2101. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141911 by epeeist on March 11, 2008 at 11:28 am

Comment #141908 by lostpoet

But wait again, "...punishing children for the iniquity of parents...? Pretty clear example of "social injustice!" So it looks like God is going to hell after all.

He's already been, didn't you know? However, he supposedly got out again by his own efforts. However, you have to wonder...

2102. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141901 by epeeist on March 11, 2008 at 10:55 am

Comment #141897 by irate_atheist

I must call God a prick more often.

To get to level 9 you have to pray to him and then call him a prick when you are talking to friends and he isn't listening.

2103. Fleabytes

Comment #141900 by epeeist on March 11, 2008 at 10:53 am

Comment #141898 by MPhil

I come across this very often... they simply say something to the effect of ''God' has nothing to do with evidence' or 'God cannot be known, his presence can only be felt'...

Recognise this quotation? "I could not say I believe. I know! I have had the experience of being gripped by something that is stronger than myself, something that people call God"

2104. Fleabytes

Comment #141876 by epeeist on March 11, 2008 at 10:07 am

Comment #141848 by Incredulous

Surely, western education is a childhood long exercise in the type of thinking which emphasises facts, observation, logical and critical thinking.

At its best, yes. Unfortunately we seem to have reverted it being the ability to pass exams and then having sufficient training to fill a job role.

2105. Fleabytes

Comment #141870 by epeeist on March 11, 2008 at 10:01 am

Comment #141852 by hungarianelephant

See, apart from the compartmentalisation problem which kaiserkriss refers to, I think the problem here is with the word "truth".

When scientists use the word, they mean "factually correct".

Have a glance at wikipedia for coherence and correspondence theories of truth. I suspect this might cover what your are getting at.

2106. Fleabytes

Comment #141828 by epeeist on March 11, 2008 at 9:14 am

Comment #141821 by Incredulous

Are we in danger of intellectualising atheism and therefore turning it into a mere tool for sharpening the wits of the well educated?

You seem to be conflating intelligent and well educated. The two aren't necessarily the same.

If we are sticking fingers in the air, my view would be that it is a good education that leads to atheism rather than just intelligence.

2107. Fleabytes

Comment #141823 by epeeist on March 11, 2008 at 9:00 am

Comment #141815 by fides_et_ratio

It's irrational for a recovering alcoholic not to pray.

Could I say that as the nephew of someone who died from alcoholism and the brother of someone else who died from the same affliction I don't find that particularly helpful.

Prayer didn't help my uncle who was a pious Catholic, and the lack of prayer didn't seem to have any effect on my brother who, at best, was a cultural Christian.

2108. Fleabytes

Comment #141811 by epeeist on March 11, 2008 at 8:46 am

Comment #141806 by al-rawandi

down to spelling corrections from epeeist

That's it? That's all I am good for?

2109. Fleabytes

Comment #141655 by epeeist on March 11, 2008 at 3:11 am

Comment #141648 by clodhopper

Epeeist: N53:34:41, W2:32:23 That would be a stones throw from the Bolton Wanderers ground.

It is actually the Bolton Arena - where we run the Manchester Cadet Tournament in September/October. http://www.manchesterCadet.org.

Of course even if mlearnedfriend managed to predict something 100% of the time it wouldn't mean that a deity existed, or his deity in particular.

2110. The Only One in Step

Comment #141635 by epeeist on March 11, 2008 at 1:51 am

Comment #141632 by jwilts

Professor Andy McIntosh "proves" that vaccination cannot work and that rain is impossible:

Hearty round of applause.

Can I congratulate you on your tactics, keeping on topic and not letting him escape into other matters.

2111. Oklahoma: One Step from Doom

Comment #141633 by epeeist on March 11, 2008 at 1:44 am

Comment #141577 by Bluff_King_Hal

Interesting that you write a perfectly rational argument for your position, and then kick in your own sandcastle by making an entirely irrational appeal to nomenclature, that something is 'plain socialism'. Yes it may be associated with socialism, but merely identifying something as socialist doesnt (or shouldnt) discredit it per se if you haven already established that all aspects of socialism are at fault, which you havent. The fact that you added this Coda suggests that you would be of this opinion even if you couldnt furnish rational arguments in its defence. That doesnt invalidate those arguments of course, which imho are pretty good ones.

Good, as in curate's egg good.

In my working life a couple of the other reasons for companies failing are bad management, and shareholders demanding instant and large returns on capital. Both of these tend to be associated with no long term investment.

Compare too the bonuses at executive level with the pay rises at shop floor level. In good times these are given for "creating a successful company", in bad times for "managing the company through a difficult period".

2112. Fleabytes

Comment #141625 by epeeist on March 11, 2008 at 1:04 am

Comment #141592 by mlearnedfriend

Anyway, you are claiming the truth of prophecy. Therefore the burden is on you to a) show they were absolutely and accurately fulfilled b) the prophecy was actually foretold before the event. Note that claims such as "it will rain next Wednesday" don't count, what we want is "next Wednesday at 1234 UTC at N53:34:41, W2:32:23 there will be 3.5mm of rain".

I had to just come back at you on this one. The criteria you put here is too onerous - let me explain why.

I still stick to the conditions I asked for:

1. It must be shown that the prophecy was actually made before the event
2. It must be specific, to change the example "It will rain in Oxford on the 22nd June 2008." When water doesn't fall on Cartomancer in Wadham on that day you shouldn't be able to say "Well I meant the Oxford in New England", or Georgia, or Queensland in Australia.

Like good scientific theories your prophecy needs to be risky if any value is to be placed on it. Your choice of Portsmouth beating Manchester United doesn't qualify for this. Your prediction of win, lose and draw may just be the result of a well designed Bayesian analysis. You haven't yet done enough to show that it was a definite view of the future. Of course I wouldn't be convinced if you could actually predict who scored goals at what time during the match, I would want to look at whether someone's bank account seemed to have rather more money in it than it should do.

And a minor point - theories are not proven, i.e. shown to be true. They can only be contingently valid.

2113. Fleabytes

Comment #141506 by epeeist on March 10, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Comment #141501 by clodhopper

Assistant stage manager? Orbital Peter & Wendy? Wendy Flys Through Scenery? Somehow 'deliberate' springs to mind.

"Never assign to malice what can be explained by incompetence."

On the last performance, after suitable libations, we managed to double shot one of the smoke boxes and set fire to the scenery too.

2114. Fleabytes

Comment #141496 by epeeist on March 10, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Comment #141466 by Cartomancer

Act 4: Paula Kirby and Steve Zara descend on flying wires

Sorry - but this brings to mind a production of "Peter Pan" that I was an assistant stage manager for many years back.

In notable performances we managed to fly Wendy through the scenery, rather than through the window. We also managed to get the wires holding Peter Pan and Wendy tangled so that they orbited around each other in ever decreasing circles six feet off the floor.

2115. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141469 by epeeist on March 10, 2008 at 1:20 pm

Comment #141460 by Geoff

Yeah..I was so hoping (as was epeeist) to see him on the "debunking creationism" forum, though. He'd have been such a welcome visitor...

Yeah, but you were too subtle. I pointed him to a thread that Calilasseia was actually posting in.

A bit like the difference between showing him the auditorium and actually throwing him to the lions.

2116. Oklahoma: One Step from Doom

Comment #141443 by epeeist on March 10, 2008 at 12:33 pm

Comment #141365 by bentleyd

But at least they are the anti-union, free-market, small gov't party.

It's the "progressive", left-wing, Democrats that insist on gov't mandated minimum wages

I must admit to some bafflement here.

What is the problem with workers organising into unions?

And what is the problem with insisting employers pay people a wage they can live on?

2117. Fleabytes

Comment #141435 by epeeist on March 10, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Comment #141415 by mlearnedfriend

1] a lot of the posts are erudite and it's nice to feel like you are back at Uni having a real discussion as opposed to 'how do we increase sales of rivets in the third quarter?'

2] no theist likes to think they are a dumb stupidhead so it's good to discuss and see where that gets you. A Christian shouldn't be scared of truth (after all, if I was then my faith is pretty small, huh!). Also, if you are as bright as you sound then maybe some might rub off on my poor brain. Iron sharpens iron etc.

Stick to that and you will get a good debate here.

2118. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141350 by epeeist on March 10, 2008 at 9:38 am

Comment #141336 by Geoff

wooter, I know you don't like clicking on links, but you really should post some of your ideas in this forum:

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=46&sid=0aa6b7fca9bbe24655fe1ce57c7c8545

You'll be really welcome!

In fact there is a thread that is already active that would welcome your insight - http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=21516&sid=352e233c94a48fb4a41759f392d7b67a

However, before you go - how old do you think the earth is?

2119. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141152 by epeeist on March 10, 2008 at 5:53 am

Comment #141148 by Wheeler

Hit me epeeist, my sophist skills need sharpening.

OK - your chance to prove me wrong:

How old do you think the universe is?

You might also have a go at answering Jon_sociologists questions detailed in http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2299,The-Salamanders-Tale,Richard-Dawkins-RodHullIAmHim,page4#136363

2120. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141149 by epeeist on March 10, 2008 at 5:47 am

Comment #141146 by Wheeler

1 if god exists and is the creator of all except himself
2 then god exists and is the creator of all except himself.

Hmm, first one out of my list, the broken attempt at logic.

A couple I did miss off though - if one of the sock puppets produces a long, semi-reasonable post it will turn out to be something cut and pasted from elsewhere without any attribution, i.e. plagiarism.

Secondly - any posts that include links that supposedly refute a scientific position will reference AiG or CotW.

2121. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141147 by epeeist on March 10, 2008 at 5:41 am

What odds we don't see wooter again? Just a series of sock puppets.

Other predictions - none of the sock puppets will be able to spell, they will pose questions and not read the answers that are given, they will claim to understand logic and science but actually know less than the average 10 year old, in particular they will continue to claim that evolution is "random".

2122. Richard Dawkins on five of his favorite books

Comment #140988 by epeeist on March 9, 2008 at 1:24 pm

Almost impossible to cut it down to 5.

Fiction:
Herman Hesse - Narziss and Goldmund
Dorothy L. Sayers - The Nine Tailors
Mervyn Peake - Gormenghast
Herman Melville - Moby Dick
Joseph Conrad - Heart of Darkness

Non-Fiction:
Laszlo Szabo - Fencing and the Master
Richard Hakluyt - Voyages and Discoveries
Garrett Mattingly - The Defeat of the Spanish Armada
Thomas Mallory - Morte D'Arthur
Anonymous - Beowulf

Plus most of the others that have been mentioned

2123. Fleabytes

Comment #140914 by epeeist on March 9, 2008 at 5:30 am

Comment #140910 by mikejswalker

I have to say this is an area i find fascinating and is part of the reason I see 'show us your evidence' a discussion killer.

Agreed - but it has to be done properly.

Let's discuss religion, ID or whatever with those who bring it here. But restrict the dialogue. If people want to make claims for creationism then that is what we should be discussing,not faults in the theory of evolution. If that is where the creationists want to go (and they usually do) they should be pulled back to the topic proper. In that way we dominate the tactics, time and distance (whoops, wrong subject).

2124. Lords Approve Abolition Of Blasphemy

Comment #140896 by epeeist on March 9, 2008 at 4:18 am

Comment #140710 by Titchfield

Someone suggested that Hitchens would make a great Lord and whilst I agree that would have been true 10 years ago he is now, sadly, a Yank. As such I'm pretty sure he can't be given the right to sit in the House of Lords and quite right too.

Can you say "Conrad Black". He changed nationality to become Lord Black.

Of course he may lose his peerage either by a specific act of parliament, or more generally if the bill to remove the peerage from those convicted of criminal charges goes through.

2125. Fleabytes

Comment #140895 by epeeist on March 9, 2008 at 4:13 am

Comment #140891 by Verylee

Maybe some get off on the titillation of dialogue with and baiting the devil's playmates, and having the wicked pleasure of "knowing" that we are all going to roast in hell!

The other thing I wonder is how distinct they are.

There are obviously a fair number of individuals, wee flea being one of them, Dianelos, Mark Taunton being others.

But we also have the followers, the definite ones being those who were directed here by Vox Day, the ones who just might be, like mlearnedfriend and Whatthe and the emissaries like devolved from Liberty "University".

And finally we have the sock puppets, wooter and wipeout being the latest ones.

2126. Fleabytes

Comment #140890 by epeeist on March 9, 2008 at 3:51 am

Comment #140883 by Steve Zara

Does anyone have any ideas about the motivations of so many of the theists who post here?

Motivations, not particularly.

Picking up on a point that Verylee makes. The non-theists who post here seem to have a much wider background than the theists and seem to have come to atheism with the assistance of that background (this should be suitably qualified, it won't be true of everybody).

The theists display a much narrower background with the theism taking priority over everything else.

The fact that we bring in physics, biology (must get some chemistry in here somehow), philosophy of all kinds, history, archaeology, mythology to the closed questions that they raise must cause all sorts of problems to them.

2127. Fleabytes

Comment #140870 by epeeist on March 9, 2008 at 12:14 am

Comment #140643 by whatthe..?!

Everything which HAS A BEGINNING has a cause'. Human consciousness must have been caused and that cause must have been sufficient to account for it. To argue that mind/consciousness originated from non-mind/consciouness is the height of absurdity and demonstrates the idiocy of materialism.

Hey, first mrlearnedfriend turns up again and then you follow shortly after, its like old home week.

A few (dozen?) pages back I posted a set of lemmas which MPhil obligingly made more robust. They are probably appropriate here.

Firstly, causality gets significantly strange once you get down to quantum levels. I am not sure that one can actually claim that every thing has a cause once you get down there. And given that the energy balance of the universe seems to be zero then it would be possible for it to come into existence purely because of quantum fluctuations.

And this is assuming a single, finite universe. We simply don't have the evidence to declare that this is the case, nor do we have the evidence to say whether any larger structure is finite or not.

So your claim for universal quantification on your statement is dubious.

Secondly, even if there was a first cause and the universe was created it doesn't follow from your argument that the creator was an omni-maximal deity. Why not some completely impersonal force?

Thirdly, even if the creator was an omni-maximal being you haven't established that this being is theistic, why couldn't it have been deistic?

Fourthly, even if this creator is theistic you haven't established that it is the the particular deity of an iron age tribe from a small area of a small planet orbiting one particular star in one particular galaxy in a universe that contains at least 150 billion others.

2128. Fleabytes

Comment #140425 by epeeist on March 7, 2008 at 9:40 am

Comment #140416 by Paula Kirby

Imagine a secondhand car dealer: "Just buy it, guv'nor, then you'll see that the fact it's a rusty old heap of junk just isn't a problem."

Careful - wee flea/clearthinker questioned my rationality for saying something similar.

Actually I claimed that religion was a pyramid selling scheme.

2129. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140381 by epeeist on March 7, 2008 at 8:23 am

Comment #140354 by phasmagigas

The parents who lose their kids at very early age will be rewarded in paradise to be together with their kids forever.

but thats a given irrespective of when a parent or kid dies in relation to each other right??

And assuming one of them doesn't do anything that will significantly piss off the said deity so that one of the goes to the nice place and the other gets an eternity of torture.

And assuming that the you have prayed to the correct god and that said god has actually gone to the bother of creating a heaven.

2130. Fleabytes

Comment #140359 by epeeist on March 7, 2008 at 7:44 am

Comment #140356 by Paula Kirby

I agree, Dr Benway, I soooooo agree. But you'll be familiar with the theists' response, which is that it isn't appropriate to demand natural evidence for supernatural claims. How do you respond to that one?

I would accept that, but only so long as their goddess (why do we always assume the this being is male?) is completely supernatural.

As soon as she starts messing with the natural then we need the natural evidence.

2131. Fleabytes

Comment #140350 by epeeist on March 7, 2008 at 7:21 am

1] It's Unity - despite being written by 40 authors there is a uniform message given throughout. 'It is not a superficial unity, but a profound unity. On the surface we often find discrepancy and disagreement, but, as we study, the apparent discrepancy and disagreement disappear, and the deep underlying unity appears. The more deeply we study, the more complete do we find the unity to be.' R.A. Torrey. There are different facets of this unity - structural, didactic, historical, prophetic and spiritual.

All holy books aim for unity, they have a cult to sell.

And one could claim that the Iliad and the Kalevala have much more unity than the bible, which seems to have been cobbled together from lots of different sources across the whole of the middle East.

2] it's self-proclaimed authority - obviously something taken on trust but if your friend says that he is a musician many times then if you tend to trust that he is telling the truth (especially if he demonstrates this by playing something - see later points).

It has authority over those that give it authority, for the myriads of Buddhists, Hindus, followers of the Great Spirit and atheists it has no authority at all.

3] it's endorsement by Jesus - Christian's are followers of Jesus on several levels (because of what he said, what he did and who he claims he was). There are measurable elements in these �quot; IE was what he said bonkers or profound? Was what he did verifiable from other sources? Was who he claims to be backed up by what people said happened? Whilst I may be sceptical of miracles, how many witnesses do I need to make me think that there may be something in this. There seems to be a double-standard operating here, we accept a different level of contemporary writings for other historical figures that we do for Jesus. So, people can say 'He didn't exist' when, if they used the same criteria for other historical figures, they would also have to exclude, well, most historical figures! I am aware that we look more sceptically on evidence provided by religious people but you have to believe in a high level of wishful thinking to discount all narrative accounts.

Who? This whole point is predicated on the existence of a figure for whom we only have documents written decades after he supposedly died. Even then the majority of these were from followers of his cult and can hardly be considered as neutral.

Consilience doesn't seem to be a word that most theists seem to know (especially those of the YEC kind, not that I am accusing you of being such). The reason that other historical figures are accepted is that there are multiple, independent sources of information about them.

4] Fulfilled Prophecy - this is at least mainly measurable. Yes, there are some ambiguous statements amongst the many claimed prophecies but there are enough to suggest that the writer had inside knowledge. Some have tried to overcome these by saying that the prophecy was written after the event but so far these have been paradigm-driven rather than evidence-based. Of the 300 or so prophecies that relate to the Messiah you may find some unconvincing �quot; but all of them?

We had a long thread on this from Mark Taunton, someone who really knew his bible extremely well. In the end he came down to a single prophecy which, due to some excellent work by J.C. Samuelson, he was unable to show was fulfilled.

Anyway, you are claiming the truth of prophecy. Therefore the burden is on you to a) show they were absolutely and accurately fulfilled b) the prophecy was actually foretold before the event. Note that claims such as "it will rain next Wednesday" don't count, what we want is "next Wednesday at 1234 UTC at N53:34:41, W2:32:23 there will be 3.5mm of rain".

5] It's Archaeology - that the events and people in scripture have been found to be more accurate as archaeology progresses. Many of you at this point will jump up and down on your favourite archaeological discrepancy (EG walls of Jericho) but look with a longer historical perspective �quot; there have been many claims of biblical inaccuracy as regards to extra-biblical sources but many of the seemingly intractable ones (EG Governorship of Quirinius) can be explained as more evidence comes to light.

Some of it is true, some if it is false. You obviously can't draw a general inference from this. And even if the archaelogy is correct, it doesn't mean to say that the whole religious edifice is true.

And anyway, both Greece and Egypt have better archaeological artifacts with much better historicity.

6] It's superiority of concept - that the philosophy / ideas in the Bible are better than other groups of concepts found in other writings. This is not measurable except in the sense of whether these ideas hang together as an entity and whether they can provide realistic answers to social problems.

Got agree with MPhil here - this is grotesque.

By the time that Jesus was about we already had the pre-Socratics, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. We also had Confucious and the Buddha. To claim superiority on behalf of the theism of Semitic tribe is a joke.

7] It's ability - that when people read the text of the Bible it changes them profoundly. In a way that other collections of writings do not. This could be claimed of any coherent belief system, of course, but the staying power of those influenced by the Bible's concepts, historically speaking, is exceptional. EG Marx's writings have had a profound effect on people but the staying power of those changed lives can be measured in only about a hundred years.

Read the Illiad? Nichomachean Ethics? The Symposium? Maharabata (or something like the Bhagavad Gita if you haven't read it all)? The Annalects?

Two things - all of the above have been around as long as the bible. All of them have had as much influence as the bible (in fact both Plato and Aristotle have at least as much influence on Christianity as bible, do some reading on the Augistine and the neo-Platonists and Aristotle and the scholastics).

2132. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140295 by epeeist on March 7, 2008 at 5:39 am

Comment #140284 by Paula Kirby

But there comes a point where mild and polite are not enough: some attitudes are SO disgusting that we SHOULD shout about them and draw attention to them in the strongest possible terms.

Not just wooter - can we say "dead baby".

Smug, sanctimonious, convinced of their own moral superiority and the lack of ethics of anyone else who doesn't follow their cult.

Just been listening to R4 lunchtime news (great being a homeworker) and a woman saying that we need a bioethics commission (agreed) and that it should include representatives from faith groups. Why is it assumed that they have cornered the market on morality and that any function that requires ethical decisions to be made should include them?

EDIT: And she also effectively said that scientists would do anything if they thought they could get away with it.

2133. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140257 by epeeist on March 7, 2008 at 4:37 am

Wooter - there are people on this site who can be rude, there are others who use invective where perhaps they shouldn't.

Others, like Philip, are incredibly polite and pleasant.

To make Philip angry you really have to post something that is significantly obnoxious. I hope you are proud of yourself.

2134. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140238 by epeeist on March 7, 2008 at 4:16 am

Comment #140227 by Steve Zara

I hope it was not needed too much. I have clearly demonstrated in recent times an ability to put my foot in my mouth via a keyboard (if you see what I mean), but underneath it all, I mean well.

Marked PBSK when our help desk closes incidents.

2135. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140186 by epeeist on March 7, 2008 at 3:30 am

Comment #140177 by Philip1978

I am about to hand him a piece of my mind and I was wondering if there were any objections, I warn you now, there may be swearing involved! :)

2136. Crossing the Divide

Comment #140166 by epeeist on March 7, 2008 at 3:00 am

Comment #140164 by Vaal

Really? Did you say anything to him about it? I would have been enraged if a witchdoctor had hijacked my funeral like that. It makes you almost wish that you could return as "Carrie" did, and grab his foot from the grave!

No, largely because of the presence of a frail grandmother and a grieving and pious aunt.

2137. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140163 by epeeist on March 7, 2008 at 2:56 am

Comment #140161 by irate_atheist

Wooter, you are - and I use the word advisedly - a cunt.

Only second class. For a first class cunt you would have to nominate god.

2138. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140153 by epeeist on March 7, 2008 at 2:34 am

Comment #139880 by wooter

How old is the earth?
To science, 4.4 billion years old
To ET: figures fail to express. Not enough time Not enough time.

You didn't answer the question. You were asked

How old do you think the earth is?

2139. Lords Approve Abolition Of Blasphemy

Comment #140140 by epeeist on March 7, 2008 at 2:13 am

Comment #140136 by bamboospitfire

For those who believe that the UK is anachronistic, our systems may occasionally appear dated because we have history going back more than 300 years.

Indeed, some of us live in houses that were around before certain countries declared their independence.

It has to be done stepwise, to its credit this government started the process of Lords reform. Like many other things though it bottled out, either through lack of interest, because it became apparent it was difficult, or because the Daily Mail objected (multiple-choice).

Hopefully at some point this will be taken up again and we will get a proper second chamber.

2140. Crossing the Divide

Comment #140122 by epeeist on March 7, 2008 at 1:34 am

Comment #139724 by bamafreethinker

My parents are just too old (75 and 79) to think about things like this and I don't think their heart could handle knowing that I'm not a believer. I stay in the closet to protect them from the stress I suppose.

Commendable, and it would be fine if it worked both ways.

My father's family are Catholics, but my father was a staunch Marxist of the Trotskyist persuasion. When he died we had a Catholic funeral, purely for the benefit of the family, it wasn't something he would have wanted.

It didn't stop the priest at the funeral attacking the idea of Communism and claiming that my father had come back to the fold.

2141. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140095 by epeeist on March 7, 2008 at 12:54 am

FWIW - there is an apocryphal story in the IT industry.

---

Techie in a call centre gets a phone call from a guy who claims his monitor isn't working. He goes through all the possibilities, is it plugged in, is it connected to the computer, is it switched on. The caller responds positively to everything.

Finally he asks the caller what model the monitor is. Caller says "I can't tell, all the lights in the building are out."

At which point the techie responds "Sir, do you still have all the packaging for your machine?".

"Yes," says the caller.

"Well sir, I advise you to take your computer, repackage it and send it back to the vendor."

"Why should I do that?" says the caller.

"Because you are too stupid to own a computer." says the techie.

---

Now I am not trying to label anyone on this particular thread, no sir, absolutely not.

2142. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139839 by epeeist on March 6, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Comment #139577 by Tyler Durden

fides is thinking "But God's law trumps any man-made law, Williams speaks for God, so Williams should always get his way!"

He is going to be fairly pissed off by the decision of the HofL to repeal the blasphemy laws.

Looks like the Lords Spiritual didn't quite get their way on this.

2143. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139575 by epeeist on March 6, 2008 at 6:05 am

Comment #139573 by fides_et_ratio

So the Archbishop discussing religious law being incorporated in civil law, which has some basis in religious law, is as relevant as the president of the NFU discussing the same. I disagree.

But that isn't what I said is it?

Civil and criminal law in the UK is enacted by elected representatives (and unfortunately a non-elected second house). Therefore those in a proper position of authority are members of parliament.

The AoC is quite at liberty to make comments on the role of religious law and whether it should be incorporated into common law. What he is not in, and nor should he be in, is in a position of authority to enact those laws.

2144. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139570 by epeeist on March 6, 2008 at 5:47 am

Comment #139562 by fides_et_ratio

And when he speaks on matters affecting inter-faith dialogue such as the ones mentioned in the programme, his views carry more weight than the president of the NUF?

If he wants to discuss how to hold more happy clappy sessions with Catholics or Muslims, then fine. That is his area and he speaks with proper authority.

If he is discussing whether religious law should be incorporated into civil law then granting him any special privileges would be to commit a "truth by authority" error.

The AofC is in exactly the same position as anyone else, he has no claim to universal expertise.

2145. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139546 by epeeist on March 6, 2008 at 4:06 am

Comment #139539 by wooter

If we go to a department store and just take look at the electronics department and see all kinds of equipment, tv, cd players, Mp3 phones, toasters etc,
And you just claim that

Why do you assume that the appearance of these equipment means that there really is a designer? They just came out by the mutation of iron

You have had the answer to this many times before.

Please answer the question

How old is the earth?

Tell us how many years old you think it is.

We have answered many if not all of your questions. It is your turn to answer ours and to provide some evidence for that answer.

2146. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139532 by epeeist on March 6, 2008 at 3:25 am

Comment #139530 by Corylus

Re Wooter - I don't think any of you are going to convince about evolution, but you do seem to be improving his English.

The vocabulary and grammar seem to have improved, but the content is still of the "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" type.

2147. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139505 by epeeist on March 6, 2008 at 2:23 am

Wooter - now that you are here.

Jon_sociologist has answered lots of your questions in a very polite way. Now it is your turn:

How old is the earth?

Please answer the question in the format "The earth is x years old." Replace the x by your answer. Please do not respond with another question, such as "how old do you think it is?"

2148. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139497 by epeeist on March 6, 2008 at 2:00 am

Strange isn't it, we seem to have the two extremes here, typified by Dylan Thomas in "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night", and by Robert Louis Stevenson in "Requiem"

2149. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139485 by epeeist on March 6, 2008 at 1:11 am

Comment #139286 by Duff

I think we must grant fides et ratio one thing. The pope, the archbishop and the various and sundry other pastors, bishops, elders, etc. do represent a very large segment of the people.

I don't think we need to grant this.

The religious officials are the leaders of particular faith groups, but as has been pointed out by hungarianelephant they claim to represent god.

So, freedom of speech by all means. But when the AofC makes a speech on, say, civil and criminal law then we may pay some attention to it in the same way as we do from someone in the National Farmers Union. They carry the same weight of authority.

2150. Fleabytes

Comment #139480 by epeeist on March 6, 2008 at 12:36 am

Comment #139308 by Bonzai

You cannot "reduce" biology to physics unless you accept biology as a valid level to begin with. What you need for the "reduction" is not a "complete language",--whatever hell it means,--but a way to connect the two levels, that is a mapping problem.

Bonzai - not picking on you, simply that you were the first to mention the need for a mapping.

There have been some fairly throwaway comments about such a mapping which I think need addressing.

It is fairly obvious that a mapping from biology to the underlying physics needs to be injective. If we wish to recover the higher level information from the layers underneath then the mapping needs to be bijective.

This obviously applies to MPhil's "The point about the complete language was that you cannot map biology on physics unless your language of physics includes the means to provide a description onto which the biological descriptions can be mapped."