Comments by epeeist

1801. 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.

1802. 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.

1803. 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).

1804. 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.

1805. 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".

1806. 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.

1807. 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.

1808. 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.

1809. 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.

1810. 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.

1811. 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.

1812. 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.

1813. 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.

1814. 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.

1815. 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.

1816. 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.

1817. 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.

1818. 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.

1819. 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.

1820. 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.

1821. 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.

1822. 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.

1823. 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.

1824. 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.

1825. Honour Killings

Comment #113685 by epeeist on January 20, 2008 at 10:30 am

So step 1 is to take all schools where Muslims have 51% of the pupils or more and turn them into Muslim community schools. What happens to the non-Muslim children?

Presumably step 2 would be segregation

Which would lead nicely into step 3, dump all western education since it "makes you stupid" (though the article itself reeks with incoherencies) and only teach material appropriate to Islam.

And all done at the taxpayers expense.

1826. Mandrake: Charles's letter in support of Islamic 'fundamentalism'

Comment #113678 by epeeist on January 20, 2008 at 10:23 am

Comment #113675 by Peacebeuponme

epeeist - if that was a "Camillagate" ref it may be lost on our American friends.

Good spot. Alternatively, you might just want to consider Charles to be a twat.

1827. Mandrake: Charles's letter in support of Islamic 'fundamentalism'

Comment #113672 by epeeist on January 20, 2008 at 10:18 am

Comment #113670 by Paula Kirby

But what exactly is "proper fundamentalism"???? What is "proper" about saying "this is how it is and no, I don't have any evidence for that, but you still have to follow it"?

Another guy called Charles insisted he had a divine right to tell people what to do ;-)

1828. Mandrake: Charles's letter in support of Islamic 'fundamentalism'

Comment #113671 by epeeist on January 20, 2008 at 10:16 am

Charles really needs to put a tampon in it (or morph into one or something).

1829. Ethical storm as scientist becomes first man to clone HIMSELF

Comment #113576 by epeeist on January 20, 2008 at 4:40 am

Comment #113526 by Janus

Better yet would be to keep its brain from forming at all, thus ensuring it doesn't even begin to become a person.

Doesn't work I'm afraid. There was a case of an Irish Catholic girl who became pregnant and whose baby had anencephaly. She was initially refused permission to travel to have an abortion.

I didn't see the argument from the Catholic church, but it almost certainly would have been that the embryo and become "en-souled", even though it was missing large amounts of its brain.

1830. Ethical storm as scientist becomes first man to clone HIMSELF

Comment #113564 by epeeist on January 20, 2008 at 3:47 am

Comment #113562 by AllanW

This is the rag that did most to cause the MMR vaccination scandal. Never forget that.

Not forgetting its targeting of "paedophiles" and the vigilantism that caused for which it took no responsibility.

1831. The Group Delusion

Comment #113555 by epeeist on January 20, 2008 at 2:30 am

Comment #113524 by selfishmind

Wow, evidence of evolution. Wooter becomes selfishmind.

He still hasn't got a clue though, he accuses RD of censorship even though his comments are still available. All Josh (not RD) did was to move them to the alternate comment thread.

You have to question why this guy is still here. He quote mines from creationist web sites, he even quotes from places that prove him wrong. He doesn't read the answers that are given to him. All he does is make ad baculum, ad hominem and ad verecundiam, ad populum and countless other errors. All his postings do is make him look ridiculous.

1832. Ethical storm as scientist becomes first man to clone HIMSELF

Comment #113540 by epeeist on January 20, 2008 at 12:56 am

Daily Mail Alert
For people living outside the UK you should understand that the principle marketing method of the Direly Maul is to give its readers something to hate, regardless of the consequences.

1833. Britain cannot put its faith in religiously divided schools

Comment #113534 by epeeist on January 20, 2008 at 12:34 am

Good opinion piece, especially as the YP tends to be somewhat conservative in outlook.

I posted this in another thread - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/11/nschool411.xml

Seems Ed Balls might not be as convinced about faith schools as seems to be intimated.

Incidentally, unless he has changed Dennis Healey isn't religious, my mother was his election agent for a short time and we used to know him reasonably well.

1834. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #113342 by epeeist on January 19, 2008 at 10:24 am

There's a nice cartoon in today's Washington Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/cartoonsandvideos/telnaes/telnaescomments01182008.html

1835. Creation 'Museum' honored

Comment #113341 by epeeist on January 19, 2008 at 10:17 am

I can't find a story in the Indy, but there is this from the Torygraph - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/11/nschool411.xml

1836. The New Theology

Comment #113309 by epeeist on January 19, 2008 at 9:06 am

Comment #113307 by Radesq

Actually epeeist, God has written volumes through such vessels as Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard amongst others.

ADH has made a similar point in other posts, claiming the likes of Osiris and Mithras were really just pre-figurations of Jesus. I am not sure that he thought of doing it for figures after Jesus.

Personally I am quite happy for him to nominate Baldr or the Green Man as early visions of Christ, but only if he accepts Odin and Cernunnos as well.

1837. The New Theology

Comment #113303 by epeeist on January 19, 2008 at 8:42 am

Comment #113299 by ADH

(few if we bear in mind the sweep of human history that Scripture covers).

Oh come on, it covers a few hundred years in the history of an obscure Semitic tribe. It says nothing about the Chinese, Australian Aboriginals or Scandinavians. The Sumerians were recording things long before Scripture and god seems to have not written anything in his diary for the last couple of millennia.

1838. The New Theology

Comment #113300 by epeeist on January 19, 2008 at 8:35 am

Comment #113292 by ADH

"So, what would you do? All you given us is a politicians answer? What is the timeless, unambiguous, right thing to do in this situation?"

I can't really remember the specific situation in question.

Well, you raised it in http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2108,Six-Reasons-to-be-an-Atheist,The-Little-Book-of-Atheist-Spirituality,page9#110393

Basically an ethical dilemma raised in the film Matchpoint.

"love God with all your yeart mind and soul and your neighbour as yourself"

If that is the best you can do then I don't see how your solution to the situation can have any more validity than one based on the Golden Rule (the formulation of which as has been shown, pre-dates Jesus by several centuries at least)

1839. The New Theology

Comment #113270 by epeeist on January 19, 2008 at 7:02 am

Welcome back ADH, glad to see you have two hands free.

I hope it wasn't me how caused you to leave, but I would appreciate an answer as to exactly what you would do for the point I raised here:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2108,Six-Reasons-to-be-an-Atheist,The-Little-Book-of-Atheist-Spirituality,page10#110470

1840. The New Theology

Comment #113225 by epeeist on January 19, 2008 at 3:24 am

It reminds me of watching people on the beach (at least here in the UK). They dip their toe in the water, decide it is too cold and come back out again. They keep repeating this until finally they raise the courage to actually wade out and start swimming.

We just need to keep encouraging them - "Come in, the water's fine."

1841. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #113057 by epeeist on January 18, 2008 at 2:02 pm

Comment #113047 by Ian Bamlett

Slightly off topic, but I am looking for a good book on critical thinking.

You could try "Informal Logic" by Douglas Walton and "Thinking from A to Z" by Nigel Warburton.

1842. Gigantic fossil rodent discovered

Comment #112884 by epeeist on January 18, 2008 at 8:20 am

Comment #112882 by Ultraviolet

Notsobad beat me to it but...

"Rodents of Unusual size...? I don't think they exist. (AARGH!)"

Someone who hasn't been to an under-13 fencing competition...

1843. Gigantic fossil rodent discovered

Comment #112827 by epeeist on January 18, 2008 at 6:38 am

Comment #112823 by annabanana

Now the creationists have something else to depict alongside the humans in the new Creationism museum

They need to put some microbes in there as well - http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1#microbes-days-of-creation

Perhaps the reason god didn't allow A&E to eat the apple was because they had no intestinal fauna to digest it.

1844. The Moral Instinct

Comment #112442 by epeeist on January 17, 2008 at 5:58 am

Comment #112440 by Artful_Dodger

Maybe. But I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. Authoritarian regimes are famous for riding on the coattails of democracy for as long as it suits them to do so. In any case, democracy is often more apparent than real. But democracy also has to be anchored. The fact that a majority have "voted" for something by electing representatives to implement it does not make it right, nor will their agenda necessarily be more humane.

I wouldn't disagree with you apart from possibly the statement that "democracy also has to be anchored", in that I am not sure what you mean by it. Certainly democracy has changed here in the UK, in the different types of people it has represented over the centuries.

I am against trying to force things into a single mould - "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

1845. The Moral Instinct

Comment #112438 by epeeist on January 17, 2008 at 5:38 am

Comment #112434 by Artful_Dodger

This raises huge issues. If the law of the land reflects consensus then we should never have any quarrel with it, right? In East Berlin during the cold war soldiers on duty at Checkpoints along the wall were under a legal obligation to shoot anyone they saw trying to escape.

You are assuming that the consensus never changes.

I find it interesting that in all your examples (except possibly for the MLK case) the restrictive law is associated with an authoritarian regime and the relaxation of the law with the demise of the regime.

You have to wonder whether a more humane outlook can only develop as societies become more democratic.

1846. The Group Delusion

Comment #112426 by epeeist on January 17, 2008 at 4:27 am

Some simple explanations that can be used by anybody

Gravity - http://mechanical-physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/newtons_laws_for_kids_gravity

Cosmology - http://www.amazon.com/Born-Bang-Universe-Sharing-Children/dp/1584690321/ref=pd_sim_b_njs_img_5

Evolution - http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Evolution-Kids-Ideas-Activities/dp/1556525028

1847. The Group Delusion

Comment #112412 by epeeist on January 17, 2008 at 3:54 am

Comment #112409 by rod-the-farmer

Reading posts by wooter, I have to say I get the impression not so much of a child author, but of a person for whom English is not their native tongue.

He has admitted that English is not his native language, but won't tell us what his primary language is. Given the time that he posts it has been surmised that he comes from the Far East.

Josh could determine his location from his IP address of course. The question then is, given that he supposedly is a teacher of primary school children would it be right to inform the authorities of his opinions?

1848. The Group Delusion

Comment #112405 by epeeist on January 17, 2008 at 3:42 am

Comment #112377 by Peacebeuponme

just start hitting the troll button on wooter's posts.

Option B is the Coventry option of course. I think that would resolve things more speedily.

Agreed - I have been marking his posts as trolls (or offensive with some of the later ones, which are vaguely threatening) and making occasional comments when he makes a more than usually vacuous post. I shall continue marking his posts, but cease to respond otherwise.

1849. Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Comment #112396 by epeeist on January 17, 2008 at 3:20 am

Comment #112385 by Styrer

The notion of appeasement has dreadful historical malignity, and while an equivalence on the faith/reason issue may seem far-fetched to some here, I think it is worryingly valid.

I don't think it is appeasement as such, more a question of choosing your targets and the appropriate weapons.

Here in the UK I would go all out to boot both faith and creationism out of schools, I get the feeling that a significant number of the public would probably concur.

Quite honestly I can't see that happening in the US, you have to commit to a war of attrition instead. Stop the attempted introduction of creationism as a start, make it impossible for this to happen as much as you can. Then start introducing evolution and other aspects of science that the creationists are attempting to undermine, again make it bullet proof.

This doesn't have to be sequential, nor do you need the same approach in call cases. And it doesn't meant to say you neglect attacking the fundies in other ways, for example by eliminating the tax rebates that they enjoy.

I see it as requiring a flexible approach, fitted to circumstance and with long term aims. I certainly don't see it as appeasement.

1850. The Moral Instinct

Comment #112370 by epeeist on January 17, 2008 at 1:43 am

Comment #112237 by Artful_Dodger

I can give you a list that you will probably agree with: paedophilia, sex slavery (trapping young girls into a life of prostitution on the spurious promise of a good job), expoiting and fleecing the weak and vulnerable, raping and plundering the planet's resources etc etc.

We consider these wrong now, are you sure that they have always been considered wrong?

Personally I am with the others on this. There is a basic set of behaviours biologically wired in to us which we have extended as societies have developed.