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


1251. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #133927 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 3:14 am

Comment #133913 by Steve Zara

Steve - may I pick a small nit with you.

Is there any chance of you making a back reference to the OP when you make a quote. Otherwise it can be a little difficult to follow the context.

1252. Fleabytes

Comment #133918 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 3:03 am

Comment #133914 by Quetzalcoatl

Now, who would like to join me in a game of "Spot the Glaring Differences?"

I should have done what you did, namely cut and paste Lorien's actual post.

Got to agree with both Steve and RD. Robertson only comes here to provoke. Glad to see that fewer people are rising to the bait.

You will note that even though he has responded to one of my comments he has yet to define what our tenets and creeds are.

1253. Fleabytes

Comment #133897 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 2:26 am

Comment #133893 by clearthinker


Eppeist (1050) - I was responding to the claim that " all of the scienctific and philosophical pursuits of the greatest minds in history" were on the side of atheism." (Lorien 936). Something that is demonstrably false.
Well if he had actually said this then it would be false. I will leave it to other readers to go back and look at the comment and see what he actually said.

1254. Fleabytes

Comment #133881 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 2:08 am

Comment #133860 by clearthinker

Are you suggesting that Newton, Augustine, Calvin, Edwards, Galileo, Plato, Jesus, Paul, Aquinas, Milton, etc were all atheists?
No, but just because the majority of people in times past believed in something doesn't make it true. How many believers in Tir na nOg now exists, or phlostigon?

1255. Fleabytes

Comment #133874 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 1:57 am

Comment #133860 by clearthinker


But in the surreal world of atheist fundamentalism that is apparently not how it works.
In the real world of discourse one doesn't use the mechanisms of quarrel dialogue.

So, since we are atheist fundamentalists on this site - what are our dogmas, tenets and creeds. You have still to answer this.

1256. Fleabytes

Comment #133681 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Comment #133579 by Paula Kirby


Wasn't the Second Coming due by now? Are you thinking what I'm thinking ...?
I thought that was 2012, the end of the Mayan calendar?

1257. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133679 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Comment #133648 by Goldy


My martial arts instructor is a fairly short guy, probably only a few inches above Anna's height. He could without question beat the crap out of the biggest and heaviest guy in our class

Ok, two more things then I'm off to bed.

There was one guy I used to hate when I was fencing competitively, he was 7' 2" tall. Which meant that everything was target, since he could see above your guard. The only way to beat him was to flèche at his knees (a move I have been teaching a lot tonight, which is why I am going to bed early).

The second is the motto of the European veterans association "Age and treachery will always defeat youth and skill".

Oh, and sabreurs are faster than sprinters over a short distance.

1258. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133672 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Comment #133559 by The Reverend Dark


Whoever said size does not matter in a fight was a big guy. And he was lying.

There is a wonderful coach called Zbigniew Czajkowski. He divides fencers into two extreme classes, warriors and technicians. The warriors win by speed and strength but tend not to be particularly skilful. However, they don't last particularly well. The technicians tend to see through them fairly quickly and like McCavity they are never there when the warriors make an attack. Technicians go on for ever.

Czajkowski was in the UK last year. Came to the podium to start his talk using a Zimmerframe. He also has a heart pacemaker. He is 86. He gave a demonstration on the use of timing just standing still. Nobody could hit him and when he turned the action around nobody could stop his attacks.

1259. Fleabytes

Comment #133531 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 9:58 am

Comment #133520 by Frankus1122


I was at a conference yesterday talking about what is crucial for students to learn in school.
Information is ubiquitous and it is increasingly easy to access it.
Critical thinking skills are most important. Detecting bias, authenticating sources, looking for internal consistency - these are skills that need to be taught and fostered.
Students need to question the validity of the information they access.

Hmm, you might like these lines from another poem then:

"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"

1260. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #133527 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 9:48 am

Comment #133521 by Epinephrine

Isn't that just Russell's paradox?

I like Hofstadter too. However most people only seem to have read "Godel, Escher, Bach". I enjoyed "Le Ton beau de Marot: In Praise of the Music of Language".

1261. Pakistan blocks YouTube over blasphemous video

Comment #133491 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 8:37 am

It seems as though it isn't just the Pakistanis that are keen on shutting down technology - http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080225-taliban-wants-cell-phone-networks-shut-down-at-night.html

1262. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #133471 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 8:14 am

OK smartarses - but I want to know whether the set of all sets which do not contain themselves contains itself.

1263. Pakistan blocks YouTube over blasphemous video

Comment #133462 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 8:05 am

Comment #133459 by al-rawandi


How did England even acquire those territories? It wasn't exactly a hop skip and a jump from the home Isle.
Make that Britain rather than England.

Probably the same way the Spaniards and Portuguese acquired most of South America.

The fight really wasn't about some rather small islands though.

1264. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #133440 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 7:34 am

Comment #132783 by wooter


If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn't God need a cause? And if God doesn't need a cause, why should the universe need a cause? In reply, Christians should use the following reasoning:
1.Everything which has a beginning has a cause.1
2.The universe has a beginning.
3.Therefore the universe has a cause.

You really ought to try this one wooter:

  1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
  2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
  3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
  4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
  5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one who created everything while not existing.
  6. Therefore, God does not exist.
A master logician like yourself should be able to spot the flaws in it.

Please submit your answer in the format of first order predicate calculus.

1265. Pakistan blocks YouTube over blasphemous video

Comment #133435 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 7:27 am

Comment #133434 by AshtonBlack


You forgot the Velcro(tm) gloves!!
Nah, the lanolin is good for your hands.

1266. Pakistan blocks YouTube over blasphemous video

Comment #133432 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 7:24 am

Comment #133406 by hungarianelephant


The right to speak a language with no vowels (although no one was preventing you from doing so in the first place), invent place names, have an expensive talking shop in Cardiff paid for by the English taxpayer, and be able to discriminate against anyone who can hold a conversation without spitting.
Many years ago I did my Ph.D in North Wales. I had difficulty finding accommodation because certain halls were only open to Welsh speakers. The fact that these were only one third full, while the "mixed" halls were overflowing made no difference.

While I was there the Welsh Nationalists managed to get the university to agree to make all labels bilingual. When they came round to where I was working and asked what it was called I told them it was the microwave spectroscopy laboratory. My lab and most other research labs remained with their monolingual labels.

I had a couple of good fights while I was there. The first happened when I pointed out to a nationalist that there was little difference in size between Yorkshire and Wales, and since the former had as much water, coal and steel as the latter then his economic plan might be a little lacking.

The second happened when I was sitting in a pub on the Island (Anglesey) with a friend of mine. At one point he got up, wandered across to the bar and decked a guy. Came back and sat down again. Nothing was said. His accent might have been Surrey, but his surname was Llewellyn.

I left when I finished my degree. The only time I have been back was to catch the ferry to Ireland from Holyhead. The only improvement that I could see was that you can now go into a pub for a drink on Sunday.

1267. Pakistan blocks YouTube over blasphemous video

Comment #133401 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 6:52 am

Comment #133394 by al-rawandi


I am a Welsh Nationalist.

What do I win?
A sheep and a pair of oversized wellington boots.

1268. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133397 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 6:50 am

Comment #133373 by Quetzalcoatl


if they're from Arkansas, why not ask them their opinion on the Clintons?
Boyfriend was at the same university as Bill and has worked as an intern for the Democrats.

I think the parents are a mixture, father is liberal mother is religious and conservative.

1269. Pakistan blocks YouTube over blasphemous video

Comment #133392 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 6:45 am

Comment #133361 by AshtonBlack


Dude, we Brits ARE Europeans. I mean, there is a small minority of peeps who would like to "up anchor" and float the HMS "Great Britain" to the other side of the pond, but alas we are still part of the continent of Europe.
There are some people whose mindset is set in home counties of the 1950's who would like that small part of England to be divorced from the rest of the UK, never mind Europe. This would generate a paradise with warm beer, village cricket, the church clock standing at half past three with honey sandwiches for tea.

1270. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133353 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 5:43 am

Comment #133352 by annabanana

Of course, I live in the Bible Belt of the US right now

Hi Anna, the parents of my daughter's boyfriend are coming to visit us shortly. They hail from Arkansas. Could you suggest some good topics of conversation ;-)

Nice picture by the way.

1271. Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning

Comment #133335 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 4:52 am

Just listening to Melvyn Bragg's "In Our Time" from last week (Podcast available from the http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/ website). The topic is the Multiverse. Good introductory piece.

Also came across Celestia - http://www.shatters.net/celestia/ Quite impressive.

1272. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #133316 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 4:01 am

Comment #133312 by Quetzalcoatl

Pah, karate. What about Tae Kwon Do?
Nothing in the paper about it. Though watching a couple of videos, I think against a sabreur with a sharp blade they would probably lose feet.

1273. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #133307 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 3:48 am

Comment #133277 by LuisGarcia


If so, read this.

clickety click
Which falls flat on its face. The author(s) can't tell the difference betwee a valid and a sound argument.

1274. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #133305 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 3:43 am

Comment #133302 by The Reverend Dark


(And no, I am not going to get into 'The Ultimate Battle of Ultimate Destiny' with Epeeist.)

Agreed, too much difference in both styles and aims.

You might care to have a look at this though - http://www.esgrima.cat/barcelona2008/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40&Itemid=46

These are the abstracts from the 1st conference on science and technology in fencing which took place in Barcelona recently. I was one of the participants. It is mostly about sports fencing, but there are one or two papers on the history of fencing and duelling as well as knife fighting that might interest you. The physiological aspects should be applicable as well.

For the martial artists - there is an interesting paper showing that fencers have better reaction times and can identify situations significantly better than karate practitioners.

1275. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #133301 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 3:33 am

Comment #133295 by The Reverend Dark

The link to the theobald paper that epeeist posted is another great place to start.
But if you come back in the next day and tell us you have read it then, in the inimitable words of irate_atheist, we will know you are a lying fucktard.

1276. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #133293 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 3:16 am

Comment #133287 by wooter


1. How does E.T explain luck and coincidence or chances that have no consciousness is able to design and create intelligible, conscious creation, human being who can hear, see, feel. Sad or happy?

Wooter - once and for all

  1. Mutations are random; Selection is non-random. This means that overall evolution is not random.

  2. Just because things look designed doesn't prove they are

  3. Even if they were designed you have yet to prove that:
    • They were designed by a god
    • That this god is still interfering in the world
    • That this god is the one you believe in

Incidentally - we have answered all of your questions. How about answering one of mine, what do you think of the scientific credentials of the people who wrote this paper - http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/article.asp?doi=f29757101091

1277. Pakistan blocks YouTube over blasphemous video

Comment #133242 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 1:04 am

Comment #133218 by sent2nullThe funny thing about site "blocking" to IT geeks like myself is that it is rarely ever done properly.
So the truism holds - the Internet sees any attempt to block it as damage and routes around it.

1278. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #133236 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 12:31 am

Comment #133166 by Shmeezers


How so? Please tell me. Has anyone ever been able to witness new material being added to the genome - i.e., the process of macro-evolution?

And you get the obligatory link to the Theobald paper - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

1279. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #132873 by epeeist on February 25, 2008 at 10:53 am

Comment #132869 by Shmeezers


The fact that these essays are not published in popular science reviews says nothing. I wouldn't expect evolutionists to publish something that puts their theory into question. This observation is rather elementary. Please understand that Darwinism is a religion, and it does not tolerate any dissent. (This blog demonstrates that quite clearly.)

They aren't published in anything that has any thing to do with science, never mind popular science reviews. Why? Because they aren't science.

As for your conspiracy theory - it is a nonsense. Think of all the scientists you know, all the famous ones. Why are they famous? Because they disproved the then accepted theories. Come up with a new theory (and I mean theory, not some off hand conjecture) that disproves the theory of evolution and you are looking at a Nobel prize. The journal that publishes your work will bask in the reflected glory.

And I would change your sentence "This observation is rather elementary." to "This assertion is simplistic and has no backing".

1280. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #132835 by epeeist on February 25, 2008 at 9:09 am

Comment #132831 by The Reverend Dark


Where is your scientific proof of your claim that Beelzebuffo Ampinga is the same as modern frogs?
A frog he would a wootering go, hey ho said Rowley...

Sorry, couldn't resist it. One that I used to sing to my kids when they were about five. Of course they could tell the difference between the frogs we got in our pond and the ones in Chester zoo by that age.

1281. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132712 by epeeist on February 25, 2008 at 6:43 am

Comment #132704 by Geoff

Rather than constantly asking them for evidence for their deity, which the above seems to show is futile, (and which we've seen so often just leads to "la, la, la, I can't hear you") would it be more effective, say, to put more emphasis on first pointing out the fallacies and inconsistencies of their "truth"?
I don't think so - as I have said before if the evidence shows a scientific theory is wrong then we discard the theory. If the evidence shows that faith is wrong then the evidence is discarded.

I think the way to do it is to only work on their beliefs, we are aiming to show theism is false not that atheism is true.

This being so then we ought to be looking at the consequences of faith and showing that these are not fulfilled.

1282. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #132705 by epeeist on February 25, 2008 at 6:34 am

Comment #132548 by The Reverend Dark


Here you go, kicking Milton in the nards concerning his fabricated claims on uranium 238
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

You beat me to it.

The thing that these people don't seem to have a clue about is consilience. If there was a single way of dating things then they might have a point, but there are multiple methods of dating all of which agree with each other.

Similarly for shorter range dating using Carbon dating, dendrochronology, ice cores, varves etc.

1283. Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning

Comment #132588 by epeeist on February 25, 2008 at 2:24 am

Comment #132249 by Bonzai


Quine's nitpicking has nothing to do with string theory, it is about the inductive nature of science.

But of course science isn't inductive, it is hypothetico-deductive.

Take no notice of Quine, martial arts people would lose arms before they got anywhere near somebody with a real blade.

1284. Fleabytes

Comment #132207 by epeeist on February 24, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Comment #132202 by krisking


5. and all wars and other problems will cease.
No. Wars and problems caused by religion may cease, you will still have wars and problems with nationalism, ethnicity, resource shortages and a whole stack of other causes. Some of these will have a similar irrational belief basis as religion.

1285. Fleabytes

Comment #132119 by epeeist on February 24, 2008 at 8:16 am

Comment #132054 by mikejswalker


Can we keep David on topic? Ignore the fluff.
Not give him a chance to ignore our points by referring to our anger. Invective and mundane epithets get used to defend a position that is spurious at best. Also people of all persuasions should be encouraged to come here and debate these issues.

I have been on one or two theist sites at the behest of Brian Coughlin. All the participants, without exception, were limited in the approach and knowledge and joyless in their expressions.

I am not keen on invective and it can get overdone at times. But you have such a wide variety of points of view here and they are expressed in a large number of ways. I wouldn't want to limit that. Steve is obviously top notch on science, MPhil on logic and philosophy, Cartomancer on history and the scholastics, Billy Sands the bible, Paula has shown her self to a good analytical writer, Diacanu wields prose like a knife. And this is only a selection of the people who post here. There is a shared sense of enjoyment and humour which more than compensates for the oppobrius epithets.

1286. The coming religious peace

Comment #132057 by epeeist on February 24, 2008 at 4:08 am

Comment #132052 by Titus


I suspect that education is the key. Those countries with a higher GDP spend a great deal more on educating their young than those in the third world.
Education is the key, but it has to be the right type and quality. If you spend a good deal on male education and a third of your population is studying the Qu'ran at university it isn't going to do a lot of good in the long term.

If you educate girls and make sure they have support (micro-banking and the like) it will be much more effective.

Is the reason that the States is such an outlier that their education system is poor and the religious tend to home school?

1287. Fleabytes

Comment #132033 by epeeist on February 24, 2008 at 1:17 am

Comment #132027 by Steve Zara

Vox describes how complexity can arise from a simple state using fractals, so that the whole universe could have come from a very simple designed state.
If current cosmological theories are anywhere near the truth then the initial universe would have been simple, and hence could be the production of a simple designer. However, such a designer would not have been able to impose a specific direction on the development of the universe and certainly wouldn't be capable of generating each individual snowflake (sorry!). Unless the designer evolved of course, but that would undermine the omnipotence and omniscience properties of course.

One of the other things you might care to look at his definition of science. He has a brief waltz with the idea of falsifiability ("all gods speak Aramaic") but doesn't include the other bits, like evidence and empirical strength. He obviously either doesn't understand the ideas or finds that he can't use his straw man arguments so he opts for a simpler, operational definition put forward by PZ Myers.

1288. The coming religious peace

Comment #132026 by epeeist on February 24, 2008 at 12:31 am

Comment #131842 by Spinoza


Just goes to show that correlation doesn't equal causality... and just cause we'd like something to be true, doesn't make it true. :)

Pity really. Otherwise we could point out that atheism makes you rich.

1289. Fleabytes

Comment #131699 by epeeist on February 23, 2008 at 3:12 am

Comment #131686 by irate_atheist


...the same pool of beliefs all of which will have a similar consistency.

The consistency of slurry.

To you of course, to believers it might be more like Creme Brulee.

But this is the whole point about coherence theories, as Russell pointed out it cannot distinguish truth from a consistent fairy tale.

1290. Fleabytes

Comment #131689 by epeeist on February 23, 2008 at 2:48 am

Comment #131670 by clearthinker


Do scientists not operate on the principle of uniformitarianism? Is that not faith?

No they don't. The presumption of uniformity is equivalent to accepting induction by repetition.
It is from that particular philosophy that your atheism comes. It is your creed. You cannot prove it because it itself is unprveable in your own materialist terms. You assume it and you engage in the circular argument of 'prove to me that there is something outside of the material, and you must do so in a material way!'.

So we now have a "creed" as well as "tenets". Yet again, you have still to describe this creed or the tenets though I have asked you to do so at least four times to my knowledge. Avoiding answering my request would indicate to me that all you are doing is making an assertion.

If you were positing an entity that operated purely outside the natural (whatever that means) then asking for material evidence would be ridiculous.

However, this entity of yours supposedly interferes in the material world. This being so, asking for physical evidence is perfectly appropriate.

1291. Fleabytes

Comment #131684 by epeeist on February 23, 2008 at 2:30 am

Comment #131672 by stevencarrwork


What is this utter garbage Robertson spews about evidence only being what can be proved in a lab?
Because he doesn't want to acknowledge that truth consists of correspondence with the facts.

Rather he is looking for coherence as a test of truth. This allows him to select a warranted set of beliefs that one can consider as true. It also allows him to discard other material as not belonging to that warranted set.

Unfortunately one can select different sets from the same pool of beliefs all of which will have a similar consistency. Which set one characterises as true is then down to personal opinion.

1292. Fleabytes

Comment #131496 by epeeist on February 22, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Comment #131427 by al-rawandi


Don't get me going on women an logic. Near as I could tell it was the same argument.
I see the British humour (note the "u") went straight over your head.

Go to a busy pub in the UK with your friends and significant others. At some point one of the women will decide to go to the toilet (bathroom to you). Now in the UK, they always go in pairs and they always take their handbags (purses) with them. When they get there the cubicles are always full.

So they have to queue to pee.

It really is hard work sometimes.

1293. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131486 by epeeist on February 22, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Comment #131478 by Cartomancer

Atheist TV programmes such as "Atheist eye for the godly guy?" where Steve Zara, Paula Kirby and Diacanu go round altering churches to be more to their tastes?
Atheist Feng Shui?

1294. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131482 by epeeist on February 22, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Comment #131466 by quill


I'm sure someone's pointed this out already, but "no adherence" does not mean "no religion".
Not sure about this (especially after downing a large amount of red wine).

It probably means "I have a vague feeling that I ought to believe in some kind of god and the local religion is [insert religion here] so I will profess to that even though I am not an active adherent." In the UK, it means CofE even though the only time you go to church is for hatch, match and despatch ceremonies.

I can remember going in to hospital many years ago and being asked what my religion was. When I said I wasn't active in any religion (this was before I converted to atheism) the nurse said "I will put you down as CofE."

1295. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131462 by epeeist on February 22, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Comment #131445 by krisking


At the moment, I don't think I agree with this; mostly because there is so much religion in the world. Where did it all come from? Why does it exist at all?

You missed the addendum - "and why is it all different if it is ineffably true?"

Oh, and "what happens to gods when nobody believes in them any more?"

1296. Fleabytes

Comment #131425 by epeeist on February 22, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Comment #131386 by MPhil


But technically, you cannot infer Q from P

It really depends whether you are female or not.

As my maths teacher used to say, while in vector algebra you go from P to Q, if you are female it is a matter of going to Q to P.

1297. Fleabytes

Comment #131092 by epeeist on February 22, 2008 at 12:35 am

Comment #131088 by Artful_Dodger


In my view the treatment that Robertson has received on this site is absolutely despicable and unworthy of a community of people who pride themselves in their recognition and their use of level-headed rational discourse.
I presume you have gone back and read some of the posts that David Robertson has posted here in all his different guises in the past?

I would advise you to do so before you make comments like the above. Mr. Robertson has, quite deliberately as far as I can see, posted material with a deliberate aim of generating inflamed responses that he can use elsewhere to show how loathsome atheists are.

Those of us who have been on the site for a while know how manipulative he can be.

1298. Fleabytes

Comment #130792 by epeeist on February 21, 2008 at 9:40 am

Comment #130781 by clearthinker

Anyway I am off to the University of Dundee to give a lecture on science and religion. Should be fun...

And then on Monday to Queens in Belfast on the same theme.. feel free to join us. At least Christians believe in free speech.
So presumably this means that once again I don't get an answer to my question.

For the newer people on the site. David Robertson has a standard technique. He comes to the site using a form of dialogue normally referred to as Personal Quarrel. This is characterised by personal attacks and the generation of emotional disquiet. The aim of his posts is to get people irate so that they then respond in anger (the insinuation that atheists don't believe in free speech in the extract above is fairly typical). He then takes these responses and claims them as typical of atheist attitudes.

Another technique, implied by Paula, is the use of the fallacy of composition. The standard example here is that Stalin, Mao etc. were atheists therefore all atheists share the same standards of morality as these figures.

Finally, as I intimate above, he doesn't answer questions or provides irrelevant answers.

Stay cool, stay calm and don't rise to the bait.

1299. Fleabytes

Comment #130743 by epeeist on February 21, 2008 at 8:18 am

Comment #130685 by clearthinker


1) It is not difficult to offend the fundamentalist atheists on this website.
Your first post back where you have identified yourself and you immediately start into the mode of dialogue known as "personal quarrel". This, and the fact that you then take the responses to place on your own site was what got you banned.

Incidentally - you still owe me an answer. What are the "tenets" (your word) of atheism over and above the non-belief in gods. To my knowledge I have asked you this at least three times and got no response each time.

1300. Fleabytes

Comment #130622 by epeeist on February 21, 2008 at 2:49 am

Comment #130579 by clearthinker


Why is the Wee Flea not allowed to respond?

There was some discussion on allowing Mr. Robertson to post here, some were for banning him, others wanted his comments moved to an alternative thread.

Much of the discussion came about because of the deliberate tactic by the wee flea of causing offence and hence adverse comments which he then posted on his own site to show how unpleasant and anti-rational we were.

More Pages: Previous | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 | Next