Comments by epeeist

Comment #91405 by epeeist on November 28, 2007 at 8:39 am

She has now been charged with insulting religion, inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious beliefs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7117430.stm

2802. Golden Compass author hits back

Comment #91377 by epeeist on November 28, 2007 at 7:30 am

Comment #91372 by annabanana

*ehem, this is an e-mail that has been going around my office. The person who sent it to me is Catholic and the person who sent it to her is Protestant:

Sounds like a possible disciplinary matter to me.

2803. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #91126 by epeeist on November 27, 2007 at 10:15 am

Comment #91096 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Harold Koenig's "The Link between Religion and Health" and Arthur Brooks's "Who Really Cares" quote dozens of scientific studies that document both the physical and ethical benefits of religious belief.

We have been through this - the Arthur Brooks study doesn't explicitly differentiate between religious charity and non-religious charity. It uses a suspect statistical methodology, at least as suspect as the one you criticised me for raising.

You are trolling.

2804. 'Muhammad' teddy teacher arrested

Comment #91084 by epeeist on November 27, 2007 at 7:11 am

Comment #91073 by Vinelectric

If you're atheist you can't hold position of power in the US and I don't imagine Christian Rome appointing a pagan as head of state so I don't think why you'd expect medieval Islamic empires to be any different.

Rubbish - the likelihood of you being elected might be small, but there is no law against you holding power.

2805. Science and Religion BOTH make faith claims

Comment #91036 by epeeist on November 27, 2007 at 3:33 am

Comment #81869 by sidfaiwu

Science:
1. Inductive reasoning is valid. That is, the past is a good predictor of the future.

To quote another poster - not since Popper.

Science doesn't use inductive, but deductive logic. As such theories are considered contingently valid, i.e. the theory may not be sound.

Continued critical tests of a theory that do not falsify it add to the corroboration of the theory, but do not prove it true.

2806. The absurd world of Martin Amis

Comment #90437 by epeeist on November 25, 2007 at 6:35 am

Let's not get into a flamefest between Xenocratic and Fanusi.

We have two comments from the first and one so far from the second and we are immediately in to ad hominem attacks.

2807. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90424 by epeeist on November 25, 2007 at 5:20 am

Comment #90422 by Rtambree

Aren't Brown and Cameron also theists?

Brown is a "son of the manse". but doesn't seem to openly "do god". His influence on Blair I suspect wasn't great ;-)

Cameron claims to want to go to church more than "Christmas and Easter", but doesn't appear to do so. He is, I think, rather more influenced by Blair rather than the other way around.

2808. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90421 by epeeist on November 25, 2007 at 4:43 am

Comment #90413 by Northern Bright

The whole point here is that we didn't KNOW how much of a nutter Blair was! By the implication of his own admission, we wouldn't have elected him if we had.

I think we let him off too lightly if we don't also look at the people who could directly influence him, i.e. his wife and Carole Chaplin. And the equally religious indirect influences like Ruth Kelly.

2809. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90287 by epeeist on November 24, 2007 at 1:46 am

Comment #90282 by Goldy

Well, there's a simple reason for that - you're a fuckwit with the brains of an asparagus.

The likes of devolved and Bizzaro Dawkins at least had the nouse to be able to find and quote from AiG.

This one doesn't appear to be able to find his arse with both hands.

2810. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90280 by epeeist on November 24, 2007 at 12:24 am

Comment #90278 by Ruht

The theory of evolution is nothing more than one more invention of a rebellious people who refuse to come to God. Your ilk is no different than any other such types throughout history; although yours is an end-time manifestation that aids in the Biblical prophecies referred to in the scriptures.

Does this mean you aren't going to read the contents of the link I gave - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc

Incidentally - my daughter went out to a place called Dharamsala, which is where the Dalai Lama is exiled. What happens to them and all the other Buddhists after the end times? Of course they are living in India where the majority of people are Hindus, I presume they won't be part of the people who are taken up in the rapture?

2811. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90279 by epeeist on November 24, 2007 at 12:22 am

Comment #90232 by Bonzai

"Infinite" is not a single entity, there is a whole hierarchy of infinities. After omega 0 comes omega 1, omega 2... omega omega etc.

Small piece of pedantry - it should be aleph, not omega

Not that our new friend will know the difference.

2812. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90150 by epeeist on November 23, 2007 at 7:25 am

Comment #90147 by _J_ on

I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false

Unfortunately I think the anonymous source spoke the truth.

It is my understanding (happy to be proven wrong on this) that he got his interrogators to define what they meant by "sexual relations" and that this did not cover the act performed by Miss Lewinsky.

A fairly nasty piece of sophistry and he deserved all he got thereafter (IMHO), but strictly his response is truthful.

2813. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #89996 by epeeist on November 22, 2007 at 11:00 am

Comment #89989 by Peacebeuponme

Tibor - do you really swallow that mush from Aquinas? Its a bit woolly don't you think?

It isn't even woolly, it is petitio principii, which someone like Aquinas should have been ashamed of proposing.

And even if it were true then it would still be arbitrary - it is God's sense of the good, not an objective one.

For all we know God might really see women as only worth half a man, might see the people contracting AIDS as preferable to using condoms.

2814. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89975 by epeeist on November 22, 2007 at 9:03 am

Comment #89972 by Ruht

Who said he 'needed' to?

Perhaps he just wanted to.

But if he is omniscient then he would have known what he was going to do, so he can't have changed his mind can he?

Have you read the information in the link I gave in post #89963 as yet?

2815. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89963 by epeeist on November 22, 2007 at 8:31 am

Since you appear to be back Ruht I thought I would post this again. It appears a couple of pages back amongst some inconsequential chit chat about fencing.

It contains some evidence for evolution - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc

2816. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89920 by epeeist on November 22, 2007 at 6:17 am

Comment #89918 by steve99

I find that mentioning this stuff usually results in a period of thoughtful silence from creationists, as a pet argument has been demolished. Of course, what usually follows is an attempt to redefine 'species' and 'mutation' and so on...

Not to mention "kind" and "baraminology"

2817. Ofcom backs Channel 4 over mosque probe

Comment #89903 by epeeist on November 22, 2007 at 5:10 am

Comment #89896 by Mat

It is also arguable that being anti-Muslim is not the same as being racist.

It is a card that is often played, but it is simply a piece of equivocation. There are black Muslims in both Africa and America, Asiatic Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh, Oriental Muslims in Indonesia as well as Semitic Muslims in the Arab states. White Muslims as well, just look at Cat Stevens.

2818. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89890 by epeeist on November 22, 2007 at 4:12 am

Comment #89888 by _J_

To develop which theme, and thereby add further proof to the already towereing mountain in favour of god: forget the banana, take a fundamentalist theist. You can have a whole fruitcake.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I plead guilty to the sin of being cryptic that Dianelos (of blessed memory) accused me of.

I was thinking of this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF3L359yKjs&feature=related

Shame Ruht went away. Was just fashioning another response. Though steve99 pretty much covered it already. And Ruht seems to have been a very selective reader.

I was waiting for him to come back and claim the Theobald paper was fallacious. There is about 2 weeks worth of reading in it for somebody who has a clue what they are talking about...

2819. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89887 by epeeist on November 22, 2007 at 3:45 am

Comment #89885 by BAEOZ

Wow, I didn't thing they fought long enough for hydration to come into it. I thought it was more like the 100m dash or something.

Well if you have around 200 fencers then you fence a seeding round against half a dozen others, then you start fencing elimination rounds down to 128, 64...

The seeding round is fenced to first of 5, the elimination bouts to first to 15. A competition takes place over a complete day, so hydration and nutrition are pretty important.

To bring it back to topic (sort of), this is why the banana is an obvious indicator of god. No other fruit provides all you need for a good day's fencing ;-)

2820. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89881 by epeeist on November 22, 2007 at 3:19 am

Comment #89878 by BAEOZ

Why is it that fencers are confined to strips? Why don't they have, for instance, a large circle to move about in?

Because 2 blokes who can do the 10 meter dash in world record time would just jump about for ages in a big circle or area, before 1 got buggered enough for the other to reach him. It increases the skill level I imagine. Of course, I have no idea what I'm talking about.

:-)

Its much more mundane than that. Normally you are rigged up to an electronic scoring system through a series of long bits of wire. Move in a circle and you would tend to get tangled up.

The other thing is refereeing. Two of the weapons (foil and sabre) are conventional, i.e. if I am attacking you then I have the priority and you have to make a successful defensive action before the priority passes to you. It is relatively easy to see if people are moving laterally in front of you, more of a problem with people moving around in circles.

The other weapon, epee, essentially has no rules (okay, you can kick, gouge or hit your opponent with the blunt end) and given the possibility of wireless fencing then using a circle has been mooted. However you get back to mundane matters again. You can't get as many circles in a hall as you can strips. UK epee competitions can have as many as 200 people taking part so this really does matter.

Final thing - as for sweating. The guys in the video would have been wearing a non-conductive T-shirt, an under-jacket to prevent a broken blade going through the armpit (broken blades are rare, injuries because of them are extremely rare), an over jacket and a metallised jacket to define the target area. The under and over jackets are Kevlar reinforced. You sweat like a pig, hydration is a major consideration.

2821. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89875 by epeeist on November 22, 2007 at 2:41 am

Comment #89864 by BAEOZ

I saw the first few minutes a while ago when you posted it on another thread and was impressed but didn't appreciate the technical fine points.

Wouldn't expect you to, like everything else it needs a certain amount of knowledge before you can understand it.

A few points though. People who fencer sabre are the fastest human powered athletes. Over short distances (the strips is 14m long) they are faster than sprinters.

The actions are as far as possible pre-planned (I know he does this kind of move, so I will present him with the situation where he can do it and then I will have something prepared to defeat it).

It is the second bit that, as far as I am concerned makes fencing one of the best individual sports.

2822. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89861 by epeeist on November 22, 2007 at 1:47 am

Comment #89859 by BAEOZ on November

Epeeist your link doesn't link. Please don't disembowl me for this impertinence oh great one. :)

Fixed it for you, no cost.

Did you watch the video link I posted in the now quiet "Transcendent" thread ;-)

2823. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89857 by epeeist on November 22, 2007 at 1:37 am

Comment #89838 by Ruht

You mean Behe's personal claims. I don't necessarily advocate certain Behe assertions, and I surely don't advocate some of them. I merely agree with him about an Intelligent Designer.

Rather than find a particular comment of yours to respond to I have just picked the last one.

You might want to go read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc. This gives details of multiple pieces of evidence for macro evolution.

EDIT: Fixed the URL

2824. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #89660 by epeeist on November 21, 2007 at 12:16 pm

Comment #89651 by Tibor

Well, of course we live in communities and this means that even the most selfish person has to include some altruistic elements in his behaviour, like helping others. But that's not the same as morality, because the 'exigences of sustaining relationships' means that you aim for the minimum of goodness while morality means that you aim for the maximum.

You make the assertion of "aiming for the minimum", but you don't provide any evidence for this, all I can think is that this comes from your personal experience.

You made a side swerve on my suggestion of looking at Aristotle or Plato as one source of thinking on morality. Let's give you one little bit from Plato.

Is an act moral because God commands it, or does God command it because it is moral? If the first is true then God is imposing an arbitrary code. If the second is true then God is only a conduit for morality, not the source.

2825. AAI 07 DVDs by RDFRS are Now Available!

Comment #89625 by epeeist on November 21, 2007 at 9:25 am

Comment #89617 by Quetzalcoatl

What perks does being an heir of Nietzsche offer? Do I get a membership card? An invitation to an annual family get-together?

I would settle for a season ticket to Bayreuth. I have been in the lottery for one for years with no success.

Mind you, that is probably because him upstairs has got it in for me (Okay, before anyone else gets there first "infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me" - to be spoken in a Frankie Howard voice).

2826. AAI 07 DVDs by RDFRS are Now Available!

Comment #89606 by epeeist on November 21, 2007 at 8:32 am

Comment #89590 by _J_

I think that part of what has made me want to share this is reading David Robertson's lead article in his church's magazine (here) in which, reflecting on his legendary adventures in extra-faith relations, he describes atheism as 'a black hole which leads to the pit of despair and meaningless'.

A bit difficult to respond to a PDF ;-)

And we are the "heirs of Nietzsche", where is Henri Bergson when you need him?

2827. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89533 by epeeist on November 21, 2007 at 2:59 am

Comment #89516 by BAEOZ

Note to self: Stay clear of physicists with motor-neuron disease or foils.

Foil is for wusses - http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1478623914238877457&q=fencing+world+championships&total=23&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

2828. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89506 by epeeist on November 21, 2007 at 1:14 am

Comment #89384 by Diacanu

It's gonna take a 56 hour straight with no sleep fight with I dunno, Stephen fucking Hawking to break him.

Don't tangle with Steven Hawking. Bastard ran over my feet with his wheelchair outside Trinity college.

2829. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89383 by epeeist on November 20, 2007 at 1:38 pm

Comment #89359 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Actually, experiencing being a parent helps one understand God's mind. I hope that my love for my daughter will be great...

Hey, I have two daughters. Do I get to know twice as much about God's mind as DG?

2830. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89330 by epeeist on November 20, 2007 at 10:08 am

Comment #89325 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Illusions are wrong inferences we make based on our direct experience.

Too busy preparing lessons to post anything more significant.

However have a Google for "debauched kinaesthesia" to see how it is rather more than simple optical illusions.

2831. For the glory of God

Comment #89283 by epeeist on November 20, 2007 at 7:18 am

Comment #89278 by Veronique

Thank you - that was utterly hilarious!! A great note on which to go to bed:-)

V. - I was talking to a friend of mine about the following recording, which I used to have on an LP.

It is a classic, if anyone doesn't know it I hope you enjoy it. Nothing at all to do with religion or atheism.

http://writingcompany.blogs.com/this_isnt_writing_its_typ/files/bricklayers_lament.mov

2832. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89266 by epeeist on November 20, 2007 at 6:09 am

Comment #89260 by irate_atheist

Ooh, biting, biting...

Yes, a good couple from Dr. B. this morning (my time), though it was "My Little Pony" in our house.

I can see the the ideal pairing for the DG daughter; He for God only, she for God in him.

2833. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89252 by epeeist on November 20, 2007 at 5:50 am

Comment #89246 by steve99

I would suggest another explanatory factor:

5. fear

I would add

6. Failure of imagination

7. An inability to take joy wherever it is found

Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything.

2834. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89203 by epeeist on November 20, 2007 at 2:24 am

Comment #89199 by Veronique

How about a $100 donation to RDF, just to show that you are cognisant of the time you waste? Please don't respond to me, just pay your dues.

There is an appeal for a very good cause on the site at the moment.

2835. AAI 07 DVDs by RDFRS are Now Available!

Comment #88986 by epeeist on November 19, 2007 at 12:23 pm

Comment #88983 by krisking

If it's the word theory, that you object to, then please say so

The word "theory" can cause problems to non-scientists. It doesn't mean something that we just made up.

There are a number of attributes to a good theory - it must be predictive, it must be as parsimonious as possible, i.e. it should avoid the use of lots of auxiliary hypotheses. The main things about a theory though is that it must be both testable and falsifiable.

Only once a hypothesis has been through a significant amount of testing, including some critical experiments designed to test it to the limits does it get honoured with the title of "theory". Even then this does not mean to say it is true, merely that it is accepted as contingently valid.

2836. AAI 07 DVDs by RDFRS are Now Available!

Comment #88956 by epeeist on November 19, 2007 at 9:06 am

Comment #86908 by krisking

I think that the problem that atheists have not yet realised about their position is that their own system of morals is based on Christian morality

Not too many Chinese have morals based on Christianity, nor Indians either.

And a lot of so called "Christian" ethics are actually based on those developed in Greece by the likes of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.

2837. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88951 by epeeist on November 19, 2007 at 8:57 am

Comment #88944 by Dianelos Georgoudis

So my suggestion is that one can decide fairly which theory about objective reality is more reasonable by comparing them one to one under the same set of criteria; criteria such as explanatory power, internal coherence and freedom from paradoxes, compatibility with science, experiential gains, ethical empowerment, simplicity, elegance, etc.

I agree with just about everything that Steve has written in #88946.

Additionally, you are trying to shoe horn a whole stack of disparate items into a single theory. All this does is get you back to my Marian Moore quotation.

2838. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88937 by epeeist on November 19, 2007 at 7:45 am

Comment #88935 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Or maybe you're speaking in riddles again? :-)

No - I was pointing out that you can't make stuff up.

The word "proposition" has an accepted meaning in the domain of discourse that is logic. You ignored that meaning and, in your usual Humpty-Dumpty fashion, simply decided to replace it with another meaning that suited you.

As such your description of what you mean by "truth" is nonsensical.

2839. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88936 by epeeist on November 19, 2007 at 7:40 am

Comment #88930 by Dianelos Georgoudis

By "classical physics" I mean any physics that does not entail the measurement problem.

By the measurement problem I am assuming that you mean that you cannot observe the deterministic unitary evolution of a wave function.

2840. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88920 by epeeist on November 19, 2007 at 7:08 am

Comment #88914 by irate_atheist

Good grief man! Did you accidentally plug yourself into the mains as a child?

Nah - he is just trying to sound like this "A spectre is haunting Europe..."

2841. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88918 by epeeist on November 19, 2007 at 7:04 am

Comment #88906 by steve99

The same delusion drives them to hope that the many problems and paradoxes and holes of scientific naturalism will be somehow some day be solved by science.

Of all objects, the planets are those which appear to us under the least varied aspect. We see how we may determine their forms, their distances, their bulk, and their motions, but we can never known anything of their chemical or mineralogical structure; and, much less, that of organized beings living on their surface ...

Hey come on, I thought I was doing the quotes. And you put two in the same comment.

I can only manage:

Ah yes, how quaint the ways of Paradox!
At common sense she gaily mocks!

2842. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88895 by epeeist on November 19, 2007 at 6:24 am

Comment #88882 by Dianelos Georgoudis

(To avoid misunderstanding: I am discussing the atheistic logic

You know I have come across traditional and classic logic, modal, tense, deontic, epistemic, eroteic and many valued logics.

I can't specifically recollect coming across "atheist logic" (or "theistic logic" for that matter).

2843. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88881 by epeeist on November 19, 2007 at 5:45 am

Comment #88878 by Dr Benway

I'm generally blind to slips or ambiguities in your writing until Dianelos reacts to something like "pi is infinite."

And of course pi is simple since it can be expressed as 4 * sum ((-1)ⁿ/(2 * n +1)) where n runs from 0 to infinity.

I believe Steve might have mentioned something about simple equations somewhere back in the thread.

2844. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88879 by epeeist on November 19, 2007 at 5:40 am

Comment #88873 by irate_atheist

Epeeist vs Dianelos Georgoudis cannot be stopped.

Actually I am having fun now that I have stopped taking DG seriously.

I am thinking of offering a prize to anyone who can spot all the quotations I have dropped in this thread. There are some from Aristotle, Popper, Ernest Brahmah, Shakespeare, Tarski and even the "Princess Bride". This isn't them all by the way.

Now whether DG has seen them and ignored them or whether he didn't realise they were quotations I wouldn't know.

2845. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88876 by epeeist on November 19, 2007 at 5:34 am

Comment #88856 by Dianelos Georgoudis

It's true there is a lot scientific research going on, but it only studies the so-called easy problem of consciousness

You know I think there might be a reason for this...

John Searle's "The Mystery of Consciousness". In this book you get a naturalist philosopher of the first order criticizing the work of other well-known philosophers and scientists on the mind-body problem (namely Francis Crick, Gerald Edelman, Roger Penrose, Daniel Dennett, David Chalmers, and Israel Rosenfield). What's interesting is that after explaining the ideas (mainly speculations really)

Exactly - all these are conjectures.

Sooner or later some or all of them will be subject to refutation

The mind-body problem is one of these problems that the more you study it the more clear it gets that there can't be any solution.

As Lord Kelvin said in 1895 of an admittedly simpler problem "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."

2846. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88840 by epeeist on November 19, 2007 at 3:58 am

Comment #88834 by Dianelos Georgoudis

After all reality may seem physical but may not be physical.

I don't think you would get any argument if you stuck to those two conditionals.

However, parsimony would lead us to assume the former unless there was some reason that forced us to take the latter position.

After all, one should prefer probable impossibilities to improbable possibilities.

2847. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88828 by epeeist on November 19, 2007 at 3:27 am

Comment #88819 by Peacebeuponme

So the Chinese and Greeks were ethical puppies compared to the Jews 2,000 years ago were they?

Vizzini: I can't compete with you physically, and you're no match for my brains.
Westley: You're that smart?
Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Westley: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons.

I will leave it up to readers of the thread to decide whether the names of the speakers should be changed, and if so what they should be replaced by.

2848. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88818 by epeeist on November 19, 2007 at 3:06 am

Comment #88808 by steve99

And our misunderstanding of metallurgy....

And your inability to write proper English, "Simple" indeed.

Oh, and your pathetic attempt to understand and describe quantum mechanics.

2849. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88816 by epeeist on November 19, 2007 at 3:03 am

Comment #88808 by steve99

And our misunderstanding of metallurgy....

And the new, washes whiter than white definition of "proposition"

Proposition
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

2850. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88774 by epeeist on November 19, 2007 at 1:15 am

Comment #88702 by Dianelos Georgoudis