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


101. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195918 by Quetzalcoatl on June 19, 2008 at 3:19 am

Steve-

hahaha! That's probably not what it is!

102. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #195907 by Quetzalcoatl on June 19, 2008 at 3:02 am

hungarianelephant-

it has content. It's chock-full of arguments from incredulity and distortions of science.

I wouldn't waste your time on it.

103. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195900 by Quetzalcoatl on June 19, 2008 at 2:29 am

Styrer-

it's not like I'm losing sleep over it, don't get me wrong. The only reason it bothers me is that the criticisms he makes are never specific, they're just generalised assertions- "your debating skills could use improvement". Constructive criticism I can take, but vague statements like that aren't very helpful, and they nag at me.

But you're right- I'll try not to worry about it.

104. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #195881 by Quetzalcoatl on June 19, 2008 at 1:03 am

Squinky-

Do you really think we can overcome the limits of interstellar distance, radiation, zero-G, and ultrafast space travel to colonize nearby planets


I just said "colonies offworld", meaning the Moon, Mars, Europa, Titan, Earth orbit, the Trojans, the asteroid belt etc etc.

But yes, I do think that we would be able to overcome the hazards you mention and colonise other systems. Not at our current technological level, obviously, but it could be done.

105. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195879 by Quetzalcoatl on June 19, 2008 at 1:01 am

Clearthinker-

Q - Yes - here is one pointer. How about telling the truth? Because I do not immediately respond does not mean that I am hit and run. If you were not to post because it had already been posted on other threads then I suspect that most of this website would be silent!


The distinction is that you use the same arguments that have been refuted on other threads, whereas I only reuse the same arguments on different threads if they have NOT been refuted. I would have to be pretty arrogant to do otherwise, wouldn't I?

And I do hope you're not suggesting that I am a liar.

106. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #195574 by Quetzalcoatl on June 18, 2008 at 2:00 pm

Squinky-

This, as you say, is the real nonsense. Even though we are a unique species, it is anthropogenic arrogance to think that we will survive longer than the typical few million years of most species on Earth.


It's not entirely arrogance. Establishing colonies offworld would protect the species from the "eggs in one basket" type catastrophes. Then nothing short of a nearby supernova would wipe us all out in one go. So in that circumstance at least the potential for our survival would be there.

107. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195571 by Quetzalcoatl on June 18, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Paula-

Oh Quetz. Haven't I suffered enough? I thought it was only the loving Abrahamic god who inflicted eternal torment?


Unlike the Abrahamic god, this deity has a sense of humour. Do not fear, your trials are over.

108. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195437 by Quetzalcoatl on June 18, 2008 at 8:14 am

Steve-

Evolution, planetary history, original sin, morality, debating style and the tenets and creed of atheism. With all that to work with, he should easily be able to write a longer book than his last one.

Now who can we find to review it.....Paula?

109. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195429 by Quetzalcoatl on June 18, 2008 at 7:58 am

Steve-

are you suggesting that we should be encouraging David Robertson to write another masterpiece?

110. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195403 by Quetzalcoatl on June 18, 2008 at 7:07 am

Phil Rimmer-

enmechanize... (An American sort of term...like burglarize.) Not serious


Biomechanise? Naturomechanise? Ultramechanise?

111. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195395 by Quetzalcoatl on June 18, 2008 at 6:55 am

Steve-

I know, but that won't stop them saying otherwise.

112. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195392 by Quetzalcoatl on June 18, 2008 at 6:49 am

Steve-

I suspect "mind-boggling" might be a good phrase to use for describing this!

Spontaneous appearance is not a reasonable option


Agreed, but the danger here is that the creationist response will be- "what about the first cell, then? Didn't that spontaneously appear? If you can accept that, then why not this?"

113. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195264 by Quetzalcoatl on June 18, 2008 at 1:45 am

ctrkev-

welcome to the site, Kev. Perhaps you can do what other theist contributors have not- provide positive evidence for the existence of the supernatural, and God?

114. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195248 by Quetzalcoatl on June 18, 2008 at 1:17 am

Steve Zara-

it's possible Karda was being ironic.

Kardashovel-

if you aren't, I echo what Steve said. He did a few posts that refuted the time machine idea, I seem to remember. Even I had something to say, so you know that it must be incredibly improbable if I can spot the flaws! :)

115. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195247 by Quetzalcoatl on June 18, 2008 at 1:14 am

Clearthinker-

another hit-and-run post? Once again you post the same old arguments without considering the refutations that others have made on other threads. On the off-chance that you do post here again, it will likely be only to announce that you're tired of this thread and won't be posting again. Then a few days later, the cycle will begin all over again.

And you have the nerve to say that my debating style could use some pointers!

116. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194746 by Quetzalcoatl on June 17, 2008 at 8:25 am

Ketch22-

Try being consistent.

As for disease and death, this is a subject I am well versed at, being a Hospice RN. God did not bring these into the world, man did.


Compared to:

I believe there was death and disease long before man


So if there was death and disease prior to man, then he did not bring it into the world. The fact that man may have added to the number of diseases does not change that fact.

You have contradicted yourself.

117. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194722 by Quetzalcoatl on June 17, 2008 at 8:00 am

Ketch22-

So you believe a microbiologist brought disease into the world? Or can you fathom destroying our environment had some effect


Er, no. I was being sarcastic. Presumably you realised I was talking about THE Adam?

Destroying our environment brought disease into the world. It's a nice story, but that's all it is. Disease was around long before humanity came on the scene. So were natural disasters.

Perhaps you can show I am wrong. Please provide some positive evidence that disease did not enter the world until after humanity came along.

118. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194712 by Quetzalcoatl on June 17, 2008 at 7:52 am

As for disease and death, this is a subject I am well versed at, being a Hospice RN. God did not bring these into the world, man did.


Little known fact- Adam was a qualified microbiologist.

119. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #194670 by Quetzalcoatl on June 17, 2008 at 6:58 am

Shmeezers-

It is not so much that God' existence is not manifest (which it most certianly is)


Very well then, please provide us with some specific, positive evidence for God's existence and the existence of absolute morals.

120. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194667 by Quetzalcoatl on June 17, 2008 at 6:50 am

Mesomodel-

I was fairly excited about the TPF until the twits at NASA put it on hold. Still, Kepler should be very helpful.

121. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194662 by Quetzalcoatl on June 17, 2008 at 6:33 am

Terrestrial volcanic and geothermal pools would be a good starting place, you're right. It's possible as well, I think, that the earliest replicators might not even have had membranes/cell walls. That wouldn't work in an environment like the ocean, but in a restricted area a "soup" of replicators could theoretically survive.

As for the hydrothermal vent problem, the solution could be this: life could easily have got started within the mineral-laden rocks around the vents, and gradually worked its way to the surface. That would mean that by the time they reached the surface they probably would have evolved to the point where they were hardy enough to survive the dilution problem. This could work for Europa or Earth, but in the latter case I think your ideas are more likely.

Did you see the link Steve Zara put up about RNA replication within ice? That's another possibility.

122. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194647 by Quetzalcoatl on June 17, 2008 at 6:09 am

squinky-

I agree with what you're saying, but it is still a good possibility. If there is life on (for instance) Europa, then it would in all probability have started near the hydrothermal vents since there would be no other readily accessible source of energy to give life a toehold.

123. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194614 by Quetzalcoatl on June 17, 2008 at 4:29 am

Ketch22-

Can I also ask why you don't worship Tezcatlipoca, Xipe-Totec, Huitzilopochtli or any other gods in the Aztec pantheon? The Aztecs also had a creator deity, Ometeotl, if that helps?

124. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194590 by Quetzalcoatl on June 17, 2008 at 3:11 am

urn-

they're talking purely in terms of roughly comparable sizes. We can't detect planets the size of Earth yet.

125. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194568 by Quetzalcoatl on June 17, 2008 at 12:58 am

Steve, Diacanu-

it's not David Robertson. He can spell. He can't blockquote, but he can spell. This guy's American, I think.

126. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194565 by Quetzalcoatl on June 17, 2008 at 12:52 am

Receivedthegift (although evidently not the gift of intelligence or common courtesy)-

We must fight all evil. Some of you do not realize you are evil while others are intentially evil.


MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! KILL! MAIM! BURN! MWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Ahem.

Sorry, what were you saying?

:-)

127. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194245 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Phatbat-

Epeeist's avatar is a picture of.....Epeeist.

128. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194217 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Receivedthegift-

What do all atheists scream in the time of danger?


Depending on the danger, I'd probably yell "Oh shit", or something similar. Why?

129. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194199 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Receivedthegift-

any POSITIVE evidence to offer for the existence of the supernatural?

130. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194194 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 2:14 pm

Receivedthegift-

Deceivement is a made-up word. Possibly you mean "deception". You'd still be wrong, but at least your vocabulary would have improved.

131. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194012 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 9:30 am

Steve-

we're getting into sci-fi territory now! You raise a good point- many sci-fi novels don't cover the idea that different oxygen levels make it unlikely that very many earth-size planets will be sufficiently earth-like for humans to live on without either domed colonies or genetic modification. Even I didn't think about it in my books :(

132. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194000 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 9:16 am

Steve-

well, yes, but by "supporting us" I meant Earth-like worlds that we can actually walk around on with maybe a pressure suit or something for the atmosphere. In practical terms they would be easier to settle than a gas giant moon.

133. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #193987 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 9:07 am

Passutoba-

not necessarily. Venus, for instance, has a very long day compared to ours. Depending on the type of star, it's also possible that the planets are tide-locked so that one side permanently faces the star.

134. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #193980 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 9:01 am

Steve-

well, let's face it, when we have the ability to, everyone will be looking in the Goldilocks zones anyway. And they are at least the best place to look to find planets capable of supporting us, ie with liquid water and reasonable temperatures.

I'll check out that book- I enjoyed The Science of Discworld books they wrote.

135. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193974 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 8:58 am

Steve-

perhaps each pentagram-shaped ice crystal was actually in geosynchronous orbit? No need for support structures then. Of course, that raises the problem of how the ice made it to the surface as water without vapourising into steam...

136. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #193972 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 8:55 am

Steve-

oh, definitely. We'll be finding Earth-size planets in Goldilocks zones within the next decade or so, probably. A few years ago, we couldn't even detect large gas giants. Science moves on!

137. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193966 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 8:51 am

Each ice crystal was actually shaped like a pentagram.

138. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #193947 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 8:30 am

Bugaboo-

as to the reason why the planets actually have such a short orbit, they could have formed that close in to the star, but it's more likely that they formed further out and their orbits were disturbed, perhaps by a rogue gas giant, sending them spiralling in towards the sun.

139. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193944 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 8:27 am

irate_atheist-

Quetz - You're getting confused with his pork sword


Different story entirely.

140. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193939 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 8:24 am

Podaar-

Please forgive my blasphemy by wasting my hot beverage (coffee) by spitting it on my keyboard.

I beg your forgiveness.


Forgiveness granted.

141. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193933 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 8:17 am

Podaar-

there are actually two versions of the ice sword, the planet-sized one, and the regular-sized one. It's a little-known fact that God actually wanted to give his son a fighting chance on Earth, so every morning he would send Jesus a brand-new ice sword. Problem was, this being the Middle East, it's pretty hot there, and the sword melted very quickly. That's why Jesus would always wake up to find his bedding was damp.

That's what he told the disciples, anyway.

142. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193913 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 8:02 am

Podaar-

wait until they start telling you about Jesus's ice sword.

143. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193843 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 6:02 am

Phil-

then that contradicts a lot of what believers are taught anyway, so they've got big problems. At any time, someone somewhere in the world is bound to be looking for him!

144. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193823 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 5:00 am

Hungarianelephant-

What I am getting at is whether there is a logical or scientific demolition of this.


Well, if God is completely outside of our universe, then he shouldn't be able to interact with it (the whole immaterial manipulating the material issue). But the religious claim that he does interact and intervene, so those actions should be testable. The fact that no interactions have been found that even hint at supernatural origin is as near to a scientific demolition as there is at the moment, I think.

Of course, if God is not outside the Universe, but in one of the higher dimensions, then the same applies- the interactions should be testable still. But being within the Universe contradicts the idea that God is everywhere at all times and knows everything.

145. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193811 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 4:28 am

Hungarianelephant-

look at it this way. If God is hiding in one of the higher dimensions, then he is still within our Universe, and therefore his interactions should be testable.

146. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193799 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 3:57 am

Corylus-

thanks for the link to the Grayling speech, it's a very good essay.

147. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193784 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 3:35 am

Billy, Steve-

your comments are much appreciated. At the risk of this sounding like an Oscars speech, I've learned a lot from you guys, from many posters as a matter of fact.

148. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193778 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 3:19 am

Epeeist-

his response is incredible. How can you have a creed that says that there is no creed? It's a massive contradiction. An absence of something cannot be something by definition!

He may have read the post but he sure as hell didn't get it.

149. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193772 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 3:13 am

Clearthinker-

Yes - I read it. Inherently self contradictory. So what if an atheist can be a scientist, masseuse etc. So can a Christian. So what if atheism is based on reason, evidence etc. So is Christianity. The irony is that you state there is no atheist creed in order defend part of that creed (aka a fundamentalist atheist is a contradiction in terms). Not all atheists are closed minded - but many are and therefore using the term fundamentalist atheist is quite accurate.


You seem to have missed the point entirely. The whole purpose of the post was to highlight the fact that nothing is "needed" to be an atheist, save for a lack of belief in God.

One cannot be a fundamentalist about an absence of belief. Indeed, as I said in the post, in so far as an atheist could be said to be a fundamentalist, it would be about the views that led them to non-belief, rather than the non-belief itself. That is the critical difference.

The way you use the phrase "fundamentalist atheist" is clearly intended to imply fundamentalism about atheism, rather than the views that may have lead that person to atheism. Therefore the term is inappropriate.

The irony is that you state there is no atheist creed in order defend part of that creed


But there is no atheist creed! That was the whole point. How can I be defending a creed by saying that there is no creed? That is ridiculous.

150. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193767 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 3:01 am

Clearthinker-

Unlike the fundamentalist atheist position which works on the basis that the only rational position is the atheist one, and the only reason for being an atheist is rationality


You didn't read the link, did you?

Fundamentalist Atheist: A Contradiction In Terms.

EDIT- whoops, I see you did.

YOu might pick up a few pointers


And what is wrong with how I debate?

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