Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by BAEOZ


201. The Group Delusion

Comment #112365 by BAEOZ on January 17, 2008 at 1:24 am

Epeesist. That's my favorite formulation of the ontological argument.

202. Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Comment #112272 by BAEOZ on January 16, 2008 at 4:52 pm

Erm. Not sure. If you complete a lap, then you are basically back where you started, which means no change from the ancestral type.

OK, let's pretend we're driving in any direction, with no predetermined finish or destination, the car that travels the furthest, with no retracing of steps, is the better evolved?

203. Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Comment #112266 by BAEOZ on January 16, 2008 at 4:40 pm

Forgive the analogy. But the more laps you do, the greater your distance in any case. Which you agree is for you, a sign of greater evolution.

204. Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Comment #112259 by BAEOZ on January 16, 2008 at 4:32 pm

I think this argument is somewhat about definitions.
Steve seems to take evolution as quantity of change.
Goldy seems to take evolution as any amount of change, whether great or small. So long as there is change.

If evolutions were laps on a racetrack per day. I think Steve would say that the car that did the most laps on a given day (r)evolved more. Goldy would say that so long as a car was on the track, completing laps, it was (r)evolving too. The amount of laps is not important.......

Is this anywhere near the point?

205. Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Comment #112202 by BAEOZ on January 16, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Wow I kicked off quite a little discussion in terminology. So where are we? Do we reject more evolved? I think I should have said that humans and amoeba were equally fit. Anyway, I don't think evolution is teleological, it has directions, but the directions aren't meeting an end. That was my point. Scientists who don't dispute believers' concept of evolution as being the means to God's end are doing science a disservice IMO.

206. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #111896 by BAEOZ on January 16, 2008 at 1:10 am

To quote Roger Water's from Pink Floyds masterful album; The wall:

Tear down the wall! Tear down the wall!

NOT!

Cretinous fool!

207. Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Comment #111891 by BAEOZ on January 16, 2008 at 1:02 am

Unfortunately the academy got scared and put in a bit about how evolution and religion don't conflict. This is a lie. I understand why they do it. I just don't think lying is good in the long run. Why is it a lie? Because evolution has no purpose, no end. Humans are no more evolved than a barnacle or amoeba. And we're still evolving into who knows what? It contradicts any religious belief that posits man as the purpose of creation. They should say this someday......

208. 'Letter to a Christian Nation' now available in paperback

Comment #111492 by BAEOZ on January 14, 2008 at 7:39 pm

Goldy, if Wee Flea is one of the happy-go-lucky members of the Free Scottish church, what are the rest like. He was virulently nasty when he posted on this site. A real unhappy bigot.

209. 'Letter to a Christian Nation' now available in paperback

Comment #111454 by BAEOZ on January 14, 2008 at 4:38 pm

I often debate with evolutionists because I believe that they are narrow mindedly and dogmatically accepting evolution without questioning it. I don't really care how God did what He did. I know He did it.

Priceless irony. :)

210. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #111425 by BAEOZ on January 14, 2008 at 2:45 pm

George, you're a great example of reason and courage. We all owe you a unpayable debt. Thank you. I wish all the best in your operation and recovery.
Brian English (Australia).

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

Comment #111151 by BAEOZ on January 13, 2008 at 6:36 pm

I got another 3.5 hours to go. Then home to a pissed off older cat, an new psycho kitten (that has pissed off the older cat) and a wife who will probably not want me to read. :)

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

Comment #111148 by BAEOZ on January 13, 2008 at 6:32 pm

Must be nearly 4pm over there. Only another hour to go?

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

Comment #111146 by BAEOZ on January 13, 2008 at 6:29 pm

Goldy, are you making him come back? I love how wooter is so incapable of controlling himself that another's comments "make" him come back. Sort of like the husband who beats his wife because she "made" him angry.

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

Comment #111145 by BAEOZ on January 13, 2008 at 6:28 pm

Now I am communicationg with RD about E.T.
I wonder if this is another one way conversation like the one you have with your prefered deity? The only difference, unless RD responds, is that we have plenty of evidence that RD exists....

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

Comment #111143 by BAEOZ on January 13, 2008 at 6:26 pm

Wooter I believe all those points you posted have been reasonably demolished. Anything else, apart from bitterness?

216. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #110809 by BAEOZ on January 12, 2008 at 4:26 pm

Steve, I thought the same thing. I have no way of determining exactly how fallible or not it my thinking is. That's why we have systems like the scientific method to get rid of anecdotal evidence, etc. Plantinga using this argument seems improbable. He's supposed to be a philosopher of some repute. Weird.

217. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110803 by BAEOZ on January 12, 2008 at 3:54 pm

Morality is a delusion just as religion is: neither can be proved.

Henri, my favorite cynic, is back! How's it going Henri?
Morality can't be proved? It can be shown to exist perhaps?
No society can function if we think nothing of killing a person. Every individual would have to fend for himself. No one could safely associate with anybody else. The same goes for a society where lying is acceptable practice. Communication would be pointless because you wouldn't be able to trust anybody. You couldn't enter an agreement or trade. This doesn't mean that people don't kill or lie in successful societies, just that for any society to be successful these tenets have to exist and be observed in the majority of cases. The exceptions to these rules would be the cultural aspect. It may be OK to lie or steal when a life depends on it, or to kill in self-defense. So for a society to exist, it is wrong to murder and lie in most cases. This is only a description of why it's seen to be wrong.

218. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110780 by BAEOZ on January 12, 2008 at 1:41 pm

If Bill Gates invented a religion, it would have horrendous licence fees, be based on way-out-of-date ideas, it would look vaguely attractive but would be full of inconsistencies and would fail people all the time. It would contain re-packaged ideas from competitors, would attempt to put competing religions out of business, and would get clogged up with dogmatic add-ons, and would be vunerable to corruption.

Bill Gates invented Scientology?

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

Comment #110655 by BAEOZ on January 11, 2008 at 8:17 pm

I wouldn't think nipples are vestigial. Just a sign that men were females before they became altered in the womb. Newborn males can lactate I believe. Of course if your definition of vestigial is any part of your body that has no current use for you or your sex, then fair enough. I think vestigial means a relic organ that doesn't serve any purpose for any member of a species that possesses it.

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

Comment #110654 by BAEOZ on January 11, 2008 at 8:16 pm

Sorry Diacanu. Just filling time on a Saturday afternoon. Might go read a book then....

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

Comment #110651 by BAEOZ on January 11, 2008 at 8:12 pm

The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance

No one said they did. Natural selection isn't random.

Ironically, evolutionists scan the heavens using massive radio telescopes hoping for relatively simple signal patterns that might have originated in outer space,

Ironically, I think you'll find that's astronomers. The rest of the point is a demonstration of ignorance.

No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered

I bet you don't even know what you mean by information to make this claim.

This law of physics states that all systems, whether open or closed, have a tendency to disorder (or "the least energetic state").

Wrong. The law, not laws, states that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.. The Earth isn't an isolated system. It's part of the Universe.

.There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms ("missing links") required for evolution to be true. Evolution does not require a single missing link but innumerable ones. We should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form

You dispute them because your faith stops you from seeing? That's not an argument against evolution. Dogs didn't evolve from wolves, they were selected unnaturally and are only one species. Why would we be surrounded by countless transitional forms? Are you surrounded by every relative that you have from the last millenia?

The main species said to bridge this gap, Homo habilis, is thought by many to be a mixture of ape and human fossils. In other words, the "missing link" (in reality there would have to be millions of them) is still missing.

Again. You dispute the fossil. Not scientists and as for missing links, are you surrounded by all your relatives that ever lived? No, why would we be?

Dating methods that use radioactive decay to determine age assume that radioactive decay rates have always been constant. Yet, research has shown that decay rates can change according to the chemical environment of the material being tested.

Rubbish.

Uses continue to be found for supposedly "leftover" body structures. Evolutionists point to useless and vestigial (leftover) body structures as evidence of evolution. However, it's impossible to prove that an organ is useless, because there's always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future.

There's only one vestigial organ in humans that I know of. The Appendix, and it's removal is not at all fatal and it's not at all necessary.

Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation

Evolution says nothing about the generation of life.

Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible.

Because evolution doesn't throw away a result and start again. It builds on previous results. It's not at all like your contrived example.

222. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110285 by BAEOZ on January 10, 2008 at 9:57 pm

I believe that a habit of masturbation can induce a kind of psychological dependence on the fantasies that are normally associated with it, which can thereby become obsessive and interfere with normal interaction with other people.

The problem is that many religions deny adults the right to have sex with other consenting adults. These adults think this is somehow good, no doubt due to their upbringing in their religion. That is unnatural and immoral. This means there are plenty of adults who are already psychologically affected. They are then told they can't get some form of release because it'll lead to obsessive habits. Sorry, but the obsessive habits come from them already being denied something natural for no good reason, then having their heads stuffed up by the idea that sex and self-gratification are bad unless one is married.

223. The Group Delusion

Comment #110248 by BAEOZ on January 10, 2008 at 5:23 pm

I'm on my way!
(Sulks)...unless you mean the other Richard, the one who writes books that have a laxative effect on wee fleas...

You'll Richard. I'm not sure you'd have the reknown to get up the theists nose. But it'd be fun to hear you rip into them anyway.

224. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #110236 by BAEOZ on January 10, 2008 at 5:00 pm

I've tried to kill many neurons with beer. Sort of a self-inflicted apoptosis. :)
I did 2 years of a B. Sc. in Geology about 15 years ago and can't remember much of it. Completed a B. Sc. in computer science about 10 years ago and work as a programmer these days. Not sure how much of the stuff that I learnt in that degree I use now. I'm doing a B. Arts. in psychology for a bit of fun. If I could, I'd like to do something in physics (I think the maths would prohibit it though) and some sort of post grad work, even a PhD so I could introduce myself as Dr...;) A PhD in beerology might be the ticket.

225. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #110219 by BAEOZ on January 10, 2008 at 4:33 pm

I have a computing background, and I was thinking about something more like a "network switch",
And I thought you were a Doctor of Biology. Show's what I know.
Well, the Purkinje neuron certainly adds many inputs from its dentritic ramae and when it reaches its threshold lets rip with an action potential. This is more than just summing of inputs.
I did an exam on this stuff only a few months ago and I reckon I've forgotten most of it already. Damn neurons.

226. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #110210 by BAEOZ on January 10, 2008 at 4:18 pm

They are a lot more than just simple switches.

I agree Steve. One only needs look at that parallel connections of a Purkinje neuron in the Cerebellum to see it's doing more than on or off.

227. The Group Delusion

Comment #110186 by BAEOZ on January 10, 2008 at 3:43 pm

On a completely unrelated note. Richard, is there any possibility of hearing you speak in Australia. Specifically Melbourne sometime in the future? (Preferably sooner rather than later...)

228. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110182 by BAEOZ on January 10, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Goldy, part of the reason ADH won't give you an answer is because it's seen a good not to have a coherent answer. It's part of religion to accept that it's illogical, that it's a good thing to believe something that makes no sense. Also, it allows the believer to employ the "you can't prove it's wrong/can't prove a negative meme". The god isn't of this universe/is providential/can't be measured spiel is so ill defined that of course you can't disprove it. Beautifully crafted protection meme.

229. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #110085 by BAEOZ on January 10, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Mistakes are inevitably made and 'elephants' may turn out to be trees and the blind fumblings of philosophers and artists and so forth should not be confused with the sharply observed findings of scientists which follow.

Socrates would be rolling in his grave. He specifically stated in the Republic that only a philosopher can leave the cave (the world as we see it is but a dim reproduction upon a cave wall) and see the world as it really is. All that science he had learnt from other philosophers, told him nothing he wanted to know. And if it's good enough for Socrates (Plato really), then it's good enough for other science deniers or minimizers and all art fan boys. You should be ashamed _J_. /end sarcasm.

230. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109804 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 6:43 pm

Only very low-IQ god-botherers even try to advance that one seriously these days.

I was just reading an article on the ontological argument by Alvin Plantinga. Makes me smile to think of him described that way. :)

231. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109795 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 6:10 pm

"existence" is in any way connected with "perfection"

That's sort of what I was getting at. Why is being greater or the perfection of anything?

232. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109794 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 6:09 pm

The best version of the ontological argument I've read was something like:

The more difficult a task for a creator, the greater the accomplishment.
If the creator didn't exist, there could be no greater accomplishment.
Therefore the creator didn't exist.

233. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109792 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 6:05 pm

Imagine the greatest sundae possible.
This sundae would be greater if it were real.
Thus the sundae must be real (else it's not the greatest as defined above).

What doesn't impress me about the ontological argument (not proof) is that it assumes that being is greater than not being. Why?

234. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109790 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 5:57 pm

Thanks Spinoza. Bertrand Russell's ghost must be possessing me.

235. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109774 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 4:45 pm

Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition Ducklike! Now we shall punish you with the fluffy cushion, on which you may sit, while we share tea.

236. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109765 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 4:26 pm

Hey BAEOZ, you think if Aquinas were alive today, with our benefits of scientific knowledge, would he be an atheist?

Unlikely from the little I know of him. He was first a theologian, who used philosophy to support his arguments and convince non-believers. He wasn't a philosopher, who following the truth, came to believe.

237. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109752 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 3:57 pm

Dicanu. Just tear them a new a-hole. They will bitch about how nasty your are no matter how politely you write the book. If you're gonna be called a wolf, may as well act like on I 'spose.

238. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109751 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 3:56 pm

Ducklike. I'm declaring that all true disciples of Quetz not share tea with you. Quetz is a non-vengeful god. I know, because he told me so. But tea shall be withheld until you recant your teddy-bear stance.

239. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109750 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 3:54 pm

This is just another form of the Kalam cosmological argument that goes back to the eight century.

Indeed it is. Sort of like 3 of Aquinas' 5 ways.

240. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109745 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 3:50 pm

A black hole is the prime mover? OK.....

241. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109742 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 3:44 pm

So do we in practice favour infinite regress or a prime mover in god-free timespace?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I thought we'd already demonstrated that both were false. At the very least unnecessary to explain the universe.

242. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109740 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 3:37 pm

It seems your god said "bed" not "sleep". Perhaps he's conducting some other godlike activity that can be done in a bed besides sleep. Hey, apparently Zeus was fond of it too.

How dare you profane the sacred acts of Quetz! Heretic! He is not like the pagan gods. I need a tea after that.

243. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109729 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 3:03 pm

My problem is that I read a lot in bed, and the book is so heavy it strains my arms, so I resort to something slimmer....

I try reading in bed, but often fall asleep before I get far. Damn stimulus-response conditioning.....

244. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109726 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 3:01 pm

If the theists come back and say that god causes virtual particles to be created then I think the counter argument is that if you have a god that controls the cosmos to this granular a level then human free will must go out of the window.

Cool. I could imagine a theist saying god causes an electron to release a photon and go to a lower energy state. As you say, if god's micromanaging the universe to this level, then everything we are just carrying out our programming.

245. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109725 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 2:59 pm

Quetz. Why does a deity need sleep? It doesn't make sense. My faith is being tested. Why do you test me oh Quetz? Have I not drunk the holy drink? Have I not praised you?

Epeeist or Steve. Have either of you read Roger Penrose's road to reality? I just started reading a bit this morning and found his discussion of platonic forms a bit puzzling. Seems his definition of existence is a bit different from mine. Anyway, what are your thoughts on the book?

246. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109721 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Thanks Steve and Epeeist. Can I get all your knowledge implanted into my brain. Actually, it probably couldn't handle the dataset. Sorry to have brought up something discussed on another thread.

247. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109718 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 2:50 pm

Theists get around this by claiming that God was necessary because things can't just "be", they have to be "willed" into existence

That's just an argument from ignorance. I can't imagine anything just being, so nothing can just be. Sort that inductive step I was refering to earlier. Everything in my knowlege/understanding has a cause, thus everything has a cause.......

248. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109716 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Thanks again Steve. You should be bottled. You're a great resource. Was your example the "hommunculi"? Which is essentially where the catholic church got it's arguments about the soul entering upon conception. I recall that because at conception the human already had human form, just a lot smaller, it would already have a soul and thus you couldn't kill it........

249. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109711 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 2:40 pm

Quetz, oh mighty one, that's why it's an ad-hoc fallacy. If the first premise is everything has a cause. Then for this premise to be valid, everything has a cause. To then put up your hand and say, everything, except the thing (ad hoc - to the thing) that I favor has a cause, you've committed a fallacy of logic. So if your favorite thing doesn't need a cause, then why does anything need a cause? You've just contradicted the first premise with the fallacy.......

250. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109710 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Thanks Steve. I was actually just wondering if it worked logically. I think the first cause fails in simple Aristotelean logic. Let alone in the "real" world.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 | Next