Comments by Quetzalcoatl

Comment #155461 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Teapot-

by definition taking the morning after pill is intended to prevent pregnancy. If the woman knew that conception had not happened, why would she take it? This means that you must be uncomfortable with the idea of the Pill being taken at all.

1702. Beware the Believers

Comment #155448 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Anna-

On the other hand, if you tell your wife that she should abort a particular fetus because a kid would screw up some career plans, then... yes, I would say that would be immoral behavior

This comment suggests that he thinks it is immoral to TELL your wife to have an abortion.

1703. Beware the Believers

Comment #155446 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Karda-

But in most circumstances that I can imagine, I would say that it was then immoral for the couple to have sexual intercourse and put themselves in the situation of having to make such an unpleasant choice

And if they use protection, to prevent such a possibility? What if the couple are married?

1704. Beware the Believers

Comment #155444 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 1:51 pm

Steve-

I read your blog post about it.

Teapot-

if the pill is not okay if you are aware of a conception, is it okay if you do not know or think that it is possible that there is a conception?

1705. Beware the Believers

Comment #155436 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Steve-

comment by Karda 155364-

My opinion is that it is immoral from the day of conception, but that the degree of immorality increases as the fetus develops. By the time that there is a functioning nervous system, it reaches the point of drastic cruelty and should only be undertaken if the alternative of carrying on with the pregnancy is even more dire.

Doesn't say precisely when. Straight away? The assessment of immorality seems to be based solely on what the cell might one day become.

1706. Beware the Believers

Comment #155429 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Karda-

lets clear this up. Who did you mean by "half an opponent?"

1707. Beware the Believers

Comment #155427 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Karda-

I thought we were just talking situational ethics about human rights and when they are endowed

Then let's talk.

1708. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155418 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 1:06 pm

SG-

I'd be far happier if all Christians didn't REALLY believe in the Devil and Hell. People who really believe in the Devil, who see him at work every day, they're the ones who worry me.

1709. Beware the Believers

Comment #155410 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 12:51 pm

Karda-

On the other hand, if you tell your wife that she should abort a particular fetus because a kid would screw up some career plans, then... yes, I would say that would be immoral behavior

Why? Because you find the reason to be immoral? Many people make the decision to not have children because its not the right time in their lives. There's nothing wrong with that.

The second part of your comment contradicts the first. On the one hand you say that it is not unethical to want your wife to have an abortion. On the other, you then say that it is IMMORAL to want your wife to have an abortion because a child would ruin career plans.

So which is it? Are there certain reasons for abortion that are immoral, while others are not? How can you differentiate?

1710. Beware the Believers

Comment #155403 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Karda-

Are you and annabanana the moderators here?

Well, I'm sure we could be persuaded if there were a decent salary involved.

I mentioned it because by saying "four and a half" opponents, it is obvious that you are belittling one of the posters. I don't like that.

1711. Beware the Believers

Comment #155396 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Karda-

Men who would insist on their partner getting an abortion would be as ethically culpable as their partner, and more-so if they argue against her wishes to keep the baby. What now?

Are you saying that men are immoral if they believe that a woman should not keep their baby? Ultimately it's the woman's choice, nobody disputes that. But surely you cannot be claiming that it is immoral for the man to want the woman to abort the baby, in other words to have an opinion? That is what you seem to be suggesting in the second part of the quote.

MaxD-

perhaps he is intimidated by boxers :)

1712. Beware the Believers

Comment #155390 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Kardashovel-

Indeed. Nice trick to secure your place in the queue

I can't tell whether you think I was being underhanded in some way. I posted the comment, and almost immediately thought that one sentence was insufficient. So I clarified it. The revised post was done within a few minutes. There was no deception intended.

And what's this about "four and a half" opponents? There are either four, or five. Nobody on this forum is worth less than anyone else.

1713. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155341 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 10:57 am

al-rawandi-

you might well be right. But I'm still going to try, at least until I get too frustrated.

Scottish Geologist-

But seriously, I remember when Quetz reported on seeing David Robertson in Bedford, that apparently Robertson would not be drawn on whether Dawkins was "of the Devil" or whatever.
Quetz, can you fill in here some detail?

Okay, I've found my notes.

The Devil came up in a question from one of the audience, who asked whether RD's book was Satan's propaganda (he said this in all seriousness, which was the most unnerving thing about it).

DR shot this down. He said that it was a mistake to equate Dawkins with the Devil, or to think that TGD was directly influenced by the Devil.

However. It's clear that Robertson believes the Devil exists. He referenced Adam and Eve in Eden, then stated that anything not of Christ is of sin, so presumably, by extension, is of the Devil. The Devil was directly behind the crucifixion of Jesus. He may not have been directly influenced by the Devil, but RD made a big mistake in writing TGD.

So, in summary, he thinks the Devil is real and is at work in the world. It could be argued that he thinks the Devil had an influence on Dawkins, but only in the sense that he has an influence on everyone.

I sure DR will clarify if I've gone wrong somewhere, but I think that's accurate.

1714. Beware the Believers

Comment #155332 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 10:41 am

Steve-

if it's of any consolation, I'm sure you're just as immoral as Cartomancer and myself.

1715. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155326 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 10:29 am

Dr Benway-

I'm going to try bold text.

Artful_Dodger-

Jesus, as reflected in the gospels, could not have been invented

This seems a remarkably unimaginative comment. What specifically, about Jesus could not have been invented? The Golden Rule, ascension to heaven, virgin birth, performance of miracles and family relationships with God are hardly concepts original to Christianity. Please provide more detail.

Scottish Geologist-

I'll dig out my notes, and get back to you.

1716. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155219 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 8:40 am

Re Pascal's Wager-

I think it was in one of the Discworld books that there was a character who used a variant of Pascal's wager during his life. When he died, he woke up in the afterlife surrounded by a circle of various gods all armed with weapons. Then one of them (Blind Io, I think) said: "We'll show you what we think of Mr Clever Dick around these parts..."

EDIT- It was Hogfather.

1717. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155213 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 8:36 am

Artful_Dodger-

But not all knowledge, like it or not, is in fact contained within the realm that is scientifically observable

Ah, excellent. So how can we know anything about it? And how about some examples?

1718. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155208 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 8:29 am

Artful-

grew out of (but did not outgrow)

Don't they mean the same as each other? By definition if you outGROW something then you grow OUT of it.

This is just wordplay that says nothing.

1719. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155188 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 8:18 am

Artful-

Pascal's Wager. What an excellent argument. Certainly not one that could be described as terrible. Nor one that raises questions like "which God would that be, exactly?"

So, all finished on the Pastor thread, are you?

1720. Beware the Believers

Comment #155172 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 8:06 am

Kardashovel-

LOL. You seem to really believe you are a god.

Try qualifying your statement with an explanation of why it is not relevant

I edited my original comment almost straight after I posted it. You probably missed that.

You yourself are a collection of cells. Just because something is a collection of cells is not the issue.

No, it's not the issue. The issue is the classifications we apply, and what we base these on.

1721. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155144 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 7:45 am

Artful_Dodger-

don't rant, it's unbecoming. If Lennox's lecture ends up on this site, I might well listen to it. I don't know, since it's six months away and I'll probably forget otherwise.

There are unanswered questions on the Pastor thread.

1722. Beware the Believers

Comment #155134 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 7:37 am

Kardashovel-

Yes... do you also think that a 35 week fetus is just a collection of alien cells, Cartomancer?

That point is irrelevant to the specifics of what is being discussed.

By which I mean that Cartomancer said-

The only difference is what it may one day become

And the discussion is currently on the point at which it could be said that an individual has been created.

1723. Whale 'missing link' discovered

Comment #155076 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 6:18 am

Aragorn, son of Arathorn-

Why would you feel so happy if the
theory of abiogenesis and evolution is proved to be correct?

Just to nit-pick. Abiogenesis and evolution are two separate theories. You shouldn't group them together.

It means that humanity and all we see around us have no special meaning.You,myself, are only well organized molecules and atoms."We are not a beautiful snowflake".We are a byproduct of
chance and natural selection.

There's nothing wrong with that. I will say what I always say: just because we are not the creations of a God, doesn't mean our lives are devoid of meaning. It's just that the meaning comes from ourselves, and from each other.

I may very well kill you,
or treat you unjust.It's no big deal.We are not
much different than garbage.

Of course it's a big deal, don't be daft. Is it then your opinion that humans are garbage without God?

This is a fairly common response from anti-evolutionists. Why should our lives be worth anything if we are just accretions of cells, without any purpose or plan to our existence?

Why should our lives NOT be worth anything?

What do you worry so much about your life,your
career,your girlfriend,your family,your income?
You just try to make the best out of life?

Exactly. I worry about these things because they matter to me. I am trying, as are we all, to make the best out of the time I have. The fact that I am an evolved being does not diminish that in any way. In fact, I would say that it enhances it.

Without a God to intervene, it is up to us to make things happen for ourselves. God does not write my books for me. I do. And they matter more because of that.

All we can do is live our lives as best we can. No God required.

1724. Protests no concern for outspoken atheist

Comment #155034 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 4:59 am

Paula-

glad you enjoyed it. I'll definitely watch the video when it's available.

1725. Whale 'missing link' discovered

Comment #155028 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 4:54 am

Steve-

On reading this I had an image of tiny sperm whales flopping around in forests attempting to catch rabbits

Just imagine taking a walk in the woods, being able to hear the sperm whales calling to each other from their burrows. It would be beautiful.

1726. Whale 'missing link' discovered

Comment #155008 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 4:21 am

Aragorn2007-

I just find that you are ready
to accept anything science will tell you.

No I'm not. What do you base that on? It's rare that you'll find someone on this site who blindly accepts things without questioning.

You have so
much faith in evolution but at the same moment
you still try to come up with an abiogenesis
explanation

What's your point? Abiogenesis is the theory of how life got started. Evolution is the theory of what happened ONCE life got started. The one does not invalidate the other.

And I don't have "faith" in evolution. I think it is correct based on the overwhelming mountain of evidence in favour of it.

Scientists can hardly predict next
week's weather.But they feel so confident when
they talk about what happened 35,000,000 years
ago.

Different things entirely.

Should scientists be a little more cautious
and humble or is it just me?

It's just you. Science is cautious by default. Extensive testing and retesting is undertaken continuously before something can become a new theory.

1727. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154976 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 3:22 am

Artful_Dodger-

You don't read poetry literally

Of course not, but that still raises the question of how you decide what is and isn't poetry. In addition, something that is not intended to be literal does not have to be phrased in the form of poetry. How, therefore, do you assess those?

and Biblical history is as verifiable/falsifiable as any other history.

Indeed, so we can immediately write off a lot of it. Exodus, for example.

The presence of the supernatural in a historical account is only a problem if you proceed from an a priori assumption that the supernatural does not exist, and that there is nothing that transcends the physical universe

No, it's a problem if there is no evidence for it. If there is something that transcends the physical universe, for us to even know about it would mean that there would have to be some point of testable contact. If a transcendent deity is claimed to interact, then those interactions are also testable. The problem for the believer is when claimed interactions are found not to be so.

Once you admit the possibility that there exists that which is not susceptible to empirical, scientific investigation then in principle you cannot rule out the possibility of this Transcendent Entity, supposing her/him/it to be intelligent, intervening in the natural world when (s)he/it so chooses

In principle, God cannot be ruled out. But the basis for claims about God can be tested. And as I said, if God interacts in the physical world, then those physical interactions can be investigated.

I have argued elsewhere that the cardinal difficulty for materialists is that "the idea", concepts, thoughts, memories etc. can be shown to exist independently of "the matter" (the brain) that supports them

Thoughts and memories exist independently of the brain? What is your evidence for this? We can map the areas of the brain that activate under certain stimuli, including thoughts. Damage to the brain can rob someone of their memory permanently. If there was some independent existence for thought and memory, you would not expect brain damage to have such an effect.

1728. Protests no concern for outspoken atheist

Comment #154963 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 3:10 am

Steve-

I'll qualify my statement. He made it clear that he's not a YEC. He could believe that humanity was specially created. He did mention Adam & Eve in his talk, but never elaborated. I think he was honest about not being a YEC.

1729. Protests no concern for outspoken atheist

Comment #154955 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 3:04 am

I hope there is going to be a fuller summary of the event than this.

Anyway-

Derick Gillies, of the Free Church of Scotland, said there was an unbalanced debate between those believing in creationism and those believing in evolution

Yes there is. It's due to the overwhelming mountain of evidence against creationism. All we need is some creationist evidence to make the debate more balanced.

EDIT- Robertson isn't a creationist, his Bedford talk made that clear. Some in FCOS are, however.

1730. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #154941 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 2:52 am

On a separate note, has it been mentioned anywhere why this guy didn't go into the caves with his followers? I've looked, but I can't find an explanation.

1731. Whale 'missing link' discovered

Comment #154937 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 2:30 am

Aragorn2007-

Where is your common sense?
Does THIS really look like a WHALE to you?!

Forgive me if I've misunderstood, but is that the extent of your argument? It doesn't LOOK like a whale, so therefore they cannot be related?

1732. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154922 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 1:30 am

Peter_on_Sax-

that and the extreme differences in both quality of argument and writing ability. But mainly the 10p, I'm sure.

Scottishgeologist-

started listening to that last night. Got bored about 4 minutes in and gave up.

1733. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154910 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 12:50 am

Artful Dodger-

when you've answered the question about how you can tell the metaphorical from the literal in the Bible, you also promised us evidence for objections to materialism. I can only presume that you've been using the months since you promised this to refine your arguments, all the better to impress us with.

1734. Expelled Overview

Comment #154607 by Quetzalcoatl on April 3, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Jon_Sociologist-

IQ tests have shown strong correlations between "race" and IQ, although notably these studies would not be so useful to white supremacists as "whites" did not come out on top (in fact they where middle of the road well below the Jews that they so revile).

Do you have a link to back this up?

1735. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #154512 by Quetzalcoatl on April 3, 2008 at 11:43 am

NoNeedToLie-

I have one comment to add to your interesting article-There has NEVER been nor will there EVER be a reason to lie for Jesus

Then why do so many Christians do it?

1736. Scientists reshape Y chromosome haplogroup tree gaining new insights into human ancestry

Comment #154505 by Quetzalcoatl on April 3, 2008 at 11:33 am

Anna-

Quetz,

Jesus had a mutation that allowed him to have a symbiotic relationship with some bioluminescent bacteria, didn't you know that?

I did, Anna. I first found it out when I was a Christian, reading the Bible one night. The verse is pretty obscure, but it is there.

1737. Fleabytes

Comment #154269 by Quetzalcoatl on April 3, 2008 at 2:48 am

Epeeist-

no evidence of one as yet. It might appear later on. Most of the new articles appear late afternoon, probably because that's when Josh wakes up in the US.

1738. CEAI Action Alert for Science Teachers

Comment #154266 by Quetzalcoatl on April 3, 2008 at 2:28 am

-Are you a person of strong religious belief?
-Do you feel that the theory of evolution, with its elegant explanation of how modern lifeforms came about, undermines your faith?
-Are you someone who finds critical thinking and questioning to be threatening?
-Do you feel or want to feel as if you are being persecuted for your beliefs?
-Do you wish that others would just see the light, and agree with you and your beliefs?

Then write to David Brackin, and support him in his courageous fight against the dark forces of neo-science. Start your letter "I'm a religious fundamentalist, and I KNOW I am right because....."

Contributing to this campaign will increase your likelihood of getting into heaven. So get writing, and don't forget: God is always watching.

1739. Scientists reshape Y chromosome haplogroup tree gaining new insights into human ancestry

Comment #154255 by Quetzalcoatl on April 3, 2008 at 2:00 am

Hard to tell, perhaps it glowed more than others hence the whole aura thing in the pictures of him?

Little known fact: the skin of Jesus was actually fluorescent. What do you think inspired the hymn "Shine, Jesus, Shine"?

1740. Fleabytes

Comment #153965 by Quetzalcoatl on April 2, 2008 at 9:24 am

Billy-

Ezekiel 14:9- And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet.

1741. Fleabytes

Comment #153937 by Quetzalcoatl on April 2, 2008 at 8:33 am

Billy-

especially in the light of 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12:

10and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness

It sure sounds like he lies to me.

1742. Fleabytes

Comment #153931 by Quetzalcoatl on April 2, 2008 at 8:24 am

Billy-

God does use lies when it suits him too (2Chron. 18:19-22)

Thanks Billy, that was the verse I was thinking of earlier. What do you have to say to that, Gimlibengloin?

1743. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153915 by Quetzalcoatl on April 2, 2008 at 7:57 am

Anna-

thanks for the link, it's very helpful.

1744. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153911 by Quetzalcoatl on April 2, 2008 at 7:49 am

Anna, DrB, Al- Thanks for the info. I freely admit that I know very little about this, so I might leave it there before I go off on a tangent.

1745. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153904 by Quetzalcoatl on April 2, 2008 at 7:41 am

No they don't which puts them in a bit of a bind

Can't they use this though? Surely they could say "Oh, little Hector is now a citizen, you must make us citizens too. We could not bear to be parted from our child". (Or something like that). Couldn't they get in that way?

1746. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153899 by Quetzalcoatl on April 2, 2008 at 7:38 am

Dr Benway-

well, the parents are taking advantage of that, aren't they? Presumably it's the case that if the baby is an automatic citizen, the parents become citizens as well?

1747. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153894 by Quetzalcoatl on April 2, 2008 at 7:32 am

Anna-

This is interesting. People come across our southern border often as soon as they go into labor because our hospitals are legally obligated to care for them and their child will then legally be a citizen

Those people are taking the piss a little, I think. There might be an argument for taking care of the baby until it can leave the hospital and then sending them either back across the border or to a place where they can legally apply for citizenship.

1748. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153884 by Quetzalcoatl on April 2, 2008 at 7:15 am

Al-

it does, but the circumstances for the US and the UK are different. I suppose then you have to start thinking about the extent of the contribution, which is difficult with people who are actively trying to stay off the radar.

1749. Fleabytes

Comment #153879 by Quetzalcoatl on April 2, 2008 at 7:06 am

If we're blog-plugging-

http://musingsofastrangemind.blogspot.com/

Currently celebrating 100 posts since the blog's creation!

1750. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153876 by Quetzalcoatl on April 2, 2008 at 7:03 am

Excellent, it's good to say that yesterday's bad feeling has been put aside.

Al-

What do you think, should place of birth be enough to determine citizenship?

Not necessarily, if the parents are there illegally, or enter the country with like a week to go before the child is born, for instance. But it depends, I suppose.