Comments by epeeist

2001. 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?

2002. 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?

2003. 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?

2004. 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 ;-)

2005. 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

2006. 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.

2007. 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.

2008. 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"

2009. 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.

2010. 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:

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
This being so then the number of people actually capable of this will be very small
The people capable of it will only be able to do it those whom they have a very close relationship
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.

2011. 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.

2012. 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.

2013. 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?

2014. 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.

2015. 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...

2016. 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.

2017. 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.

2018. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #107748 by epeeist on January 5, 2008 at 6:12 am

Comment #107746 by AllanW

Isn't this what homeopaths do? THEY claim it makes the medicine far more powerful :)

Nah, that would only concentrate it which would make it less powerful.

However, I have had a sudden epiphany about making a bottle of gin go further when we have guests...

2019. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #107735 by epeeist on January 5, 2008 at 5:19 am

Comment #107730 by wooter

I am mixed blood and English is my second language.

We had already established that, however you still haven't told us what your primary language is.

I am a primary school teacher but i do not teach science but when the topic comes up to the creation i give my kids two option; evolution and intelligent and creator.

So what qualifications do you have to teach children, you still haven't told us that.

As for presenting the two alternatives, from what you have written here I would question whether you are presenting them honestly. You come across as someone who is very biased towards a particular viewpoint.

Could I ask you some more questions:

How old do you think the universe is?
How old to you think the earth is?
Do you think the accounts of the creation given in the Bible are true?

2020. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #107728 by epeeist on January 5, 2008 at 4:51 am

Wooter - I have marked both your last two posts as trolls. All you are doing is cutting and pasting from creationist sites.

You still haven't answered my two questions, what is your primary language and what qualifications do you have for teaching children, especially science.

Why are you avoiding answering these questions?

2021. A War On Science

Comment #107726 by epeeist on January 5, 2008 at 4:48 am

Comment #107721 by PlagioClase

Steve, Roger and epeeist. You guys seem to get very emotional and insulting about these issues.

I live in the UK, for a millennium and a half the Christian church has had its own way, it has centres in every town to pass on its message, it has schools (largely funded by the state), it even has some of its personnel sitting by right in the seat of government.

It expects automatic deference whenever it makes a pronouncement. What has been triggered of late is that a number of people are not prepared to give that deference any more.

If you want to claim that your invisible friend created us and made us special then fine, but you are going to have to produce positive evidence that this happened, not merely criticise a scientific position using arguments that have been shown to be wrong many times before. And once you have been shown the evidence you are going to have to stop playing the persecution card.

Incidentally, Roger can be forthright and I can be acerbic, but Steve? He's a pussycat.

2022. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107720 by epeeist on January 5, 2008 at 4:33 am

Just a query for our American friends.

Assuming that a Democrat gets elected then what happens to all of the "Regent University" placemen that seem to be packing the lower order posts in the current executive.

Would it stop or simply slow down Pat Robertson's aim to take over the judiciary?

2023. A War On Science

Comment #107719 by epeeist on January 5, 2008 at 4:28 am

Comment #107716 by Roger Stanyard

There's a huge difference between theist and creationist. "Cretinist" soley refers to the latter.

I wouldn't disagree with you, but compare the likes of revcort or ruht with PlagioClase and these with Bizarro Dawkins.

You certainly wouldn't discuss things with the first two in the same way as you would with the latter pair. As for Bizarro, one to watch out for in the future.

2024. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #107714 by epeeist on January 5, 2008 at 3:32 am

Comment #107712 by Jab

This is disgusting. It's reactionary, and must be highly offensive to any gay people.

Since he probably regards gay people as sinners against the Lord then I think he might regard it as benefit.

2025. A War On Science

Comment #107713 by epeeist on January 5, 2008 at 3:30 am

Comment #107709 by Roger Stanyard

The cretinists are here to tell you that they are religious and to preach.

I think this is too simplistic, the theists that come here are not a homogeneous lump.

There are those that are ignorant having never been exposed to anything outside religion, there are those that don't have the acumen to understand rational discussion and there are the genuine distorters.

I am not too sure constantly referring to the as "cretinists" helps, it is like referring to Microsoft as M$. Amusing the first few times, but demeaning to your point of view in the long run.

2026. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #107672 by epeeist on January 5, 2008 at 1:01 am

Comment #107671 by PlagioClase

Interestingly, Asimov's three laws of robotics are consistent with the events described in Genesis.

Of course they are, they are both works of fiction.

Interesting that you choose an atheist who is basically providing an ethical system for robots.

2027. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #107670 by epeeist on January 5, 2008 at 12:48 am

Comment #107578 by PlagioClase

The biblical worldview explains why there are imperfections in this world: they are due to the Fall--i.e. the willful rejection by the first two humans of the Creator's authority over their lives. Sound familiar?

Ah, you mean when we were in the garden of Eden (whether in the Middle East or Missouri) we had perfect eyes, no appendix and no coccyx. We only gained the imperfections when god threw us out.

Loving sort of chap your god isn't he.

2028. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #107432 by epeeist on January 4, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Comment #107429 by Artful_Dodger

If atheism becomes "mainstream" (a big if) it will be interesting to see what measures are taken by atheists with political clout to bring their dream or a "faith-free society" to fruition.

Personally I would be happy to live in a society where religion was not given the automatic deference that now happens.

Scientists who raise theories about things like the formation of the universe, historians who discuss the historicity of events and people, philosophers who reason about ethical systems all have to defend their ideas. Religionists pontificate on all of these subjects but are rarely challenged in the same way, especially when they mention their invisible friend.

Make it an even playing field and I would be happy for religionists to keep their beliefs.

2029. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #107402 by epeeist on January 4, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Comment #107119 by Quetzalcoatl

Actually, bees build circular compartments, it's just the pressure of so many being built so close together that deforms them into closer-fitting hexagonal shapes.

Many years ago I read a science fiction story about a society that wouldn't use the wheel because it was a circle, a religious symbol of perfection.

The team visiting the planet created wagons with solid wheels in the form of Reuleaux triangles. They left fairly quickly before the priests realised that the wheels were abrading down to circles.

2030. Monkey, Business

Comment #107387 by epeeist on January 4, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Comment #107185 by Rtambree

No, examples such as V2, Korolyov's Sputnik & Soyuz programs, Apollo, Human Genome Project, Manhattan Project, lasers...

Not sure that your laser reference is correct. I actually met Charlie Townes who produced the first maser and worked on infra-red lasers. He and Schwalow worked at Bell Labs.

2031. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107170 by epeeist on January 4, 2008 at 8:36 am

Comment #107167 by annabanana

Also, in preparation that someone abhorrent will win, anyone over there in Europe have a spare room I can rent, pretty please?

Why not come over now - think socialised medicine...

Whoops, wrong thread

2032. Monkey, Business

Comment #107145 by epeeist on January 4, 2008 at 7:27 am

Comment #107139 by al-rawandi

Bad news. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist in Europe. However it hasn't in any way destroyed other innovation.

It was convicted in the States too, it was just lucky that Bush came to power at the right time to mitigate the penalties that were imposed.

I hate to disagree with you, but it you are actually reading this in a medium where MS stifled innovation for years, namely the web. It tried its usual policy "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" but was unsuccessful. You will find a number of examples of how it used its muscle in other cases in the link I sent to you.

That is why we have anti-trust legislation. To deal with monsters like Microsoft.

Interestingly the recent case in Europe was effectively spearheaded by a tiny set of people responsible for a piece of software called "Samba". They are really the reason that MS actually lost.

More details at http://us1.samba.org/samba/

2033. Monkey, Business

Comment #107137 by epeeist on January 4, 2008 at 7:08 am

Comment #107133 by al-rawandi

What is this company?

Microsoft - a convicted monopolist that still has some pretty nasty business practices.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Documents and the references from it for more details.

2034. Monkey, Business

Comment #107124 by epeeist on January 4, 2008 at 6:30 am

Comment #107108 by hungarianelephant

I'd be inclined to agree that attempting to reduce competition is the norm in commoditised industries such as agriculture, where your chance of profit through innovation is very small.

Would you consider the IT industry as commoditised? The largest software vendor is the least innovative and is actively acting to subvert other groups and organisations that are innovative.

2035. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107100 by epeeist on January 4, 2008 at 4:22 am

Comment #107098 by Tyler Durden

Being a "decadent" European (thanks Mitt)

Daughter number one and I are sitting in that set of seats as well.

She interned with Naral in Boston, given this and the fact that her boyfriend went to same university as Bill Clinton she is rooting for Hillary.

Personally I think the lady is somewhat tainted and that Obama would be a better choice.

But what do we know, we are only in the popcorn gallery.

2036. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107087 by epeeist on January 4, 2008 at 3:52 am

Comment #107086 by Hihino

hello everyone, im a stranger that currently have a mother use to be a buddhist but now she is a christian and my father is atheism. me and my sister are same with my mother but i will regard myself as a half atheism and half christian.

Hihino - please don't post the same thing on several different topics. Stick to a single thread and make your comments relative to the topic under discussion. We will soon pick up the basis of your arguments.

Make your posts shorter - you are obviously not a native English speaker, so this will make things easier for all of us.

Half christian/half atheist - sounds painful.

2037. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #107079 by epeeist on January 4, 2008 at 3:34 am

Comment #107071 by Roger Stanyard

Here's my question for today, Wooter:

If Noah's Ark is "true" how come there are more than 400 alleles at some genetic loci in the uman body?

Personally I would settle for knowing where all the water came from, and where it went...

Along with knowing what wooter's primary language is and what qualifications he has for actually being in charge of children.

2038. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #107078 by epeeist on January 4, 2008 at 3:30 am

Comment #107061 by Goldy

Could use some help here.
Just sent my wee tuppence worth in, Brian :-)

I have joined the throng too.

Nice post from Philip showing that unicorns exist because the bible says so ;-)

2039. Synthetic DNA on the Brink of Yielding New Life Forms

Comment #107068 by epeeist on January 4, 2008 at 3:10 am

Comment #107064 by rainbow

If it happened on one planet in a quadrillion suitable planets and only one in a quadrillion planets were suitable, there'd not be enough possibilities in the universe.

So the probability is that we would be alone in the universe.

Would you then postulate multiple universes?

One in a quadrillion quadrillion is still a finite possibility. There may be other reasons for postulating a multi-verse, but the necessity of our existence isn't one of them.

2040. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #107066 by epeeist on January 4, 2008 at 3:03 am

Wooter - to echo Quetzalcoatl's comment. You are very good at posing questions, but not very good at providing answers.

In previous posts I have asked you what your primary language is and what qualifications you have for teaching primary school children (especially science). Why are you avoiding answering my questions?

2041. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #107059 by epeeist on January 4, 2008 at 2:48 am

Comment #105413 by I-am-a-7

Running around naked in the streets of New York City would be considered as not being a moraly correct thing.

It might be considered as going against current mores (and it wouldn't be advisable at this time of year), but I am not sure why it is morally incorrect.

Speaking as someone who has spent some time on the naturist beaches of France.

2042. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #107058 by epeeist on January 4, 2008 at 2:44 am

Comment #107048 by wooter

Actually I am gonna refer an article to Mr Denett. You can see why complex and organized things cannot come from Chaos.

More nonsense - Julia and Mandelbrot sets, Lorentzian attractors are complex and organised and arise from chaotic systems.

Ice crystals are composed of simple, repeated internal patterns that produce beautiful, external shapes.

I suppose a god that can handle the creation and destruction of every virtual particle would have no problem designing and implementing every single snowflake. But if your god is controlling the cosmos this tightly then it means that humans have no free will at all. So you can attribute all good acts to this being. Unfortunately it means that you have to attribute every evil act as well, and this not only includes murders and rapes, but earthquakes and tsunamis.

It also makes your god an incredibly complex entity. How did such an entity arise, and what evidence do you have for this?

2043. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #107040 by epeeist on January 4, 2008 at 1:40 am

Comment #107039 by Roland_F

I am a little surprised to find these political Iraq discussions here in this forum. And I am astonished how easy political distorted (spinned) arguments are taken at face value from so educated Skeptics -- how can we blame religious indoctrinated people to fall easy victim to stupid religious arguments ?! .

I would take issue with a number of the points you raise. However, I wouldn't argue with the majority of your thesis, namely that the situation is considerably more complex and has a wider historical basis than most people (and not just on this site) realise.

Personally I think you stop too soon, you can probably detect traces of the current problems stemming from the British Protectorate of Palestine from after the 1st World War.

2044. Changing my Mind

Comment #106731 by epeeist on January 3, 2008 at 10:58 am

Comment #106658 by PJG

One for the British here - have you seen this?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,2233423,00.html

I see Barry Sheerman is involved. He is quite a reasonable guy on education.

2045. The religiosity test: Doubters need not apply

Comment #106558 by epeeist on January 3, 2008 at 6:27 am

It does make me wonder.

The current US administration is concerned about a a country that contains thousands of theocrats that may or may not be able to produce a single nuclear device.

Should we be equally worried about a country that has thousands of nuclear devices turning into a theocracy?

2046. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #106553 by epeeist on January 3, 2008 at 6:11 am

Comment #106531 by Steve Zara

Hmm... seems to me there is a trend here.

Indeed - could I start my quotations for 2008 with one from Robert Heinlein: "One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen."

2047. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #106543 by epeeist on January 3, 2008 at 5:47 am

Comment #106527 by PlagioClase

Should we accuse him of being dishonest? Perhaps he should have a talk to ex-atheist Antony Flew, an honest atheist who now says, 'There is a God', because of the scientific discoveries of the last 50 years.

I would recommend that you go and read what actually happened in terms of Anthony Flew's "conversion". Examine the evidence and see whether you still think that he personally wrote "There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind" or whether most of the material came from Roy Varghese. You might want to try and determine whether Flew is suffering from dementia and if so, when it started.

2048. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #106521 by epeeist on January 3, 2008 at 4:34 am

Comment #106507 by wooter

Who created the creator?

This is simply wrong. It assumes that:

There is a creator

The creator is a being

The being is god

Look at snowflakes or crystals, who creates those?

Look at the creation and annihilation of virtual particles, this is happening continuously. No creator is needed.

2049. The Pagan Christ

Comment #106481 by epeeist on January 3, 2008 at 2:58 am

Comment #106433 by albondigas

I'm not exactly sure what would satisfy your requirements of an 'independently verifiable text' but I think that 66 books written by many different authors over a period of hundreds of years with a common thread running from beginning to end should be something that would be of interest.

There is a thing called the "Coherence theory of truth", here one looks for a "maximal consistent subset" (MCS) of a particular set of beliefs.

Unfortunately, there is almost certainly more than one MCS which raises the question as to how you choose a particular "warranted" MCS.

And as Russell points out, it is fairly easy to have a consistent fairy tale.

2050. Monkey, Business

Comment #106439 by epeeist on January 3, 2008 at 12:34 am

Comment #106120 by al-rawandi

You are the one who is deluded. The left is monolithic on the issue...

wealthy=bad
profit=bad
capitalism=bad
compensation for innovation=bad

all poor people=good
govt. pays for everything=good

To be blunt about it, this is total bollocks from someone who seems to have had little exposure to a left of centre society (and no, China and the Soviet Union don't count. They were totalitarian dictatorships).

I am with Rtambree on this. I prefer a society where the economy is the servant of the people rather than the other way around.