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


1451. A Letter From Hell

Comment #117288 by epeeist on January 28, 2008 at 1:51 pm

Comment #117286 by Deepthought


Am I going to regret asking "Who is Dianelos?"
Bane of the site for a time. An idealist theist who could turn out stuff that looked incredibly plausible at the rate of what seemed like half a novel a day.

You had to read him fairly carefully to realise that his stuff had significant holes in it.

1452. A Letter From Hell

Comment #117280 by epeeist on January 28, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Comment #117275 by Corylus


P.S. Epeeist don't you do programming sometimes? ;-)

Well, that's what I am paid for. These days my major interests are accessibility and usability engineering.

Public manifestations of my efforts include http://www.sallekiss.org.uk

1453. A Letter From Hell

Comment #117265 by epeeist on January 28, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Comment #117249 by omega369


Because you can't prove that anything exists

To quote a bowl of petunias "Oh no not again".

I knew I shouldn't have mentioned Dianelos.

1454. A Letter From Hell

Comment #117245 by epeeist on January 28, 2008 at 12:56 pm

Comment #117237 by Goldy

This Omegaism is cool - like ADH's evangelism. Doesn't matter what you do, it's a belief, like God's hand is everywhere in ADH's mind.

Don't forget Dianelos (shudder)

1455. A Letter From Hell

Comment #117230 by epeeist on January 28, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Comment #117221 by omega369


Computer Programming is all about logic, logic was founded in philosophy.

For someone who is professing to know something about logic that is pretty sloppy. Some computer programming is about logic, for example Prolog implements Horn clauses and Lisp implements the Lambda calculus. Both of these come out of symbolic logic, invented by Boole and De Morgan who were mathematicians rather than philosophers.

Lots of other languages are really just various implementations of process.

And yes, I do know that all computer programming languages are Turing complete.

As for mathematics, you might class intuitionists as believers but you would have a great deal of difficulty with the formalists.

1456. A Letter From Hell

Comment #117214 by epeeist on January 28, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Comment #117204 by omega369


* Concrete Belief: The belief in something which we have evidence for. This is where I feel that most Science is.

To echo al-rawandi and Paula, science has got nothing to do with belief.

While this is overly simplistic the process is

  1. We have a problem, say something like the ultraviolet catastrophe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe)

  2. We raise one or more hypotheses

  3. We generate critical tests of the hypotheses

  4. Those that aren't eliminated by the critical experiments we keep, repeating tests until we have one that explains the problem

  5. After sufficient tests this becomes a theory, in this case quantum theory
Note that our theory isn't true, it is simply well tested and corroborated, it is contingently valid. Another experiment tomorrow or next week may falsify it.

1457. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116982 by epeeist on January 28, 2008 at 12:51 am

There was a bit on UK Radio 4 this morning about Tiktaalik and "Your Inner Fish". Handled reasonably well.

It was just before "Thought for the Day", I wonder if John was listening.

1458. Ken Ham in Leicester April 2008

Comment #115880 by epeeist on January 25, 2008 at 1:22 am

I have been pondering how one should speak at these events, these are some initial thoughts:


  1. You are not there to promote or even defend atheism or the theory of evolution. All this will get you is a whole lot of D'Souza like spew which you will be forced into trying to rebut, with no credence being given to your answers. If your "allegiance to god" is raised then refuse the gambit, "I thought we were here to discuss science education, I don't see how my religion is of any relevance."

  2. Don't try to point out the stupidities in the assumptions "You claim that the universe is 6000 years old, be we can see light from stars millions of light years away". Again, this will just get you into a series of rebuttals that the preacher lecturer will be ready for

  3. Push the burden of proof on to them
    • "Science that I am familiar with, such as the theory of relativity, has given us things like satellite navigation systems, chemistry has given us antibiotics and biology has allowed us to breed for better crops, could you tell us some of the underlying theories that you are presenting us with and how they have benefited us?"

    • "You say that the earth is 6000 years old, what drove you to this theory? What evidence have you for this?"

    • "What experiments have you done to show how the Grand Canyon could have been formed by this flood?"

    • "You claim that the speed of light has changed since the beginning of the universe, could you tell us how you have verified this?"


    • Refuse to allow a move to attacking conventional science, "I am sorry, I know that there are problems with getting accurate ages for fossils, but you haven't explained how you date the ammonites in the Manchester museum collected by S.S. Buckman

    • Let them raise the god, but bring it back to topic, "I am sorry, I thought we were discussing science, not religious education."


There are three basic ideas behind this:

  1. Push the burden of proof on to them. If you start trying to prove your own position then the burden of proof is shared and it leaves you open to attack. All you need to do is undermine their position

  2. Ensure that the discussion stays relevant, you are discussing science education, not religious education.

  3. Reading through the AiG site (must put my keyboard in the dishwasher again) it is full of tu quoque attacks "Well you might say we have problems with light coming from millions of light years away, but the big bang has problems too." There are no positive results there, so pushing them to show any positive results will be a problem to them.


Above all, stay polite, don't attack their religiosity, keep it very tightly focused and keep pushing for definitive answers.

1459. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115508 by epeeist on January 24, 2008 at 9:14 am

Comment #115503 by Henri Bergson


Thirdly, I would say that there were general, I say general, differences in mental capacity between so-called 'races'. But I cannot 'prove' this, it is just an observation.

You can't really frame it like this. Your hypothesis should be that "there are no differences in mental capacity between races". (With suitable caveats for things like equal educational access, demography and a whole stack of other things). This is capable, in principle, of disproof.

Bloody hard and incredibly expensive to set up a good designed experiment even at the meta-level and even then I don't think you would get any clarity in the result.

1460. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115457 by epeeist on January 24, 2008 at 8:04 am

Comment #115451 by Henri Bergson


But that's the fact of inequality, not the value of inequality. You cannot 'prove' a value one way or another.

Which is why science doesn't concern itself with proof, but disproof.

EDIT: sorry, misread your actual text and my response is not apposite. As you intimate, science can deal with the fact though not the value.

1461. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115453 by epeeist on January 24, 2008 at 8:02 am

Comment #115449 by Artful_Dodger


It reminds me of the poem by (I think) Lewis Carroll:

"As I was walking up the stairs

I think I prefer a song from my youth, the chorus of which went

"Trip, trap, trip, trap
Over the rickety bridge"

1462. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115443 by epeeist on January 24, 2008 at 7:51 am

Comment #115441 by Henri Bergson

eepeist,
(what are we on about??)
Well it is phenomenologically difficult to decide, but perhaps you have some Ideas about that.

Err.. Mornington Crescent.

1463. Three Little Pigs 'too offensive'

Comment #115435 by epeeist on January 24, 2008 at 7:40 am

Comment #115433 by JemyM

why do most articles from Britain sound like the Brits are nutters these days?
Because most of our press is owned by foreign nutters or ex-pornographers?

1464. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115432 by epeeist on January 24, 2008 at 7:38 am

Comment #115427 by Henri Bergson


epeeist,
like the subtlety there. You're really gay about your science.
Just so long as I am not an ecce homo...

1465. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115420 by epeeist on January 24, 2008 at 7:13 am

Comment #115406 by al-rawandi on


What about learning abilities. Linguistic abilities. Quant abilities. Logical reasoning abilities.

Sounds a reasonable start

Can you tell me you believe that a child born in England and kept in an intellectual vacuum and tested would not score better than an African child given the same treatment. Both children receive the same education and resources?

An here you have the beginnings of a designed experiment.

I don't really know what "intelligence" or "intellect" are. I can see some manifestations including those that you give in the list above. But as you intimate, these may be tied to education and culture. And is the "intellect" required to produce a theory of relativity better than one that is used to create an opus 131 string quartet or an "Also Sprach Zarathustra"?

1466. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115404 by epeeist on January 24, 2008 at 6:49 am

Comment #115387 by Henri Bergson

What if Darwin, Galton, Spencer, et al were right about the hierarchy of human races? Of course it is a value judgement, but so is one which states that humans are superior to apes (in terms of intellect).

First define what you mean by intellect, then you can do your critical experiment to test it.

1467. Mixing Mammals

Comment #115376 by epeeist on January 24, 2008 at 5:39 am

Comment #115366 by Johnny O

Isn't a mouse with bat wings... A Bat???
Of course it is, and it even has its own music - http://www.emusic.com/samples/m3u/album/10953423/0.m3u

Parent is http://www.emusic.com/album/Johanna-Strauss-Jr-Die-Fledermaus-MP3-Download/10953423.html

1468. Mixing Mammals

Comment #115305 by epeeist on January 24, 2008 at 1:28 am

Comment #115304 by tieInterceptor

As soon as possible they should try to do this with a pig,

Having worked on a pig farm I wouldn't stand underneath.

1469. Ken Ham in Leicester April 2008

Comment #115295 by epeeist on January 24, 2008 at 12:41 am

Comment #115002 by epeeist


Made my draft stronger by adding your amendments.

Sent to the Lancashire Evening Post and Preston Citizen.
Mail received from the editor of the LEP, it is being published in the "Your Letters" section both in print and online.

1470. Three Little Pigs 'too offensive'

Comment #115289 by epeeist on January 23, 2008 at 11:59 pm

You can see lots of huffing and puffing in today's Bellylaugh - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=UBF4MS112SWP1QFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2008/01/24/ntales124.xml

1471. Three Little Pigs 'too offensive'

Comment #115052 by epeeist on January 23, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Comment #115044 by Goldy


I agree, but it does also depend how you use the words. As it is, mention Muslim in the UK and what is the mental image? White guy or Pakistani/Bangladeshi? Religion is also, in this case, stuck with a race in popular perception.

Ooh, lets have an agree-fest.

Popular perception might not distinguish between race and religion, which is why it gets used by the power brokers in the likes of the MCB.

It is time that "you are anti-Muslim so you must be racist" was exposed for the canard that it is.

1472. Three Little Pigs 'too offensive'

Comment #115043 by epeeist on January 23, 2008 at 1:02 pm

Comment #115034 by Goldy

This is just a form of racist stereotyping which alienates them further.

No it isn't, it might alien Muslims, but that is a religion, it has nothing to do with race.

Sorry to be pedantic, but it is a fairly nasty piece of equivocation that gets used an awful lot.

1473. Ken Ham in Leicester April 2008

Comment #115003 by epeeist on January 23, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Comment #115001 by scottishgeologist

Of course, these guys have a get-out clause - they refer to innerancy in the ORIGINAL manuscripts
If it was "god breathed" then surely there should only be one manuscript. It might have been handed over in chapters I suppose, a bit like Victorian novels being published in magazines like "The Strand".

1474. Ken Ham in Leicester April 2008

Comment #115002 by epeeist on January 23, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Comment #115000 by AllanW


1. Epeeist has drafted a letter to be sent to the local media. Thank you.
Made my draft stronger by adding your amendments.

Sent to the Lancashire Evening Post and Preston Citizen.

Also passed on to SWMBO who will pass it around her colleagues.

1475. Ken Ham in Leicester April 2008

Comment #114993 by epeeist on January 23, 2008 at 11:51 am

OK, first draft of a letter to the Lancashire Evening Post. Comments welcome


I note that Paul Taylor the UK spokesman for the American organisation "Answers in Genesis" is due to speak at the Bethany Evangelical Church on Delaware Street, Preston on the 1st of February.

The title of his talk will be "Truth, Lies and Science Education". Now anything that advances science education in the UK is to be commended, especially if it encourages critical thinking on the subject. However, one has to wonder whether an organisation that believes that:

  1. the bible is literally true

  2. that the earth is 6000 years old

  3. that dinosaurs and men walked together before Noah's flood and that the dinosaurs were wiped out by it

  4. that the theory of evolution is actually a religion

has anything to add to the debate.

For those who are are interested in the education of children and wish to find out what "Answers in Genesis" believes should be taught in science lessons in the UK and how they aim to achieve this I urge you to attend this lecture and question the speaker carefully.

1476. Islam in Europe

Comment #114992 by epeeist on January 23, 2008 at 11:47 am

Comment #114990 by drcancerman

I do agree with all you said abo9ut bush, but what is the less of 2 evils? Christianity or Islam?

Christianity is apparently the lesser of two evils. However one shouldn't be complacent about it.

One wouldn't want Iran to have a nuclear device and one would have preferred Pakistan (and India) not to have had one either.

But personally, I wouldn't want a Dominionist to gain access to a whole arsenal of nuclear bombs and an urge to hurry the Rapture along.

1477. Ken Ham in Leicester April 2008

Comment #114933 by epeeist on January 23, 2008 at 7:49 am

Comment #114924 by _J_


However, I'm a bit torn about this. What sort of angle are you thinking of, epeeist?
I think my approach would be to show what they believe, and that their aim is to get this taught in school science lessons.

Hopefully Roger will have some more info.

1478. Ken Ham in Leicester April 2008

Comment #114900 by epeeist on January 23, 2008 at 6:33 am

Comment #114898 by Steve Zara


I would write to local schools and local newspapers
Well, I am happy to write to the Lancashire Evening Post. _J_ lives in the region, so a coordinated attempt might be an idea.

1479. Ken Ham in Leicester April 2008

Comment #114897 by epeeist on January 23, 2008 at 6:26 am

Comment #114894 by Roger Stanyard


Whatever anyone comes up with, it has to be totally legal. No throwing rotten fruit, no abuse, no blocking of people or cars...

Sounds like leaflets, or better still DVDs. Whatever gets distributed should be positive about the science not negative about the attenders beliefs (though being negative about Ham is probably OK).

1480. Ken Ham in Leicester April 2008

Comment #114857 by epeeist on January 23, 2008 at 4:05 am

The one in Preston (the nearest to me) seems to be at the Bethel Evangelical church. Looking at the satellite photo on Google maps it appears to be a hut in the middle of an industrial estate.

1481. Ken Ham in Leicester April 2008

Comment #114822 by epeeist on January 23, 2008 at 1:02 am

Comment #114693 by Deepthought

I have been trying to work out how the fact that natural selection is a tautology makes it meaningless and that evolution is somehow wrong because it is an "unfalsifiable" hypothesis.
You are not the only one. Popper originally believed that natural selection was a tautology,but he later revised his ideas. See his later book "Conjectures and Refutations".

1482. Life-Forming Chemicals Found in Distant Galaxy

Comment #114641 by epeeist on January 22, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Comment #114528 by Steve Zara


How do you sniff the atmospheres of Earth-like planets?
Spectroscopy.
Specifically microwave spectroscopy. They will be looking for the rotational spectrum of molecules. A fair number have been found, glycine has been claimed but not confirmed.

There is a substantial amount of ethanol out there, even if methamphetamine hasn't been found.

1483. Florida in the process of approving new science standards

Comment #114444 by epeeist on January 22, 2008 at 8:05 am

Comment #114439 by AllanW


You have to remember where most of these sports had their rules codified; English public schools ..
A good friend of mine is the fencing master at Eton, a post that has been in existence since the time of Henry VIII apparently.

Hitting people with 3 foot lumps of steel is much more fun than squeezing testicles that have been dunked in freezing mud.

1484. Florida in the process of approving new science standards

Comment #114442 by epeeist on January 22, 2008 at 8:02 am

Comment #114434 by al-rawandi


I had to look up Duckworth-Lewis. It seems to be a joke. Predicting the score? Only two English statisticians could have wasted the amount of time necessary to come up with something like that. Did you see the study where they found cricket can induce comas? :-)
Please don't say things like this. I am trying to cajole Annabanana into going to the real home of cricket when she comes across to the UK, namely Headingley. Take no notice of the MCC, cricket is far too good for Surrey.

1485. Florida in the process of approving new science standards

Comment #114420 by epeeist on January 22, 2008 at 7:21 am

Comment #114412 by al-rawandi


Bah! Dolphins. Laughable.
Bloody Americans, they call a game where the ball is carried for most of the time football, which means they have to rename the real game "soccer".

On top of that their players carry as much armour as a tank. What a set total wusses, compare this to Rugby League (or Union if you must). That's how people should be dressed for body contact sport.

Anyway, cricket is the only team game that is worth playing or watching.

1486. Mandrake: Charles's letter in support of Islamic 'fundamentalism'

Comment #114406 by epeeist on January 22, 2008 at 6:53 am

Comment #114396 by Cartomancer


That said, my appreciation of the monarchy was tarnished considerably when the hitherto quite pretty Prince William hit his mid twenties and the horse genes kicked in...
How about the "take a 12 bore and kill it if it flies" gene? Or the "only profession for a Windsor is the armed forces" gene?

Charles has done some reasonable work on organic farming (see al-rawandi, he does do cabbages) and the Prince's Trust, but otherwise he is a bumbling idiot, a carbuncle on the face of British society. Unfortunately too many people do take him seriously.

1487. This Week's Flea

Comment #114331 by epeeist on January 22, 2008 at 1:07 am

Comment #114327 by octopus


...you can't just pick and choose.
Of course you can.

Not according to ADH. There is no choice, if a deity appeared before his then it merely prefigures his, if it appeared after then it reiterates his.

Similarly with any piece of literature (and presumably music and any other piece of human and endeavour).

Personally I find this incredibly depressing, it simply eviscerates any human achievement.

1488. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #114325 by epeeist on January 22, 2008 at 12:32 am

Comment #114324 by BAEOZ

Do you know much about the theology if God's immutability viz his ability to decide?
Not really, and to be honest I spend too much time on this site, I can't really afford to open up on another.

Looking at the thread that you pointed me at - if you have a god who is perfect and unchangeable, then is he capable of action? Action implies change surely.

1489. This Week's Flea

Comment #114323 by epeeist on January 22, 2008 at 12:12 am

Comment #114321 by ADH

But they derive their power from being brilliant re-articulations of and variations upon the great Biblical thesmes of creation, fall, redemption through sacrifice.
You are claiming that the likes of Plato, Socrates and Confucius were simply pre-figuring the bible! In the same way you claim the likes of Mithras and Baldr.

Fine, but if you want these then you have to accept not only King James sponsoring the translation of the bible, but also the production of the Malleus Maleficarum, not only Milton, but also de Sade.

If your god inspires other non-Judaic authors then you have to have them all, you can't just pick and choose.

1490. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #114322 by epeeist on January 22, 2008 at 12:06 am

Comment #114210 by HolyCows

The Imperative comes first, it is a fundamental rule in the universe we live in

If it is a fundamental rule, then where does it come from? The theists would invoke some "objective morality" derived from their particular deity.

1491. This Week's Flea

Comment #114319 by epeeist on January 21, 2008 at 11:56 pm

I was brought up Catholic but due to an altercation between my mother and the priest was withdrawn. I continued being a "cultural Christian" for a long period after.

My Ph.D. involved measuring molecules to sub-nanometre accuracy but I also did some work with groups identifying complex molecules in space using similar techniques to the ones I was using.

Towards the end of my Ph.D. in my search for jobs I applied and was given an interview with a Catholic school in Rochdale. I thought that I had better brush up on some of the doctrine before the interview and I did some reading both of their literature and the bible.

Let's forget the inconsistencies, others have dealt with that. The thing that struck me was that it was parochial. Not only was it parochial compared with the work I was doing but it was parochial compared with what was happening in other countries in and around the area. Think of Babylonian mathematics and astronomy, the determination of the size of the earth and distances to the moon and sun by Eratosthenes, the works of Euclid and Pythagoras, the philosophy of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Everything that the bible talks about is small minded compared to these.

And not only this, it is mediocre. There is some good poetry and a few interesting mythic elements, but for the rest it is turgid and badly written. By the time I came to read the bible again (in the KJV) I had read a lot of Norse and Welsh mythology, Homer, and an amount of literature up to about the date of the KJV translation. This included Chaucer, Dante's Inferno (in the Dorothy L. Sayers translation), Malory's Morte d'Arthur and Spenser's Faerie Queene as well as a fair chunk of Shakespeare. All of this was better written, more inspiring and in many cases much more ethical than anything in the religious literature I read.

If the bible is the inerrant word of god then he really needs to get himself a ghost writer and editorial team. Compared to what is produced by humans the current version is crap.

1492. This Week's Flea

Comment #114176 by epeeist on January 21, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Comment #114168 by ADH


Epeeist, I keep saying that I know you don't have to be a believer to make right moral choices. What I firmly believe is that the "justice" this film illustrates as remaining undone cannot be grounded in natural selection. Chris Wilton is a classic Darwinian survival-oriented specimen.

What has natural selection got to do with justice?

And what is a "Darwinian survival-oriented specimen".

You are overloading a scientific theory with all sorts of things that are outside of its domain.

1493. Mandrake: Charles's letter in support of Islamic 'fundamentalism'

Comment #114170 by epeeist on January 21, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Comment #114122 by Paula Kirby


I suspect Charles wouldn't even know what a pretzel is, mind you
See the tea with tea bag note from IanG.

This is a man who who has someone to put toothpaste on his toothbrush and supposedly hold his appendage while he has a pee.

He might not be able to do any direct damage, but his influence is still large.

1494. This Week's Flea

Comment #114157 by epeeist on January 21, 2008 at 1:10 pm

Comment #114149 by ADH


For me the moral paradigm that should have been invoked was truth, transparency and justice.
Seems reasonable to me. However, these are human attributes. I can't see any necessity to conjure up a deity to come to this conclusion.

1495. This Week's Flea

Comment #114128 by epeeist on January 21, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Comment #114125 by ADH


I think that was the gist of Artful's quote from Pascal. Pascal had quite a lot more to say in that regard. (Not talking about the wager by the way).

Can you either point us to appropriate information or give us a detailed outline of what he had to say.

He very rightly pointed out that clear blinding evidence is coercive. It leaves one with no choice but to believe any more than one has any choice but to believe that 2+2=4 or that water boils at 100º.

I can prove that 2+2=4 using a variety of methods. I can verify that water boils at 100C at STP. Neither is a matter of belief.
God's not interested in getting people to believe in his existence, but to love him with all their "hearts minds and souls".
You still have to give me a definitive answer to what you would do in the Matchpoint dilemma, and demonstrate how it is timeless, unambiguous and corresponds to some kind of objective morality.

1496. This Week's Flea

Comment #114018 by epeeist on January 21, 2008 at 8:15 am

Comment #114000 by Artful_Dodger


In any case, to define your ideological position, your core philosophy of life in terms of a negative prefix is a little sad. It aslo shows a lack of imagination. I would also argue of course, that it is not possible. That simple negative pre-fix entails a philosophy, a set of beliefs, a belief system which is actually (as you proudly insist) replete with affirmation.

This says more about you than it says about me. All I have is a working hypothesis that the class of personal gods is empty. It is similar to, but not as strong as, the theory of gravity. And like the theory of gravity it is contingent.

As for a negative definition, this is a semantic quibble.

1497. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #113992 by epeeist on January 21, 2008 at 7:04 am

Comment #113988 by HolyCows

OK it does make sense that we evolved a 'lust to be good' over time but why did this happen?
The probable reason why RD brings evolution into it is that proto-ethical behaviour is seen in animals.

Personally, I am of the opinion that while this gives us the basis we have extended it in much the same way as we have language. Kantian imperatives are one example of this.

1498. This Week's Flea

Comment #113970 by epeeist on January 21, 2008 at 5:30 am

Comment #113950 by Steve Zara


Anyone who claims that atheism is a set of beliefs is semantically incorrect and, to put it bluntly, lying.

I am not sure that your last clause is complete.

There are definitely those who are deliberately lying when they say that atheism is a belief, the Wee Flea is the obvious example.

However, I would suggest that there are those who are incapable of seeing anything except in terms of belief and whose position when they are told that atheism is not a belief is bewilderment and an inability to accept it.

One thing that the Wee Flea was never able to articulate was what the "tenets" (his word) of atheism were. I suspect the Artful Dodger won't be able to do this either.

1499. Mandrake: Charles's letter in support of Islamic 'fundamentalism'

Comment #113945 by epeeist on January 21, 2008 at 4:12 am

Comment #113826 by Duff


A "twat" has sexual connotations that I assure you do not describe a person of his....gender, or....station.

As has been suggested, look up "Camillagate" and some of the letters that Charles wrote Mrs. Camilla Parker-Bowles.

1500. This Week's Flea

Comment #113944 by epeeist on January 21, 2008 at 4:08 am

Comment #113926 by Artful_Dodger


Yes indeed, as you have correctly inferred, atheism IS a set of beliefs rather than merely the negation of belief.
Why is it that theists seem to be afraid to abandon their belief in belief.

A-theism is what it says, without gods.

More Pages: Previous | 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 41 42 43 44