground for discussion.
I seem to recall a case in the Panama canal where this conflict was raised.

However, it is over 10 years since I actually taught the course so I couldn't be sure.

A total aside - the husband of one of my pupils told me about selling his boat. He put it up for sale in October and had no enquiries until the end of January. He made an appointment with his potential customer with some trepidation since the boat was on legs at the side of a harbour.

He was incredibly surprised when a 76 year old ex-farmer turned up, offered him his asking price on the spot provided he got the boat ready to sail within a specified time. This was duly done and all the paperwork completed.

He was even more surprised when he got a postcard from Antigua. The farmer and his wife had essentially sailed down to the appropriate latitude, turned right and carried on until they reached the Caribbean. My guy reckoned the trip had added a whole new meaning to their lives.

Can I also say that teaching the course and seeing nervous people become confident in their ability to navigate, and coaching fencing and seeing people (youngsters especially) come to a realisation that this is something they can do and enjoy has brought another measure of meaning to my life.

772. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162528 by epeeist on April 17, 2008 at 3:40 am

Comment #162493 by irate_atheist


Personally, I see no sense in PART E. EXEMPTIONS (Rule 38) Subsection (d) Para (i).
Given that all the other exemptions are temporary I have to agree with you.

Having said that - the biggest thing I ever sailed was only 45' so this isn't a regulation I have ever had to look at in detail.

773. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162520 by epeeist on April 17, 2008 at 3:30 am

Comment #162512 by Egomaniac


I was linked here by the site for Ben Stein's movie.
Ah, the joy of a "Smug Bastard" moment.

The last time we had an invasion of cut and run posters with nothing to say was when Vox Day (vanity) published "The Irrational Atheist". They were directed here from his blog.

The other day I posited the same thing was happening with the release of "Expelled".

The major disappointment has been the lack of somebody like "Pretty Lady" coming and offering to give us a Christian blowjob.

774. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162513 by epeeist on April 17, 2008 at 3:25 am

Comment #162508 by Egomaniac


I'm looking to find specific examples of the behavior I'm referring to (which I did see, believe it or not), but this thread is huge and I'm a little short on time, as it's late here. I will get back to you on that, though.

Can I be Al-Rawandi, can I, can I?

Time of death 10:24 UTC, reason "I am a little short of time"

775. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162499 by epeeist on April 17, 2008 at 3:13 am

Comment #162496 by clodhopper


Indeed. Quick registration. Lob a grenade or three. Run like fuck. Good name for it though.
I refer you (I was going to say my learned friend, but he fizzled too) to http://austhink.com/critical/

Quarrel dialogue is one of the dialogue types defined in informal logic.

776. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162495 by epeeist on April 17, 2008 at 3:07 am

Comment #162491 by Quetzalcoatl


Ironically, Annabanana did a post on her blog yesterday in which she commented on the increase of hit-and-run theists on RD.net, and suggested that they be ignored unless they have something salient to contribute. Perhaps I should have taken her advice.....
Ah well, as my mother would have said "Here's my head, my arse is coming later."

Egomaniac - I note that your registered on the site today. Could I ask you why? Could I also ask whether you were directed here from elsewhere, or did you come of your own accord?

777. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162489 by epeeist on April 17, 2008 at 2:59 am

Comment #162487 by Quetzalcoatl

I would first have to ask for examples of this looking-down" on others.
I would also like to point him at the discussions with the likes of "thisisme" and Kardashovel.

A classic example of initiating with the intent of generating quarrel dialogue.

778. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162480 by epeeist on April 17, 2008 at 2:45 am

Comment #162468 by Egomaniac

everybody has to start somewhere, don't they?
You know we had a poster the other day called Laphroaigman. He started off much like you, apparently he came here to broaden our horizons.

I offered him all sorts of topics to discuss, I was rather hoping he would take me up on the "International Regulations for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea", but he disappeared without responding.

You wouldn't like to take up the challenge would you, how about the difference between vessels constrained by their draft and those restricted in their ability to manoeuvre as a starter?

779. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162463 by epeeist on April 17, 2008 at 2:27 am

Comment #162454 by Egomaniac


Bravo, my fellow atheists! Let's all give ourselves a big pat on the back for our intellectual superiority over the masses of peons that share our meaningless existence, yet like to delude themselves into thinking life is about anything more than self-praise and the belittling of inferiors!
You registered specifically to deliver this gem did you?

Ah well, at least you aren't trying to sell creationist DVDs.

780. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #162462 by epeeist on April 17, 2008 at 2:24 am

Comment #162192 by hungarianelephant

Perhaps the bible's literary importance has waned these last few generations.
Are you considering the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland?

The former is (was?) essentially Catholic and there would have been less emphasis on the bible. As for whether it still is a force in the world then this gives some interesting reading - http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2005/05/02/catholic_church_withers_in_europe/

I caught a bit on the BBC Radio 4 news the other day about the recruitment of Catholic priests in Ireland, I can't find it at the moment. Briefly it indicated that nobody is applying, they had something like 28 recruits last year and parishes are being forced to amalgamate as priests retire.

781. Teacher Expelled Over Religion

Comment #162447 by epeeist on April 17, 2008 at 1:54 am

Comment #162419 by jesustweak


Quick, order your FREE! "Age of the Planet Earth" disk from Dr. Dino.
Hmm, someone who registered yesterday to advertise a creationist DVD.

Back under your bridge!

782. Evolution fray attracts top scientist

Comment #162446 by epeeist on April 17, 2008 at 1:47 am

Comment #162341 by thewhitepearl


why don't we just burn all of the literary texts and replace the educational curriculum with the teachings of the bible.
Ah yes, the bible - because all the works of science cannot equal the wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought that every animal species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house.

783. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162424 by epeeist on April 16, 2008 at 11:51 pm

Comment #162423 by clodhopper


Yup...waste of time. Next time he comes to UK we'll just wizz him down to Sarrat for a debrief with Toby Esterhase.
Well that made me smile(y). I wonder how many other people will get it.

784. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162284 by epeeist on April 16, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Comment #162281 by al-rawandi

I am going home to karate chop a bible.
Having virtually karate chopped a total wingnut on this thread.

That we did miss you for Diacanu, I tried with one guy but it wasn't up to your standards - http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins,page31#161408

785. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162278 by epeeist on April 16, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Comment #162274 by al-rawandi

Bonzai became a Rabbi too. You should really try to keep up.
Yeah, and I have broken my blades a foot from the tips, given up fencing and turned them into knitting needles.

786. Evolution fray attracts top scientist

Comment #162275 by epeeist on April 16, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Comment #162269 by Steve Zara

I am over 40. Hence I have no idea of these "bot-nets" of which you write.
Phew, I can go on referring to anything containing the word "Kraken" to be a) something out of Greek mythology and b) a poem about the same by Tennyson then.

Memo to self: stop using telnet to get to the C & C servers and use ssh instead.

787. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #162267 by epeeist on April 16, 2008 at 1:23 pm

Total aside - my wife teaches at Withington Girls' School. One of the founders was C.P. Scott, editor and owner of the Manchester Guardian.

I suspect he would have spiked this article.

788. Evolution fray attracts top scientist

Comment #162266 by epeeist on April 16, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Comment #162262 by Steve Zara

Me, I think e-mail spamming is a far better way.
You wouldn't own a botnet called Storm by any chance?

789. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162245 by epeeist on April 16, 2008 at 12:34 pm

Comment #162241 by clodhopper

It comes out of the hills just north of Scunthorpe (I think).
Ah, that wonderful town whose inhabitants reputedly used to have all sorts of problems with filtering on search engines.

Mind you they had it easy compared with the denizens of Cockermouth.

790. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162232 by epeeist on April 16, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Comment #162173 by thisisme


Thanks for getting back. Here's my response to your points.
You seem to have had some positive, if critical, responses to your post. I hope you are not too overwhelmed.

The one thing that is fairly obvious is that you are arguing from a position of considerable weakness, if only because your exposure to these ideas seems to be somewhat limited.

Can I re-iterate my advice which has been supplemented by MPhil (someone who knows a lot more about the subject than most), step outside the box, go read some of the references that have been given to you.

Note to everyone else: do you think David Robertson will use this set of posts to show how nice we are to theists?

791. Evolution fray attracts top scientist

Comment #162224 by epeeist on April 16, 2008 at 11:47 am

Comment #162189 by Bigorra


While I am grateful for the work Harold Kroto is doing, some are only going to be swayed by hearing that he's a Nobel laureate, not because he can intelligently explain why there should be no debate in Florida or anywhere else.
I am with "tree with roots" (great moniker). Harry Kroto is one of the great communicators. I heard him a few years back talking about the discovery of buckyballs.

Really nice guy too, he came across to chat with my two daughters who were the youngest people in the room.

792. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162163 by epeeist on April 16, 2008 at 8:56 am

My ears are burning for some reason.

I am not sure intellectual laziness completely explains the boundedness in the understanding of many of the theists we get here. Intellectual laziness would surely mean they were aware of say, the works of Spinoza, but couldn't be arsed to get around to reading them.

What we seem to get is either the complete unawareness of anything that has happened in philosophy and science in the past couple of millenia, or an inaccurate view of them seen through the distortion of their presuppositions, or a complete unwillingness to even consider anything that runs counter to their faith.

793. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #162134 by epeeist on April 16, 2008 at 8:09 am

Comment #162132 by Artful_Dodger

Except when he states quite bluntly that he wants to KILL religious faith.
You have it wrong AD - he doesn't literally want to kill religious faith, its only a metaphor.

794. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162058 by epeeist on April 16, 2008 at 4:52 am

Comment #162051 by MPhil

I'm extremely interested in thisisme's response to my answer to him... not expecting much, though
I think you are probably right. I see him as reasonably intelligent and at least attempting to look for some answers. However I am not convinced he has attempted to step out of the god given absolute morality mindset (as yet?). Perhaps he has not explored other views.

I am constantly bemused, baffled and irritated by the majority of the theists that come to this site who not only have not read anything of other ethical systems but are not even aware that they exist.

795. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162003 by epeeist on April 16, 2008 at 1:57 am

Comment #161996 by thisisme


Was out all day yesterday and expected to find a response to my earlier questions on my reappearance today.
As you may have noticed we seem to have an infestation of trolls at them moment (not you I hasten to add).

One thing I would agree with though - this discussion is too 'spread out'. Maybe this isn't the best place to hold a debate.
You might want to suggest a formal debate on the fora. What subject would you want to raise?

Incidentally, if you have been advised to read Mackie's book on ethics this isn't really atheist. It just doesn't invoke a god of any kind. Lots of books don't mention gods, are they all atheist?

796. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161994 by epeeist on April 16, 2008 at 1:42 am

Comment #161971 by billright


Seeing that it's the 21st century, Instead of coming up with newer technospeak about the same old theories and their obvious oppositions...why not be so 'mad rad' and invent 'hybrid' theories that spend less time doing away with God (or god, gods, goddes...) and really use our imgaination.
Invent as many conjectures as you like, scientists do it all the time even though much of it may be at the mundane level.

Of course when you do come up with a conjecture you are going to have to subject it to some testing. If it doesn't pass a crucial test you are going to have to discard it. If it does pass a series of crucial tests but is less parsimonious than current theories that explain the current data, is less accurate or less fruitful of new research possibilities then people aren't going to beat a path to your door.

797. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161708 by epeeist on April 15, 2008 at 2:18 pm

Comment #161218 by Artful_Dodger


Ther are clearly many theist philosophers and scientist that you have not had the chance to listen to. I actually think that there are a number of theist debaters from whom Dawkins is cutting and running before any engagement starts.
I missed this earlier.

Got to take your word for it. As a master of the cut and run you would know all about it.

798. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161694 by epeeist on April 15, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Comment #161680 by Steve Zara


[I gave up on a thread today when a theist was attempting to demonstrate using Bayes Theorem how the human brain could hold contradictory ideas (theism and science) without conflict.
I am reading a paper by Salmon on theory choice using subjective Bayesianism. Part of "Philosophy of Science, the Central Issues" by Curd and Cover.

I am still unsure as to how they get to the values of prior probabilities. I suppose your guys simply do what Plantinga appears to do, make values up that fit the answer they want to get to.

799. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161675 by epeeist on April 15, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Comment #161474 by navyjake95

Like it or not, I'll pray for you.
My daughter going to be out in Dharamsala in the summer helping with a women's refuge.

She at least will be making a difference in the world. Praying to non-existent entity might make you feel good but it does fuck all for anyone else.

800. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161437 by epeeist on April 15, 2008 at 9:42 am

Comment #161433 by MaxD


Hold on I am getting rained on by G-d droppings. Whatever they are.
Not much different from stepping in D_g droppings.

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