101. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202744 by Goldy on July 1, 2008 at 11:30 pm

You aren't the first and you won't be the last vapid atheist I steamroll over, I assure you.

Evidence of this?

Edit - By the way, running over Ken with your Tonka toy doesn't count...

102. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202738 by Goldy on July 1, 2008 at 11:11 pm

Bugger me, that intellectual pygmy O'Brien jumped threads?
Waaahahahahahah!
Hey, Pygmy, what evidence have you of God?

103. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #202684 by Goldy on July 1, 2008 at 7:58 pm

Yes, he (or they) did. The Documentary Hypothesis has been pretty well established, your delusions to the contrary notwithstanding.

No, they didn't. Copied. Took other mythology from an earlier age. Is Homer modern? My Iliad may suggest he is, going by the published date in my book.
See, you are not on good ground here. Us theomachoi know more than you.
Anyway, you are too stupid to converse with.
Answer Brian, not me - I have lost interest in you.

104. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #202680 by Goldy on July 1, 2008 at 7:51 pm

Goldy, my good dumb ass, J wrote in the 10th century BC and he is the earliest author of the Pentateuch. The 10th century BC is in the Iron Age.

Bobby, Bobby, Bobby. J didn't write anything.
Such militant ignorance.

105. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #202648 by Goldy on July 1, 2008 at 7:11 pm

If you are referring to the Bible, it is from the Iron Age, dumb arse.

Well, there you have it. Genesis is from the Iron Age.
Stupid man, the Bible is a compilation of many different sources, some dating back to maybe even the late Stone Age. Are you saying cuneiform Mesapotamia was Iron Age?
Let's see - pick Gilgamesh (http://who2.com/gilgamesh.html) - about 2700BC.
Wikipedia puts the Iron age in the Middle East at 12th century BC

Classically, the Iron Age is taken to begin in the 12th century BC in the ancient Near East, ancient Persia, ancient India (with the post-Rigvedic Vedic civilization), and ancient Greece (with the Greek Dark Ages).

You can't even get your facts right! Your dates are completely out - and you have the cheek to call us stupid.
Not even worthy of further dicourse.
Robert O'Brien, you are the weakest link. Goodbye.

106. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #202646 by Goldy on July 1, 2008 at 7:04 pm

I would have to take a chisel to my head to descend to the average level of intelligence here; thus, in the future, if you think you spot an error in one of my posts, just assume it is your mediocre intellect at work.

I'll send you one.
Sooooo, God? Existance? Without Goedel - or is that too hard for you? Oh, yes, of course, "You just won't understand" :-)
Idiot.

107. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202632 by Goldy on July 1, 2008 at 6:20 pm

Kestrel, regarding your comment #202616 - would you think the same if he presented the same argument for Father Xmas? Zeus? Odin? Probably not. You'd probably think he's a bit touched upstairs or gone all New Age or something. Well, that's how I feel even though he is talking about God. God is just a feeling one has, not a being or god that explains the gaps. Gaps are ignorance, ignorance due to lack of data, research, time - not lack of wanting to find out or education.
You think that there can be some reconciliation between religion and the rational. Maybe - depends on what religion. But this religion one cannot - look at the corrosive effect of IDiots on American and, creepingly, British, Australian and other education. Heck, look at this headline
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02campaigncnd.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
We have to pander to the religious? Why? Where are the headlines saying presidential candidates seek atheist votes? Or that someone can sit in the House of Lords purely for their lack of beliefs?
No, Kestrel, you join forces with the religious at your peril - they want you, totally and utterly. Your views will count for nothing - it's this soul of yours they are after, your "salvation" from sins even you have no idea about. To give them relevance means your sexuality will be what they determine, your hours of shopping (what's that? Oh, yeah, they already do that!), what you can do with your free time and, if they want, how you are disposed of when you die.
Want more examples?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7265404.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7163391.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6278568.stm
(Gosh, that wasn't hard - all in one country!)

108. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202534 by Goldy on July 1, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Possums are to NZ what cane toads are to Aussie.

109. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202529 by Goldy on July 1, 2008 at 3:19 pm

I would, Brian, I would. But if DoC don't come after me, then some iwi will certainly raise some objection...
As it is, my back garden is prime bush. Bunch of kauri and koru and stuff which I can't cut down. Perfect for possum...

110. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202515 by Goldy on July 1, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Al, PM sent.
Macs Gold? It's OK, I s'pose...
I'm rather partial to Emmerson's brews. And of course, there's Galbraiths near the medschool....but beer has gone up - it's already almost $9 a pint in Galbraiths :-(
The world as I know it is coming to an end...

111. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202507 by Goldy on July 1, 2008 at 2:41 pm

I'll look it up and PM you, Al :-)
Not sure about the kangas, unless it's just the meat. Aussie critter, you know... Now a monotreme like the platypus...

112. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202500 by Goldy on July 1, 2008 at 2:36 pm

My party? the Rational Social-Darwinists, or the 'Razis'

If that's pronounced like I think it is, you'll have problems. Hordes of Catholics will flock to you thinking you're something to do with the current Pope...

113. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202496 by Goldy on July 1, 2008 at 2:32 pm

OK, Al, you got my vote. Ohh....can't vote in the US. Come to NZ.
:-)

114. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202483 by Goldy on July 1, 2008 at 2:26 pm

I see nothing wrong with social Darwinism, however, or eugenics, and think we need to re-evaluate it.

I don't really like the use of Darwinism here - it's not breeding he published (along with Wallace) but evolution.
Otherwise, I have to say when reading the papers in the morning, sometimes I have the same thought. Worked in Sweden...
Aaaah, opening myself to a volley from Clearthinker, aka Wee Flea, aka the idiot Robertson.

115. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202477 by Goldy on July 1, 2008 at 2:22 pm

People debate about what that means and how great the separation is, but in articulations that I find most congenial, that entails God giving some freedom to the world. We have a free will to choose good or choose evil.

So Hell is what? An alternative heaven?
I like the way they always seem to make God sound all benevolent with his free choice and free will. Yep, we can be evil, but we will be eternally punished for it, punished in the most unimaginably horrible way. Nice choice.

116. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202471 by Goldy on July 1, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Can't Darwin and God get along?

Of course they can, argues physicist and theologian Karl Giberson, if only many believers were more sophisticated and atheists less dogmatic.

Not quite how I'd phrase it. More like....
"Sure they can. There's no God - what's the problem?"

117. Help protest against misguided report on UK faith schools

Comment #202125 by Goldy on June 30, 2008 at 11:36 pm

I replied to his comment with my own wee rantette. I'm not totally sure how they can play the vistim card. My comment on that thread just summed up my feelings...

118. Help protest against misguided report on UK faith schools

Comment #202110 by Goldy on June 30, 2008 at 9:49 pm

Want to know what the religious think?

This is a really odd argument especially coming from Westerners. Judging that several evangelical atheist books have made it to the top of the best sellers list, that the authors have received much media attention, interview time even on conservative media outlets, such as FOX news, not to mention outlets such as Youtube, forums that are available to the public, I have to wonder who has denied you the right to criticize religion? If anything, you've been provided an open door.

I've attended several universities where students and Professors lambasted religion with free reign. If there's even been a moment in history where the atheist gets his time on the pulpit it's now.

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1350,I-believe-that-there-is-no-God,Penn-Jillette-thisibelieveorg,page6#201452

This was my reply
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1350,I-believe-that-there-is-no-God,Penn-Jillette-thisibelieveorg,page6#201622

119. Help protest against misguided report on UK faith schools

Comment #202100 by Goldy on June 30, 2008 at 9:09 pm

So institutionalised that we allow fuckwits like these to roam the streets
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7482616.stm

Edit - and yet they don't question the titular head of their sect being a woman...

Fuckwits.

120. Help protest against misguided report on UK faith schools

Comment #202095 by Goldy on June 30, 2008 at 9:04 pm

In the UK, I believe it's partly because religion is institutionalized, but probably due to the fact that religious people vote and have a loud voice.

So institutionalised that we even let people sit (unelected, as far as I know) in the House of Lords purely because they are, errrr, religious.

121. Help protest against misguided report on UK faith schools

Comment #202092 by Goldy on June 30, 2008 at 9:01 pm

Why do you Brits put up with this "faith schools" garbage, anyway?

Keep everyone happy? Guilt of empire? Equality for all? Who knows...
Question to all - who pays for these things? Taxpayer (as usual) or do they get their funding privately?

122. Jesus and Mo on Militant Atheists

Comment #202071 by Goldy on June 30, 2008 at 7:32 pm

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/03/01/lent/
Oh dear, this one does have me in stitches!

123. A secular world is a sane world

Comment #202068 by Goldy on June 30, 2008 at 7:23 pm

Secondsoprano
I hang my head in shame...sort of... ;-) I'll do something about it tomorrow..

124. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #202066 by Goldy on June 30, 2008 at 7:21 pm

Plus, one of the grand errors I think you guys make is holding to a monolithic view of the scientific community. "any scientist you care to mention" is not necessarily going to be an atheist or a die-hard evolutionist.

No, but they all, cretinist or normal, have to subject their research in peer reviewed publications. If the sums don't add up, they have to try again. Cretinists have been trying to make the wrong answer fit the sums unsuccessfully for a long time.

However, my doctrinal beliefs are quite common, or at least were a generation or two ago

Education - that's why they were common "a generation or two ago". Research, findings and publications showing the results of this research. Polio was common a generation or two ago - it no longer is (except in the more religiously ignorant areas...).

And most any sect or system you care to name is going to claim superior correctness as that is why they are distinct from everyone else.

Good - at least now we understand that you understand that you are holding on to religiously held dogmatic views which, becasue they are in YOUR holy book (mythology) they must, in your mind, be correct. No matter if they are not, you will forever maintain them as correct.
Well, that settles it - you are militantly ignorant, proud of it and to your dying day will never admit you are wrong. I feel sorry for you. If your ignorance is such that it is a comfort to you, go. Stop wasting our time.

125. CFI-UN Hamid Karzai Letter

Comment #202064 by Goldy on June 30, 2008 at 7:11 pm

Christopher, as I said before
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2640,-Town-moves-against-Islamic-school,BBC,page5#185447
Corruption is terrible - what recourse do the people have against it? What does NATO do to stop it? Given our "Cultural sensitivities" issues - it's their culture and we mustn't interfere - what do you think the ordinary Afghan can do? They're fucked by their leaders and they know that NATO won't do anything other than build a few things. Nice though these things are, there's a bunch of Pakistani puppets that come over and destroy everything as soon as NATO goes away. As for putting their faith in their own troops and police - well, you're a soldier there, would you?
As Styrer asks, what do you think should be done?

126. CFI-UN Hamid Karzai Letter

Comment #202042 by Goldy on June 30, 2008 at 5:03 pm

The last act of an empire should be to educate the people that it is about to leave alone, to show them how to run a country and how to take care of their own.

Malaysia? Singapore? *Indonesia? *Philipines? *Korea (south), Hong Kong, South Africa, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Ireland - apart form the starred ones, all were coloured pink at one time and all are independent now and even if we deplore the corruption of some, all seem to work and understand this democracy thing (even the ones that are "democracies" like Singapore work). So why not the others?

Edit - silly me, how could I forget - India. Multi ethnic, large, third world, first world, chaotic and yet booming - and a democracy and one which we Brits pulled out of rather quickly.

127. CFI-UN Hamid Karzai Letter

Comment #202033 by Goldy on June 30, 2008 at 4:28 pm

Just reading the posts...
Al

I asked him what he thought about such a disgusting occurence, and he told me that this was tough cookies for the guy. He claimed that he was distributing the literature around and that the Afghans had decided what the law of the land should be and this was it. He said "this is democracy, and this is what you Americans claimed you wanted to give us."

Dunno about you but this sounds like frustration to me. I imagine it must be hard to have your country go from monarchy to communist to religious inspired and fractional warlordism to even deeper religionism back to warlordism and narcocracy to something Pashtun with religious overlay, installed by NATO (or, in teh eyes of everyone, the US) and then be told "Hey, this is fucked, eh?" In a way, your mate is right - it is what was wanted by NATO. A democracy. The results are hardly a surprise - even in the UK it is asserted that many families vote as the patriarch says (no guesses which group the finger is pointed at there).
Fanusi

The state needs to be utterly broken destroyed to the point that the people realise that they are defeated beyond question.

What, like Afghanistan? Somalia? Like the notice one sometimes sees in a shop - if you break it, you buy it. We have bought Afghanistan - we can't just leave it in the corner hoping it will fix itself. We need to spend big to get it going again. Germany had the Marshall plan - not sure what the Soviets spent in the east but I am assuming it was less than the West (US) spent in the west. Same with Japan.
I really think there may be some frustration at the naivite implied at the public expressions of surprise...

128. CFI-UN Hamid Karzai Letter

Comment #202012 by Goldy on June 30, 2008 at 3:33 pm

http://www.afghan-network.net/Ethnic-Groups/
Always a mistake to lump a nation under a stereotype.
Even Pakistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan

129. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #201990 by Goldy on June 30, 2008 at 2:41 pm

"Otherwise, perhaps you might want to stop wasting our time."

This is rich.

No, heartfelt.

This is not difficult. I obviously do not believe the FSM meets the criteria.

It is for you, matey boy. God IS the FSM. As the FSM is a man made creation, God is man made too. Resorting to Goedel will not help you - that's his argument and for all I know he just didn't have one or two proofs available to finish his equation. We want your argument. We want your interpretation of Goedel - for all we know you completely misunderstood him - sure as shit you misunderstood Christianity (and this despite, I believe, a lifetime of indoctrination).
Why do YOU think God exists. Forget Goedel - he's dead, he can't hold your hand.

130. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #201668 by Goldy on June 30, 2008 at 2:55 am

I have no objection to a good discussion, but I just can't be having with "you are all to stupid or ignorant to understand".

As I said it would be. I'm a fucking prophet, me! Hear that, Bob? Got your number on your first comment! You can't even answer a simple question without evasion, distortion and plain not answering. God - so evident, so easy to prove, yet you can't even give us an inkling of an idea of how to consider thinking he might exist outside of a feverish mind. Damn, no wonder you don't want to go on to telling me how Jesus was not a continuation of Egyptian mythology.
It does not surprise me that you have taken to mangling even a simple thing as a religion that is writ in stone and doctrinal to try and fit it into what passes for what you laughingly call an intellect. You can't even do religion properly! You don't accept the trinity, you don't think the virgin birth is important - why? Because you know they are crap. Cornerstones of the religion you are defending and you can't even consider thining they are important. If not them - why God? Because of a mathematical model and some circular gibberish?
I shake me head. So much promise, such and, what were your words? Ah, yes - an EPIC FAIL.

131. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #201664 by Goldy on June 30, 2008 at 2:43 am

Christies - it about $35 for a litre. Only 37%, mind, but tasty. And a nice bottle to boot.
I sometimes feel I have to apologise - anger is a silly emotion, clouds the mind. I like to tell, to explain, not to rant. But sometimes the amount of crap spouting out of mouths and fingers is just too much.

132. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #201633 by Goldy on June 30, 2008 at 12:52 am

Another peeve of mine. I would apologise, but I think this time I'll wait for a retraction first.

NZ gin, eh? Who'd have thought it would have such and effect :-D

133. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #201622 by Goldy on June 30, 2008 at 12:30 am

Judging that several evangelical atheist books have made it to the top of the best sellers list, that the authors have received much media attention, interview time even on conservative media outlets, such as FOX news, not to mention outlets such as Youtube, forums that are available to the public, I have to wonder who has denied you the right to criticize religion? If anything, you've been provided an open door.

Evangelical atheist. Odd choice of word to describe it...

Main Entry: 1evan·gel·i·cal
Pronunciation: \ËŒÄ"-ËŒvan-ˈje-li-kÉ™l, ËŒe-vÉ™n-\
Variant(s): also evan·gel·ic \-ik\
Function: adjective
Date: 1531
1: of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel especially as it is presented in the four Gospels
2: protestant
3: emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual
4 acapitalized : of or relating to the Evangelical Church in Germany boften capitalized : of, adhering to, or marked by fundamentalism : fundamentalist coften capitalized : low church
5: marked by militant or crusading zeal : evangelistic

Maybe the last definition might fit...
So, you are worried about a few books (what, pray tell, is the best selling book? And what follows that one? and which book do a prtion of 1.6 billion people try and memorise in a foreign language?) adn some interviews. Oddly, every Sunday there appears to be a propaganda house or two open, where God and Jesus are, not discussed, but exalted. Every Sunday! And just to make sure there's not much else to do - the shops are restricted. Does Scotland still have Sunday drinking hours? Islam restricts the freedom of anyone not Muslim - Malaysia has an interesting story...http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7475950.stm
Looking at my money, I see Queen Liz is Regina, D.G. Regina (look it up). On becoming a New Zealander, yes, I had an affirmation or an oath to take (nothing to do with atheism, I'm told - more to do with those that follow other gods). The UK has people sitting in the House of Lords whose only qualification is that they worship God. I read the papers and see columnists who I would not trust to wipe their arses properly but who are allowed to write and be published because they write about God, Jesus and other mythology (Look up Garth in the New Zealand Herald). I am ridiculed for invoking an old god but nary an eyebrow is raised if I mention God. I was baptised, without my permission, in the name of God.
I'm sorry if I find your words fucktardy of the highest order but that's the way it is. You Christians have been shitting on us all your lives, Christians have killed my ancestors and shat on their culture - and you whine about a few books adn some radio interviews.
What a pathetic shit you are. Beneath even any thought of contempt.

134. Your Brain Lies to You

Comment #201616 by Goldy on June 29, 2008 at 11:31 pm

Weddings and commitments need not be religious anymore than birthdays. The belief that they must, I think, is somewhat of a dogma advanced by the faithful.

I know - hell, both of us are atheist so the whole religion thing is completely absent (well, apart from Xmas - but then, how religious is that, really?).
It's just me - it is a ceremony with some drama and some higher power that is binding me to my wife and her to me for the rest of our lives. It isn't like animals pair bonding for life - a bit of courtship then babies. It was a ceremony, a man made ceremony that invoked a higher power to legitimise our union.
Just becasue there were no gods called on didn't, to me, make it any less religious. The fact that I was wearing an orange bula shirt (Fijian for Hawaiian shirt) and a lei didn't detract from the fact that the ceremony had a quality of otherness to it.
Why not just go to a registry office nad sign the documents and get the certificate to show that we had decided to stick together for life? Indeed, why not, in this day and age, just acknowledge online that we were a "pair"? Why a ceremony? Because it means something, it is a rite and it satisfies the religious meme we all seem to have in one way or another.
That is why, even if "irreligious", I saw it as religious.
And I am wearing a ring too - ooooh, the symbolism... ;-)

Mord1, I don't think the minister gave a monkeys either, but he liked me as I was holding his daughter (she was, I think, 3) while he officiated and I let her hold the rings for us. Totally unplanned, she was just there and wanted a cuddle. He was busy, I wasn't...well, I was, but you know what I mean :-)

135. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #201612 by Goldy on June 29, 2008 at 11:18 pm

I've had more than an introduction to mathematics, and the holes exist only in your head.

Personal conjecture - care to back that up?
Obviously we all (or should that read ALL) have had more than an introduction to methematics - it appears to be wired into us and manifests itself at an early age (give me time and I'll bring up the research - painting a room at the mo, so...). We have all gone to school and we have all used, as indeed we still do, use mathematics in everyday life.
If it don't fit, it just don't fit. Proving a theory doesn't make it fact, does it? It only proves the theory, which might be wrong. Goedel has a theory, he has a model to back it up, but still there are questions and the theory is being found wanting.
There just isn't a God - God is not needed for any of the phenomena ascribed to him (or any other god), his usefulness is lessening each tick of the clock - can you say he exists or do you have to concede he is a throwback to our evolutionary past in terms of ascribing natural event to?

136. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #201611 by Goldy on June 29, 2008 at 11:11 pm

Your inability to apprehend it is not my problem.

It is, though, isn't it. You came here - we didn't come to you. You gave us a supposition and we questioned it. You have to show you are correct - the fact that your arguments are circular nonsense is not our problem - we know God is with the other gods in men's imaginations, not in existance. You cannot show God or gods exist, so you are wrong.
Saying you are not and that we don't understand is playground argumentation.

137. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #201582 by Goldy on June 29, 2008 at 8:33 pm

Vicky, to blockquote, type < blockquote > and then < / blockquote > (remove spaces) around the article you are quoting. You can use the edit function to fix your comment :-)

138. Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history

Comment #201578 by Goldy on June 29, 2008 at 8:23 pm

And why can't I read the comments?? Someone PM me with a solution...

139. Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history

Comment #201575 by Goldy on June 29, 2008 at 8:22 pm

Dawkins and Harris cannot explain why, if Nazism was directly descended from medieval Christianity, medieval Christianity did not produce a Hitler

Good sweet proverbial! Does this man not know of zeitgeist? Communication advances? Cinema? Newsreels?
I dare say the actions of the crusaders would be deplored now. The actions of popes, of kings and queens when slaughtering the losers in battle. The genocide, the burning of Jews, the insane and those of other religions. How about the burning of protestants - does that not count? Or the persecution of Catholics?
This man is a Fellow? Of what? Sesame Street? How badly educated he sounds!

140. Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history

Comment #201570 by Goldy on June 29, 2008 at 8:15 pm

Aha, redifen religion and voila. Idiot. If even I can see there's something wrong with his argument, what chance has he got, in worting, against the heavyweights?

141. Aliens need Christ's redemption, too

Comment #201555 by Goldy on June 29, 2008 at 7:49 pm

Centuries ago, the monks created a writing system in which, they calculated, they could encode all possible names of God in no more than nine characters each, according to a set of constraints. (For example, no name could have the same character repeating more than three times consecutively.)

From the wikipedia entry above. Is it me, or is this Sudoku?

142. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #201551 by Goldy on June 29, 2008 at 7:43 pm

The Bard and religion
the second piece, I believe
http://www.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/about/news/inquiring-minds/inquiring-minds_home.cfm

143. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #201550 by Goldy on June 29, 2008 at 7:42 pm

Getting rattled, eh?
Read this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/30/do3005.xml
Charles Darwin was not the father of atheism

Could you explain this, please

To think or not to think; that is the question

Only asking because for religion I was taught that one does not think but accept. Indeed, Islam means submission and that is the lates Abrahamic religion.
Please, without vitriol, explain to me why you used that line. Use the same tone you must have used with Richard Morgan.
Thanks you.

144. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #201536 by Goldy on June 29, 2008 at 7:21 pm

Just so we know we are talking about the same thing, could you give us a quick definition of what God is? Sorry to throw this in during the argument...should have asked at the start...

145. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #201528 by Goldy on June 29, 2008 at 7:15 pm

In that case I better read old Goedel (never try funny marks here, like umlauts - just comes up funny).
I do not agree with Goedel.
God does not exist. He cannot - if he had, he would be universal. Maybe gods exist - but as they fall in and out of favour, then I can see that this god will fall out of favour too. As we are not speaking about a person or other physical entity but an eternal supernatural that transcends all constants (transcends everything!) then he cannot be subject to the same laws we apply to physicalities and so must be constant. He isn't, so he cannot be what he is claimed to be. So he can't be God.
The gibberish I referred to is actually the argument, not the umlaut problem. Edit - to make an argument, you have to be clear and understandable. Otherwise you are speaking in gibberish - Talking in Tongues, I believe the religious fraternity call it.

146. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #201524 by Goldy on June 29, 2008 at 7:08 pm

There is nothing circular in claiming, for example, if God exists then He necessarily exists

What did I tell you, Steve.
So if God doesn't exist, he necessarily doesn't exist?
So far all you are saying is that God exists. Personal conjecture. He does not exist, I say. What makes you more correct?

147. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #201520 by Goldy on June 29, 2008 at 7:06 pm

The God of Gödel's Ontological Argument has properties that they lack. Moreover, such a God is unique by the identity of indiscernibles.

Gibberish, sorry.
God is a god. They are gods. The fact that they don't exist is conjecture (some people may still worship them, ergo they exist, no?) God didn't exist before but he exists now. So in both cases they both existed and didn't exist. So they are all the same.
I can do gibberish too.
Show me God exists.

148. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #201481 by Goldy on June 29, 2008 at 6:12 pm

Very amusing, yes.
God?

149. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #201479 by Goldy on June 29, 2008 at 6:01 pm

Comment #201474 by Robert O'Brien
Nice bit of evasion there. Doesn't really answer the question, though, does it? As I recall, it went something like this

Robert, if possible, could you please provide some argumentation to support the existence of God?

Sniffily saying that Kant can't provide a decent argument (damn, been waiting to write that!) doesn't convince me of the existance of anything except your dislike of said philosopher.
But let's forget that - something to show God exists. Should be easy if it is so self evident you assume it needs no answer. God alone existing, as opposed to the pantheon of the other gods who, to me, have an equal footing on the podium of belief.

150. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #201467 by Goldy on June 29, 2008 at 5:34 pm

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=301&objectid=10518753&pnum=0

Paul Thomas: Islamism has that point of difference
5:00AM Saturday June 28, 2008
By Paul Thomas
Writer "attacks Nazism." Not exactly a ball-grabber of a headline, is it? After all, Nazism is a hateful ideology and attacking hateful ideologies is the sort of thing writers tend to do. Apart from anything else, it's easier than writing.
Attacking communism would be just as ho-hum, although there was a time when many people of an artistic or intellectual bent found quite a lot to like about communism.
Ditto socialism and capitalism - they may be compatible with democracy but they're still "-isms" and, like all -isms, not to everyone's taste.
But as several English writers have discovered, attacking Islamism is a different matter.
Last week Booker Prize winner Ian McEwan, author of the recently filmed Atonement, told an Italian newspaper that he despises Islamism which wants to create "a society that I detest".
The Independent interpreted this as "an astonishingly strong attack" and floated the idea that his words might constitute a hate crime.
We're not talking here about Islam the religion, which has frequently demonstrated its willingness to co-exist with other belief systems; we're talking about Islamism the ideology, which by word and deed has frequently demonstrated the opposite.
Although Islamism is often portrayed as a determination to turn back the clock, theorists such as philosopher John Gray have pointed out it actually has much in common with modern utopian ideologies like communism and fascism.
Like them it offers a one-size-fits-all system that leaves no room for opposition or dissent.
Given that one size never has and never will fit all, in practice such systems can only be implemented and maintained by stealth and/or force.
So why the fuss? It can't be because we're deeply respectful of religion. Christianity in its various forms is attacked and mocked all the time.
That's free speech, and if you don't like it, too bad. We deride Christian fundamentalists for their disbelief in Darwinism, but as yet they haven't advocated the death penalty for espousing the theory of evolution.
Western societies are deeply and justifiably suspicious of religious groups that seek to extend their influence through the political process.
The comic opera political interventions of the Destiny Church and Exclusive Brethren caused much indignation yet clearly these groups are for the most part inner-directed organisations - cults if you will - with a limited appetite for reshaping society in their own image.
Like most other -isms, Islamism has global ambitions and accepts no restraint on its spread and application.
Is it to do with race?
By and large Islamists aren't white and these days racism - at least when practised by whites - is the royal flush of unacceptable behaviour, trumping all else.
Our multicultural ideal depends on the majority embracing diversity even when that encompasses disagreement over fundamental principles.
Surely attacking the ideology of Islamism is no more racist than condemning the crimes and credos of Robert Mugabe or the generals of Myanmar or the Khmer Rouge or Maoism.
And the problem with trying to accommodate Islamism within the multicultural umbrella is that multiculturalism presupposes mutual tolerance.
By viewing all other belief systems as blasphemies whose heretical followers must be converted or eliminated, Islamism rather hangs its hat on intolerance.
Unfortunately the debate over how to respond to Islamism is hopelessly tangled up with the occupation of Iraq, a project conceived in a flush of neoconservative hubris, launched on hazy assumptions and deceit and, until recently anyway, managed with a lethal combination of arrogance and incompetence.
Thus while McEwan, Amis and others have argued that Islamism, with its black and white world view, its medieval censoriousness, its oppression of women and persecution of gays, threatens everything liberals hold dear, their stand has received little support from liberals who tend to see it as right-wing and pro-American.
This has caused particular difficulties for Amis whose father Kingsley, having been a communist as a young man, trekked across the political spectrum to end up a Colonel Blimp figure classifying the outside world into various sub-categories of wog from his leather armchair.
Rather than address his arguments, some of Amis Junior's critics have preferred the cheap shot of suggesting that he's simply re-tracing his father's political odyssey from trendy leftie to unsavoury reactionary.
The disquiet or outright revulsion inspired by George W. Bush's America has created a favourable climate for Islamism, both in terms of recruitment and encouraging the tendency to downplay its incompatibility with Western values.
The Islamists will miss Bush when he retires to his ranch but they'll get over it.
They're in it for the long haul.