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 Quetzalcoatl


751. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163096 by Quetzalcoatl on April 18, 2008 at 1:43 am

Back on topic-

Steve, you make an interesting point about what macroevolution is. I had always thought of macroevolution being the term for significant changes accumulating in an organism over a period of time as a consequence of microevolution.

752. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163092 by Quetzalcoatl on April 18, 2008 at 1:34 am

Brian-

apparently my response appeared on FCOS then disappeared while I was asleep. Very odd.

I had been giving RM the benefit of the doubt, having realised that by "well-balanced" he could have meant "unbiased". But when in a later comment he used the phrase "psychologically well-balanced", it was obvious what he had meant.

753. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163083 by Quetzalcoatl on April 18, 2008 at 1:15 am

Off topic-

Having read RM's insults yesterday I composed a response criticising what he had said. This morning I received an e-mail from David Robertson telling me that my response will not be displayed, in the interests of keeping the thread "on topic". I appreciate that not everyone here cares about this, but for those who might be interested, my response to RM's original post can be found here:

http://musingsofastrangemind.blogspot.com/2008/04/irate-response.html

754. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162642 by Quetzalcoatl on April 17, 2008 at 6:59 am

Brother John-

I would say that love is ONE OF the greatest powers of the human race. The others would be empathy (which is not quite the same as love), and our capacity for reason. I think the difficulty lies in finding a balance between the three. What do you think?

755. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162623 by Quetzalcoatl on April 17, 2008 at 6:35 am

Al-Rawandi-

reply sent.

756. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162609 by Quetzalcoatl on April 17, 2008 at 6:10 am

Cartomancer-

is it too late to compliment you on your scarf? Very rakish.

757. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162604 by Quetzalcoatl on April 17, 2008 at 6:00 am

Paula-

fair enough.

EDIT- it just irritates me a little when he makes comments about entire groups of posters here, as if we are some kind of homogenous god-hating entity.

758. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162596 by Quetzalcoatl on April 17, 2008 at 5:48 am

Richard Morgan has also done another post. Lowlights:

David is absolutely correct in affirming that many RDNetters are there because they have an axe to grind. I was one of them!
Many months ago I noticed that those who seemed to be the most "well-balanced" (who am I to judge?) either posted quite rarely or didn't stay long


By this logic I must be completely unhinged.

But if you consider the ideas and feelings expressed by RDNet atheists, in reality you discover very little interest for the well-being of humanity.


Lovely.

And please be assured, this is not RDNet, and what you say will not be pounced upon to be used against you.


Taken from here:

http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?topic=25.msg270#msg270

759. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162594 by Quetzalcoatl on April 17, 2008 at 5:42 am

Clodhopper-

let's find out.

Atheism is a whole lot more than a lack of belief in deities. RD net is a great illustration of that.


Lie.

Paula Kirby let the cat out of the bad when she spoke of the central atheist tenets


Distortion, corrected repeatedly by Paula.

The fact that you use the term 'we' for your group indicates that


A quite baffling attempt to make a point.

Atheism as espoused on RD net is an alternative religious philosophy - with its own standards, beliefs, morals and presuppositions.


Four lies, if you count its "attributes".

Why be an atheist? Because if the beliefs fit you they may well meet deep seated psychological demands


Incidentally that is why I am demonised on RD net - people don't like their fundamental beliefs being challenged and so they react emotionally


Distortions.

In many of the atheists on Dawkins website it is clear that they have a deep rooted psychological need NOT to believe. Perhaps it is because of religious abuse in the past, perhaps because of painful experience, or maybe it is just good old fashioned rebellion against God


Distortions, presuming to speak for an entire group.

All this was taken from here:

http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?topic=25.msg269#msg269

760. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162585 by Quetzalcoatl on April 17, 2008 at 5:15 am

Epeeist-

drink that tea and calm down. I don't think it's so.

761. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162537 by Quetzalcoatl on April 17, 2008 at 3:50 am

irate_atheist-

Silence. Your powers are weak, old man.

762. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162533 by Quetzalcoatl on April 17, 2008 at 3:46 am

I am shocked and amazed that Egomaniac has departed without providing any evidence to back up his assertions. Who would have thought that such a thing would occur? My faith in humanity is shaken.

763. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162521 by Quetzalcoatl on April 17, 2008 at 3:33 am

Quetzalcoatl-

I don't consider an atheist's existence to be meaningless. Why would I?


Then why say it?

If you believe that we are here for no reason, where is the meaning in your existence?


Do try and stick to what I asked you. I'm not getting side-tracked.

I'm looking to find specific examples of the behavior I'm referring to (which I did see, believe it or not)


Unless you can supply those examples, I'm going to go with "not". Strange that they're so hard to find.

I will get back to you on that, though


You'll pardon me, I'm sure, if I don't hold my breath.

764. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162510 by Quetzalcoatl on April 17, 2008 at 3:23 am

Egomaniac-

still waiting for those examples. Or have you already fled, having done your "duty"?

765. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162491 by Quetzalcoatl on April 17, 2008 at 3:03 am

Epeeist-

a crime of which it seems Egomaniac is guilty.

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.....

766. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162487 by Quetzalcoatl on April 17, 2008 at 2:56 am

Egomaniac-

You have a skewed interpretation of what is and is not obvious. It was mere hyperbole


Why start your first post with such hyperbole? Do you consider atheists' existence to be meaningless?

Do you think the notion that some people here seem to enjoy looking down on others is absurd?


I would first have to ask for examples of this "looking-down" on others.

767. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162471 by Quetzalcoatl on April 17, 2008 at 2:34 am

Egomaniac-

It's pretty obvious when you use phrases like "meaningless existence" and "self-praising and the belittling of inferiors" that you are not interested in genuine discussion.

768. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162459 by Quetzalcoatl on April 17, 2008 at 2:20 am

Egomaniac-

Bravo, my fellow poster! Give yourself a big pat on the back for making your first post such a wonderful and intellectually stimulating comment.

If you've got something to say that's worth discussing, say it. Otherwise, don't bother.

769. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162309 by Quetzalcoatl on April 16, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Diacanu-

indeed.

770. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162306 by Quetzalcoatl on April 16, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Diacanu-

the post appeared on FCOS only this morning.

771. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162303 by Quetzalcoatl on April 16, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Clodhopper-

Maybe I'm not. Or maybe I'm just saying it to get the ball rolling. To help you mortals out. Hmm. Who knows?

772. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162294 by Quetzalcoatl on April 16, 2008 at 2:14 pm

Clodhopper said-

But I had a general sense that many of his posts were looking for strokes & attention seeking without contributing overly much


While I do agree, I think we need to remember that we are all probably guilty of this to some degree. I freely admit that I am, with my attempts at humour and occasional promotion of personal projects. (I'm not criticising anyone, just saying).

773. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162180 by Quetzalcoatl on April 16, 2008 at 9:27 am

thisisme-

But when we criticise the logic or morality of others we are a priori assuming the existance of an ultimate standard by which we can judge them.


Not so. There are no ultimate, unchangeable, unbreakable standards of morality. If you believe that there are, could you name some?

I believe that God is abolute, thus the values which are part of his character are also absolute. I believe that the laws of God's nature, the laws of logic, the laws of morality, are *defined* by his nature. They don't make his nature necessary, they are necessary because they are his unchanging nature. That is where I believe the laws of morality come from - they merely reflect the nature of God.


This is merely assertion without evidence.

This was my original point - *if* there is no moral objectivity, why does RD criticise someone for lying? How can we say that anything is wrong for anyone else? How can we say that anything was wrong in the past, or will be in the future, or is wrong in a different society?


Because while there are no absolute standards, we by contrast do not live in a society of complete moral relativity.

Thisisme: you raise some good points, and I apologise if you think my answers are too short, but time is against me. I'll be back later.

774. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162106 by Quetzalcoatl on April 16, 2008 at 6:56 am

I linked to this earlier on; I especially "like" this section of it:

David - thank you for having had the persistence and determination to show up on RDNet.
RDNet - thank you for having shown me the limits of materialism and "rational thinking". I will happily continue to use these for driving to work, preparing a cassoulet and being operated on for my hernia.
But for the essential, for that which gives freedom, I shall henceforth be looking elsewhere.


I think the words speak for themselves.

775. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162009 by Quetzalcoatl on April 16, 2008 at 2:03 am

Irate-

you big meanie. Although in his FCOS post RM did offer to e-mail detailed thoughts on his conversion to anyone who was interested. Perhaps one of us could sign up for that?

776. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162000 by Quetzalcoatl on April 16, 2008 at 1:52 am

thisisme-

it might be easier if you summarise them in a single comment, then that comment can be linked to at a later date if people lose track again.

Phil Rimmer-

I get that impression as well, but I think all of us crave notice to a certain extent, otherwise we wouldn't bother posting here. I'm not saying it's the primary reason, but there is an element of it.

777. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161987 by Quetzalcoatl on April 16, 2008 at 1:13 am

Peacebeuponme-

We await the inevitable gloating comment on this site from David Robertson


I agree. It will come.

778. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161984 by Quetzalcoatl on April 16, 2008 at 1:07 am

MPhil-

Well thank you Quetz... reading that post of RM's just ruined my day.


It's what I do.

779. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161982 by Quetzalcoatl on April 16, 2008 at 12:44 am

Looks like the thread has turned interesting.

Off topic-

one of RM's posts on FCOS made me think that he was gearing up for the leap into Christianity. I was right:

http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?PHPSESSID=79bce46b434b28dc7336ebb5c9952d17&topic=25.msg261#msg261

780. School bars same-sex partners at formals

Comment #161643 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 1:18 pm

Tezcatlipoca-

p.s. I challenge Quetzalcoatl to an obsidian vine cage match


Bring it, jaguar-boy. I'll cut your remaining foot off and feed it to a python!

781. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161488 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 10:45 am

Strength-

I'm sure MaxD is trembling with fear right now. Ha!

782. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161423 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 9:28 am

European arrogance


So "Strength" is most likely American.

783. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161396 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 8:46 am

Kardashovel-

But as it is, you just sound like someone that thinks every conversation should revolve around your wishes. Good luck with that


In fact I think that everything should revolve around my wishes. The rest of the world, sadly, does not agree. :-)

784. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161392 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 8:38 am

Kardashovel-

Not really. I'm sure that will be a disappointment to those that think I'm here to make converts.


No, it will be a disappointment to those who thought that you were here to back up your assertions. And it makes cynical people like me suspicious.

785. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161376 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 8:21 am

Kardashovel-

He steered me away from those types of questions, essentially by insisting that He was there to talk about me, and the future. I was distracted by the rest of the discussion, and I felt that, given the situation, He wasn't gonna stick around to be interrogated


Or perhaps part of you did not want to speculate too closely about where that voice might be coming from.

To answer your earlier question, He never explicitly said that He was not me. But it was pretty clear to me that He was not me, even though he spoke in my inner voice


Hmm. Never said he was God either.

786. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161363 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 8:03 am

Kardashovel-

Again. What did the voice tell you about itself?

787. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161344 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 7:33 am

Kardashovel-

you didn't answer my question. Did the voice TELL you that it was from an external entity, or is that just the conclusion that you came to?

788. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161322 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 6:59 am

Karda-

the answers about those people and situations were definitely not part of my psyche. Nor were the issues that He wanted to discuss


So from that you go to the conclusion that the voice is from an external entity. Interesting logic. Did the voice tell you this?

789. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161315 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 6:48 am

Kardashovel-

but this conversation followed my interests too, and there was no question that did not have an immediate answer


Closely followed your interests, eh? Wow, it's almost as if this voice was an aspect of your own psyche. Crazy.

790. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161265 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 4:47 am

Artful_Dodger-

Well, no. Because Shakespeare's intervention, though all embracing and all-pervasive, was actually invisible. Nevertheless, there would not have been a play without it.


Strange, then, that you claim such knowledge, Hamlet.

Insofar as there is evidence for the reliability of the 4 gospel accounts of Jesus' life, death and resurrection, there can be said to be evidence of God's interaction with the world


The Gospels are unreliable, contradict each other, and do not tally well with history. Hardly revelatory.

And are you making the assertion that the Gospels are the ONLY evidence of God's interaction with the world? If so, why? If not, what other sources of evidence do you have?

791. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161254 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 4:30 am

On my blog I've just posted the first of several on believers' inner feelings and relationships with God.

But there are few who claim that God is purely external to the Universe. For him to have inspired the Bible or to interact at all, he must be linked in some way. The fact that therefore such an intrusion into the physical Universe should be scientifically testable is an awkward one, and often ignored.

792. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #161231 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 3:50 am

Wooter-

that equals 102%. Check your sums.

Steve-

it's ClearMIND not ClearTHINKER posting. You've gotten them muddled.

793. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161228 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 3:47 am

Epeeist-

I didn't meant to nitpick, but it always jars a little, and I don't want any of the less honourable theists to use such phrases against us.

794. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161224 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 3:40 am

Epeeist-

the other option was "I ignore the bits I don't like".

I agree with you for the most part, but some of the theist posters we get are honest and try to explain their positions properly without resorting to hit-and-run tactics. Brother John and Mark Taunton are excellent examples of this.

795. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161217 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 3:29 am

Epeeist-

I'd be surprised if he returns. He seems to be doing hit and run attacks on any thread with "Richard Dawkins" in the title at the moment.

And you have already had the answer for the metaphor question. YOU JUST KNOW.

796. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #161195 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 2:48 am

Steve-

Do you have a similiar concern for particle physics? If not, why not?


Personally, I'm very concerned about the possibilities surrounding the Higgs Boson, the supposed "God-Particle" :-)

797. A New Flea

Comment #161154 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 12:56 am

thewhitepearl-

if there's a list of which books are most thrown away, one of them might top that.

798. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161152 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 12:51 am

Geoff-

Out by 2 hours, Quetz? You're slipping!


Not at all. My TOD prediction related to Artful Dodger, so it was correct. Do not question your god.

799. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160937 by Quetzalcoatl on April 14, 2008 at 3:01 pm

How are we to know Henri is different to AsMarques with his holocaust denial gibberish on one of the other threads?


Indeed. It is not unreasonable to assume that someone is sincere in what they write, if it is not clearly obvious that they are not serious.

800. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160931 by Quetzalcoatl on April 14, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Henri Bergsen-

Evolutionary psychology is very fruitful and interesting, and it can explain *why* we behave in certain manners; but it cannot explain how we *should* behave.


This is what cultural consensus and debate is all about. That is how we make things better. And if we have made things better, moved on from our more primitive days, I see nothing wrong in judging those who have not, like those in Yemen who think sex with small children is okay. Atheism does not equal absolute moral relativism and nihilism. At least not in my case.

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