1901. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109543 by epeeist on January 9, 2008 at 7:01 am

Comment #109533 by Roger Stanyard and #109535 by hungarianelephant

If you look back through the posts you can see the same thing time after time. The axial tilt one has come up at least twice. The worm and frog or its equivalent multiple times.

I humoured the guy to start with since it was obvious his first language wasn't English. I even gave him a simple summary of the theory of evolution in about three sentences.

However I have come to the conclusion that he simply won't read anything that contradicts his bigoted world view. I note that he is capable of picking up things that he thinks may be to his advantage, like claiming that trying to determine his principle language was racist.

Given that we have an alternate thread mechanism I too would vote that his posts get moved there.

1902. The Mind of the Market

Comment #109529 by epeeist on January 9, 2008 at 6:41 am

Comment #109518 by al-rawandi

If you understand greed and fear, you can understand economics to a reasonable degree.

Got to say I think "reasonable" is an underestimate.

Having worked in the banking industry for a while I can confirm that there is a good reason for the collective noun for bankers to be "a wunch".

1903. The Mind of the Market

Comment #109524 by epeeist on January 9, 2008 at 6:37 am

Comment #109392 by room101

Then, this chucklehead explains what a proper logical argument is

Unfortunately he gets it wrong, he mistakes a sound argument for a valid one.

1904. Blind Faiths

Comment #109506 by epeeist on January 9, 2008 at 6:20 am

Comment #109498 by al-rawandi

Crusades... The Crusades were about control of the Holy Land. See Carol Hiilenbrand's account. Very interesting.

No, the majority of the crusades were associated with the Holy Land.

The Albigensian crusade wasn't, neither was the Swedish crusade against Finland.

1905. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109453 by epeeist on January 9, 2008 at 5:09 am

Comment #109446 by AdrianB

It always boils down to "The Golden Rule" which I think is the greatest human invention.

But of course, we had already invented the idea before Jesus suggested it, and it's nowhere to be found in the 10 commandments.

.

"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." - Confucian Annalects.

"We should not retaliate or render evil for evil to anyone, whatever evil we may have suffered from him." Socrates in Plato's Crito

"One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness hereafter." from the Buddhist Dhammapada

"That one I love who is incapable of ill will, And returns love for hatred." From the Bhagavad Gita.

Some of these I already knew, some took a two minutes search on Google.

1906. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109437 by epeeist on January 9, 2008 at 4:15 am

Comment #109434 by AndreG

Well, we do not negotiate the road rules. And most of us do not set the road rules, it is done by professionals.

So some of us do set the road rules.

Everyone else just either follow them or suffer the consequenses. And that's why we can't do the same for moral systems because it will create the mess on the roads.

So you want to have something where none of us set the rules.

Now this works fine if those rules are unambiguous, timeless, complete and consistent. If they aren't though then someone is going to have to interpret them. I wonder who we should entrust that task to?

1907. Blind Faiths

Comment #109419 by epeeist on January 9, 2008 at 3:13 am

Comment #109409 by Fanusi Khiyal

And that is why the Crusades happened.

All the crusades? Even the ones against the Finns and the Cathars?

Fanusi - I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with you about Islam being a primitive and barbaric religion, nor about the fact that at base it has an imperialist (for want of a better word) outlook and is a threat that needs to be strongly opposed.

I think where I and other people are coming from is that the situation is complex. Would the situation be in different if there hadn't been interference in Islamic countries for wider geopolitical purposes and the tools of that interference then discarded? Would it be any different if a number of Islamic countries weren't cash rich? Does the fact that there is a proto-theocratic, Rapture ready country supporting a nuclear Israel make any difference?

About the multi-cultural thing, it is now seen to have been wrong though I am not sure that the consequences could have been seen when it was initially put in place. There are still a few people who think its a good idea, but read articles in the quality UK press to see what the opinions of the majority are.

We do need to do something about the festering sore that is Islam, but to quote H.L. Mencken - "There is always an easy solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong." Any solution is necessarily be going to be complex.

As for Christianity - personally I am as worried about the Dominionists and Dispensationalists, if they get into power then I can see a far worse theocracy forming then anything in Islam.

1908. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109399 by epeeist on January 9, 2008 at 2:08 am

Comment #109351 by AndreG

Can you, please, provide me with the purely scientific formula to test the existence or non-existence of God? ;)

I can't do it in one line, but this might help

1. t = ~(Exists g) G(g)


2. t -> p


3. ~p


4. Therefore ~t

Where G is to be understood as the class of gods.

1909. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #109005 by epeeist on January 8, 2008 at 6:31 am

Comment #108924 by Goldy

Having lived in Reading, I can safely retort...the south - chavsville ;-) And piss poor beer, a mark of a poor society as any :-D

Yes, I believe they have more people exploding than getting drunk.

Aaaah, best get back to topic, eh.

People might like to try http://www.electoralcompass.com/

1910. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #108982 by epeeist on January 8, 2008 at 4:41 am

Comment #108978 by Steve Zara

If he(?) were working in the UK, he would be shown the door before he would have had time to finish a sentence of complaint.

Even if he was working at one of Vardy's schools?

1911. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #108963 by epeeist on January 8, 2008 at 3:20 am

Comment #108958 by wooter

1.How old do you think the universe is?(Are you asking according to the evolution or God's creation?)
2.How old to you think the earth is? (Are you asking according to the evolution or God's creation?)
3.Do you think the accounts of the creation given in the Bible are true? I benefited reading all the creation accounts. The Bible, of course, is a book of God. It is not a book of Man.

All politicians answers - i.e. no answer whatsoever. Why do you avoid answering such simply framed questions?

2.(What exactly is your primary language?) It is irrelevant to evolution theory. Why are you so curious? Does it matter to you? Take it easy. We are getting hot here already.

As you have been told, there may be people who who could converse with you in your primary language.

3.What qualifications do you have for teaching primary school children? I have got BA and MA DEGREE ALONG WITH TEAC HER'S CERTIFICATE AND CREDENTIALS.

So you have no qualifications for teaching science.

1912. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #108957 by epeeist on January 8, 2008 at 3:14 am

Comment #108950 and #108954 by wooter

Marked as troll - repeats everything that has been said before without a reference to all the answers that have been provided.

Still avoids answering any questions put to him by both me and other people on the board.

1913. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108952 by epeeist on January 8, 2008 at 3:11 am

Comment #108948 by PlagioClase

The true God who created this world, including each of us, is not the god of Islam.

It must be nice to know things like that, and with such certainty.

We poor unbelievers have to struggle on not being sure of even whether things like the theory of relativity are true.

1914. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108927 by epeeist on January 8, 2008 at 12:52 am

Comment #108901 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

In particular the site http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/

Just tried it from work - our proxy blocks it under the categories "racism and hate" :-D

1915. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108925 by epeeist on January 8, 2008 at 12:49 am

Comment #108896 by prettygoodformonkeys

ADH: ".....the fact that that which begins to exist requires a cause external to itself, the anthropic principle..."

Whether it's string theory, or quantum-mechanical, or something wonderful we have yet to discover in the physics of a black hole, one thing is already clear: the rules of the universe as we see it now are not the rules of the universe at or before the instant of its first appearance.

We turned the syllogism given in comment #108562 by al-rawandi from

Statement: Complex things require creators (a priori)
P1: The universe is complex
C: The universe must have a creator.

To

1. Some things with a Kolmogorov complexity over a certain value may possibly require creators


2. The universe did not have that complexity measure at its inception but it does now


3. Whether the universe had creators is indeterminate

Now this was done tongue in cheek and is a horrible mixture of different logics (it would be better stated more informally). However, it probably is just about the best we can say.

You could follow a similar process with the first cause argument.

1916. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108721 by epeeist on January 7, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Comment #108712 by Steve Zara

Epeeist: You are a Yorkshireman?

Yes, born in Castleford but spent most of my early life in Leeds. My daughters were both born in Huddersfield on the understanding that should they have been boys they could play cricket for the county.

My wife was born in Birmingham, but all her family come from Barnsley. Anna would really have fun trying to understand what some of them are saying.

A friend of ours was Head of Department in Computing at York, he now has the grand position of Deputy Vice Chancellor at the University of Kent.

1917. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108716 by epeeist on January 7, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Comment #108709 by annabanana

It sounds wonderful. We are planning to visit for two weeks this summer, even if we don't move there. I'm very excited. It will be my first time in the U.K.!!

I have dropped you a PM, off topic for the board.

1918. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108706 by epeeist on January 7, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Comment #108649 by annabanana

Is Leeds anywhere near Sheffeild (sp?)?

As radiohead1000 said, they are pretty close together. If you did come to Britain you would be better "Up North" rather than London. It is less frenetic, the people are friendly and the beer is better and cheaper. The only hassle would be seems to be accents, my elder daughter's boyfriend comes from Arkansas and he still has to listen carefully to get everything.

Oh, and both Leeds and Sheffield are in Yorkshire which is "Gods own county", but only because there is plenty of beautiful countryside and we have the best cricket in England.

1919. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108691 by epeeist on January 7, 2008 at 12:32 pm

Comment #108673 by Mark Smith

since it relies on proven science, Einstein's theory of relativity.

Be careful about using the word "proven" when talking about science. You should really use "corroborated", "well tested" or something similar.

Einstein's theory may be true (though I personally doubt it), but even it it were then we couldn't know it was true.

1920. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108656 by epeeist on January 7, 2008 at 11:48 am

Comment #108654 by Steve Zara

I have bookmarked a page on tense logic.

For both you and al-rawandi (and anyone else who is interested) could I recommend Susan Haack's Philosophy of Logics. An eminently readable survey of formal logics and their relationship to informal logic.

1921. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108648 by epeeist on January 7, 2008 at 11:37 am

Comment #108613 by Steve Zara

See, now you are making me look stuff up. (And I still don't understand it).

Well you don't need to go very far with it. All you need is a one word change.

Replace
P2: The Universe is complex

With
P2a: The Universe is complex now

1922. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108642 by epeeist on January 7, 2008 at 11:31 am

Comment #108611 by al-rawandi

The answer to the universe. I doubt it was discovered in the 13th century by a Catholic theologan.

It is earlier than that, it was Aristotle that came up with efficient causes.

1923. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108605 by epeeist on January 7, 2008 at 10:29 am

Comment #108590 by al-rawandi

Good points. I hope you know I wasn't arguing for the existence of a creator. Their logic is simple (my point).

One could really throw them and start on modalities, i.e. does everything complex necessarily require a creator, or could we restrict ourself to possibly requiring a creator.

I was waiting for Steve Zara to pop in and point out that the universe was actually simple at the beginning, so what we should be using is tense logic

And of course if really want to get them started then you could give them the sentence "If the universe was created then it would have required a creator", not a particularly good example of a subjunctive conditional but one that you can't handle particularly well in classical logic.

Did you receive formal logic training in college? My learning in the matter is purely auto-didactic and very limited.

I did take a course in logic during my Ph.D. years. It sadly lapsed but I have been polishing it up again recently. A benefit of coming to this site.

1924. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108574 by epeeist on January 7, 2008 at 9:11 am

Comment #108562 by al-rawandi

Statement: Complex things require creators (a priori)
P1: The universe is complex
C: The universe must have a creator.

This is logic from the scholastics. For a start off add in the missing quantifier from the first premiss, one assumes that it is the universal quantifier. In which case you can argue the recursion. If you want to avoid this then you need an auxiliary argument to show that the creator of the universe is simple.

If you want to use an existential quantifier instead then you must show that you are not subject to existential import, i.e. your class of creators is not empty.

Finally, you have only got part of the way. Your syllogism has to show that the creator is in fact god.

1925. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #108555 by epeeist on January 7, 2008 at 7:43 am

Wooter claims to be a logician too. This being so I want to know whether chimeras bombinating in a vacuum can nourish second intentions?

1926. Monkey, Business

Comment #108545 by epeeist on January 7, 2008 at 6:58 am

Comment #108472 by hungarianelephant

The NHS' IT project is doomed to fail expensively, not least because no one can work out quite what it is for. The difference in the private sector is that someone would have been fired, and the project shelved, long before now.

Agreed on the first part since I work for a company that has part of the contract.

Disagree on the second. The number of projects I have seen fail in private industry with no comeback is significant, especially since outsourcing took off. All that happens is that they are "lost", the personnel redeployed and a quick move is made to the new "latest thing".

1927. Changing my Mind

Comment #108490 by epeeist on January 7, 2008 at 4:10 am

Comment #108486 by hungarianelephant

The evidence that would be accepted is if homeopathy proved itself in double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.

I never really got into designed experiments though I did work for a research company that did lots of trials.

Would it be possible to do such a trial incrementally rather than a single monolithic trial?

1928. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #108488 by epeeist on January 7, 2008 at 3:58 am

Wooter - I am sorry but I am not prepared to respond to your quote mining of random creationist sites any more until you answer the questions that I have asked before:

1. How old do you think the universe is?


2. How old to you think the earth is?


3. Do you think the accounts of the creation given in the Bible are true?

To condense what I and other people have been asking about you as a person:

1. How old are you?


2. What exactly is your primary language?


3. What qualifications do you have for teaching primary school children?

Why are you avoiding answering these questions?

1929. A War On Science

Comment #108484 by epeeist on January 7, 2008 at 3:42 am

Comment #107727 by Roger Stanyard

So when PlagioClase is shown up to be talking out of his backside, he starts quoting from the Bible.

And does the other standard thing, drops one thread and starts posting on another.

1930. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108325 by epeeist on January 6, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Comment #108234 by Peacebeuponme

Now I want to be sick. "Bit of a tough break, that rape and all. But don't worry too much - God loves you and his ultimate purpose is good. He just felt you needed to be raped as part of his plan."

You forgot to add, "Oh, and you are pregnant. Well I am sorry but you are going to have to go through with it, abortion is immoral."

1931. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108314 by epeeist on January 6, 2008 at 1:20 pm

Comment #108259 by ADH

"Where is Henri Bergson when you need him (not that you do very often).

FYI Henri Bergson is (was) the nom de plume of a poster on this site, extremely well read in the philosophy of Nietzsche.

As for Nietzsche. Yes he did say that about Christianity. So did Hitler. Neither of them had much admiration for a Christ who would let himself be crucified.

So let's get this right. God supposedly allows one element of himself to be crucified. However during the flood he supposedly drowned every body but 8 people, a kill rate of 99.99998%. Not sure what the animal population figures are but the kill rate there must be around the same.

For World War II the kill rate was 3.7%, and that is for everybody, British, French, Americans, Russians, Germans and Japanese etc.

Loathsome as Hitler was he seems to have been an amateur compared to your god.

And on to your comment #108303 where you complain about your comments "being rubbished". They weren't rubbished, your claim that suffering was good for the soul was found to be loathsome and you were told so in no uncertain terms.

1932. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108249 by epeeist on January 6, 2008 at 10:10 am

Comment #108235 by ADH

Not so, Steve. Paul outlines this in his letter to the Romans.

Well he is bit bloody late on the scene.

Confucius, the Buddha and Aristotle all had far better ethical systems than the sick excuse that you are peddling.

Where is Henri Bergson when you need him (not that you do very often). My readings of Nietzsche are limited, but isn't this really what he was talking about when he accused Christians of having a "slave mentality"?

"There are people who want to make men's lives more difficult for no other reason than the chance it provides them afterwards to offer their prescription for alleviating life; their Christianity, for instance. "

1933. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #108178 by epeeist on January 6, 2008 at 7:27 am

Comment #108177 by krisking

Why do they call themselves the Four Horsemen? There isn't a horse in sight.

Look - you are here to be the Christian gadfly. This doesn't mean to say you are allowed to do humour as well.

1934. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108169 by epeeist on January 6, 2008 at 6:55 am

Comment #108165 by Paula Kirby

It's as if you were in agony with a dental abscess and I had some strong pain relief I could give you, but instead I chose to tell you that I had a dental abscess once too, so I know what you're going through.

One of my daughters has heavy period pains, I wonder whether he knows what that is like?

1935. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #108168 by epeeist on January 6, 2008 at 6:52 am

Comment #108155 by Diacanu

Okay, say you chuck out the embyros with Lou Gherig's disease.
No Stephen Hawking.
Law of unintended consequences.

Chuck out those with epilepsy and you don't get Mohammed?

1936. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108154 by epeeist on January 6, 2008 at 6:02 am

Comment #108140 by GodlessHeathen

It would require a god striking people down with such horrors for it to be evil, even subjectively. Cancer just is, it can't be moral because it has no will of its own and so it's neither good nor evil.

As you say, you can't really apply the concepts of good and evil to cancer. However, if god created us then he surely created the cancers that strike us down.

One thing I haven't heard raised though - why did god inflict such evil on us? Is he frightened of what we might become if we didn't have to spend some much time combating it?

1937. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #108136 by epeeist on January 6, 2008 at 5:02 am

Comment #108135 by The Reverend Dark

This could be your god, the god of Islam, the gods of Hinduism, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Bert the Magic Penguin.

HERETIC - everyone knows it is Tux the Magic Penguin ;-)

1938. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #108112 by epeeist on January 6, 2008 at 3:41 am

Comment #108108 by krisking

I am sure that for the dictators who instigated the destruction of large numbers of people, their actions were completely rational.

Like this guy you mean - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Amalricus

1939. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #108105 by epeeist on January 6, 2008 at 3:22 am

Comment #108097 by wooter

The cell appeared. Nothing will appear by itself without and cause.

You have been given several instances where things arise without an external entity being necessary. All you are doing is repeating what you have said before without taking any notice of what has been shown to you by a number of people.

I know that you aren't a native English speaker (you are still avoiding answering my question as to what your primary language is), but what you post here is nonsense.

Speaking as someone who has actually done science (I have a Ph.D. in Physics, Steve Zara has a Ph.D. in biology) I find your attempts to "prove" something by giving quotations laughable. Except of course where you tell us to read something that you claim is science "carefully", I find this insulting.

I also find your claims of "logic" ludicrous, especially in reference to discussions about god. You have obviously no experience of logic or even elementary science.

Personally I pity the young minds that are exposed to such an ignorant bigot.

1940. Researchers use neuroimaging to study ESP

Comment #108094 by epeeist on January 6, 2008 at 3:02 am

Comment #107954 by julianstirling

It is impossible to affirm a null hypothesis. You cannot prove something doesn't exist, it is impossible scientifically.
So their experiment didn't fail, it did exactly what it set out to do.

Memo to self - don't post late at night when you have had one two many gins.

Having said that - the one thing I do reject is the attempted use of induction in science, I thought this had disappeared at least as long ago as the 1930's.

1941. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108073 by epeeist on January 6, 2008 at 1:16 am

Comment #108070 by ADH

They echo the Fall, and they prefigure the Incarnation (echoes before rather than after the event?). Same goes for Mithras, Prometheus, Gilgamesh, Isis, etc.

The MPAA would love you, "No your honour, we didn't copy [Perrault,Grimm,Anderson] these merely prefigure our member's [Snow White,Little Mermaid] pictures. In fact we are claiming copyright on [Perrault,Grimm,Anderson] and demand that the authors pay us our due fees"

1942. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107920 by epeeist on January 5, 2008 at 3:11 pm

Personally I want to know what happened to Methuselah during the flood, if you do the calculations he should have been alive.

1943. Researchers use neuroimaging to study ESP

Comment #107918 by epeeist on January 5, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Comment #107905 by Ludacrispat26

A shame that such talented scientists have to waste their time disproving nonsense.

Only in so far as their experiments failed to refute the null hypothesis. Better experiments are needed which could actually do this.

Personal opinion:

1. If some kind of low level communication does go on then whether it is telepathy or merely micro-observation then the signal to noise ratio will be extremely low
2. This being so then the number of people actually capable of this will be very small
3. The people capable of it will only be able to do it those whom they have a very close relationship
4. It will only be possible in highly specific circumstances

Having said that, I think the probability of telepathy is minimal and the kind of micro-observation required to simulate telepathy very unlikely.

1944. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107900 by epeeist on January 5, 2008 at 2:53 pm

omment #107879 by Paula Kirby

No, I'm not talking about me. I'm simply pointing out that it's premature to start reflecting on God's reasons for doing things when you haven't demonstrated any evidence for the existence of a god at all, let alone the particular one (out of countless thousands of candidate gods) that you happen to believe in; let alone the alleged action you'd like us to contemplate the alleged god's alleged reasons for.

I came across a nice analogy today. Imagine two baskets one marked "religion" and one marked "science". Two thousand years ago the one marked "religion" would have been full. The weather, god produces it. Disease, comes from god if you have been bad. Similarly with any other kind of natural disaster. Good things live in the basket too, children - a gift of god, the growth of crops (but only if you plant at the right time and make the correct offerings).

The science basket would have been a lot emptier, the earth as a sphere with a reasonable estimate for its size, the Archimedean screw.

Since that time we have taken a lot of things from the religion basket and put them into the science basket.

The thing to realise is that all the traffic has been one way, nothing has ever been removed from the science basket and placed in the god basket.

So what's left in the god basket? A lot of gaps seemingly.

1945. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107886 by epeeist on January 5, 2008 at 2:43 pm

There are stacks of problems with "The Flood" - this gives a summary, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Joe Meert did some calculations which give the figures http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/adam.htm

You can find other calculations here - http://www.geocities.com/pgspears/plate4.htm

Personally, having worked on a pig farm at one point in my life the thing that really counts against the whole idea of the flood for me is the sheer amount of effort it would take to shovel all the shit out on a daily basis.

1946. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107867 by epeeist on January 5, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Comment #107864 by krisking

krisking, do you believe the flood happened?

Any reason why not?

Because it would have turned the Earth into a ball of plasma?

1947. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107851 by epeeist on January 5, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Comment #107808 by krisking

I keep coming across this term in these discussions, and I have to admit, I don't really understand what you guys mean by it.

_J_ and Steve Zara have given you the idea behind falsification. However there is a further aspect.

Suppose you do have a critical test/experiment on your hypothesis and everything behaves as your hypothesis says it should. This does not make it true, it merely corroborates it. Given enough different tests passed then your hypothesis gains the status of "theory". At this juncture it will be accepted as contingently valid, still not taken as truth but the likelihood of it being overturned being small.

1948. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107849 by epeeist on January 5, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Comment #107792 by Summer Seale

Okay then, obviously we should eliminate all sporting events as well. It is time that we realize just how dangerous a poison it is to the mind and that we take steps to eliminate this sort of confrontational tribalism once and for all.

You can have my epee when you prise it from my cold dead hands...

1949. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107783 by epeeist on January 5, 2008 at 10:33 am

Comment #107780 by Paine

Haha....you obviously haven't seen a South American football(soccer) match or an India-Pakistan cricket match! Wars have hung over the outcome of these games.

Not quite wars, but have a glance at the affiliations for Rangers and Celtic football clubs in Scotland and Liverpool and Everton football clubs in England.

1950. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107768 by epeeist on January 5, 2008 at 9:03 am

Comment #107765 by willbonds

The absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.

Of course it isn't. However, that doesn't mean we can't assign some kind of fuzzy probability.