301. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119645 by Radesq on January 31, 2008 at 5:55 pm

BTA how about answering my question at 1132 with your awesome command of physics and astronomy?

302. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119633 by Radesq on January 31, 2008 at 5:47 pm

Ha! No wonder those terriers are so feisty!

303. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119622 by Radesq on January 31, 2008 at 5:42 pm

Aw shucks Richard. Elusive buggers. About the big bang at 300k years after (the time of this opaqueness) do we have an estimate of the size of the universe at that time in comparison to today? What about the center, do we have any idea where midpoint of the universe today is (if there could be such a thing?) edit~ BTA I don't have to do any such thing that's one of the beauties of living in a free country.

304. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119617 by Radesq on January 31, 2008 at 5:35 pm

Any proofs of God's existence yet?

305. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119556 by Radesq on January 31, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Social science statistics about England and personal belief surveys from Scandinavia are not proofs of God's existence -- not even indicators or clues. I'm not going back to read 800 plus posts to see if you guys said anything worth responding to in the last 4 hours. Have you got anything useful to reprise or are you out of ammo at this point?

306. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119527 by Radesq on January 31, 2008 at 4:42 pm

Becomethearrow - Niagara falls, gentle rain, a babbling brook, a leaking faucet, water balloons...think about those for a minute.

307. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119162 by Radesq on January 31, 2008 at 11:11 am

Kardashovel: As should be apparent form my postings I don't know enough about physics to make much sense of the science of what you have posted. However, the apparent point of your discussion (about God traveling time to tinker with the Universe)doesn't make any sense to me. I did vaguely recall Dr. Steve and you discussing it somewhere in this voluminous thread. Care to repeat why your argument isn't circular?

~ What about caped crusaders Anna?

308. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119157 by Radesq on January 31, 2008 at 11:03 am

Is the Doppler shift subsumed in the expanding space effect?
edit~
BTA Did your momma tell you that?

309. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119146 by Radesq on January 31, 2008 at 10:51 am

AR ~ Actually I think Dr. Steve alluded to that point much earlier and Kshovel said something like ah you found the weakness of my argument but then proceeded without explanation for another several pages. I was just waiting for him to bring it up again to see if he would answer it if it were brought up more directly.

310. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119134 by Radesq on January 31, 2008 at 10:40 am

You're going to leave without answering my question @ 803 KS?

Guess I should have asked that sooner.

311. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119125 by Radesq on January 31, 2008 at 10:36 am

Um excuse me but why would God have to travel back in time to make the early universe this way or that ... if he/she already existed (if for no other reason than to discover time travel)?

312. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119110 by Radesq on January 31, 2008 at 10:26 am

Maybe the upshot is that inflating spacetime is just a function of God waking up and straightening out his bedspread?

313. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119106 by Radesq on January 31, 2008 at 10:23 am

Pheonix42 That sounds like what Dr. Steve was telling me the other day. I was still working with ... the sound of the train whistle shifting as it goes by ...Doppler effect. I guess that's old hat. I'll try to get with the program.

314. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119093 by Radesq on January 31, 2008 at 10:08 am

Pheonix42: I don't think now is the time to worry about getting off topic. Although perhaps 500 posts ago it might have been appropriate. I don't think there is much too be said about IA's flea book. But at least I'm getting a little more info on physics.

315. Happy Birthday Josh Timonen!

Comment #119062 by Radesq on January 31, 2008 at 9:42 am

Happy Batday Josh!... or Birthday that is... either way I hope you enjoy it. Thanks for your efforts.

316. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118700 by Radesq on January 30, 2008 at 9:20 pm

Anna this thread went off the rails some time ago. Are you sure you want to get back into it?

317. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #118688 by Radesq on January 30, 2008 at 9:04 pm

As to #3 the question you are posing is essentially the same as "Should cigarettes be marketed to children?" the answer is the same for both and for the same reason.

318. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118646 by Radesq on January 30, 2008 at 8:00 pm

Becomingthearrow: (the one who brought you such wisdom as "why do you all use big words" and "I gotta go pee")
So now that one part of the charade is over what is the purpose of your visit and are you carrying any plants, animals or other contraband?

319. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118596 by Radesq on January 30, 2008 at 7:29 pm

Should Becomethearrow return here's a cheat sheet for his likely next comments also from the Waterboy:

Young Bobby Boucher: [Flashback To Bobby's Childhood] Mama, When Did Ben Franklin Invent Electricity?
Mama Boucher: That's Nonsense, I Invented Electricity. Ben Franklin Is The Devil!

320. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118587 by Radesq on January 30, 2008 at 7:20 pm

Sorry al-rawandi, I thought this had to be somebody with a sense of humor just screwing with us. Apparently it is not as funny as I thought.

321. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118568 by Radesq on January 30, 2008 at 7:04 pm

al rawandi -- you must post right now, you just made up this new member name to pull a joke on us didn't you?

322. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118539 by Radesq on January 30, 2008 at 6:33 pm

Becomethearrow

Frankus1122, is that your picture? you got real white teeth. Mom says brush your teeth after every meal and you will always have white teeth like yours.

My Mama says that alligators are ornery because they got all them teeth and no toothbrush.

323. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118519 by Radesq on January 30, 2008 at 6:16 pm

I'm concerned that nordicthunder may have fallen into a stupor and crashed the book delivery truck that he Pretty lady and Blacknad were riding in.

324. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118084 by Radesq on January 30, 2008 at 10:05 am

If this book is "logically unassailable" it is also "logically unassailable" that "nordicthunder" is likely little more than the product of combining Carlsberg beer and lutefisk. But I'm not going to bother testing that either.

325. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117794 by Radesq on January 29, 2008 at 4:52 pm

I'm not going to waste my time reading this book. Based on what I read above it isn't worth bothering with. There are too many of these flea books that (apparently from their reviews and excerpts) all say essentially the same things. If someone who does read it wants to recommend it as something novel and worthwhile I might reconsider.

326. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117433 by Radesq on January 28, 2008 at 7:42 pm

Given his other comments in this article perhaps he needs more than one (bring on the Neo Druids and their nanobots). If that doesn't make sense read my post 11 above - actually it still won't make any sense.

327. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117424 by Radesq on January 28, 2008 at 7:08 pm

Farah: Are you considering an apologetic sequel making a case for Christianity?

Day: Not at the moment. Right now, I'm more interested in... writing something that someone will actually buy

328. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117419 by Radesq on January 28, 2008 at 6:59 pm

Easy Dr. Steve...don't fly off the handle! I'll talk you down.:)

~ All I've read of this guy is what's in the article above it's hilarious. No need to get torqued off about this guy, I think this post was meant to be comic relief.

329. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117414 by Radesq on January 28, 2008 at 6:52 pm

Electronic Monk -- just wait a day or two someone will top it. A quick internet search on this guy Day/Beale and his dad will show you some background. Apparently dad was a founder of the Christian Coalition of Minnesota and is a board member of WorldNet Daily. Maybe others already knew this. I've never even heard of this publication...I've seen the WeeklyWorldNews is this the same company?
http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/

330. Heath Ledger Death: Baptist Group To Protest At Memorial

Comment #117407 by Radesq on January 28, 2008 at 6:43 pm

Foxworthy on a half shell - fascinating.

331. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117403 by Radesq on January 28, 2008 at 6:32 pm

Cross some of biotech's more questionable developments with globalism and post-Christian paganism, and it's not hard to see that we're looking at some crazy days ahead.

332. A Letter From Hell

Comment #117366 by Radesq on January 28, 2008 at 4:29 pm

Giggle, snicker, sputter (tears of appreciation)

333. Math Religion Trouble

Comment #117360 by Radesq on January 28, 2008 at 4:15 pm

In relation to large groups Giskard is correct. Why do you think atheism has so much baggage? Because a large group of theists have subjected atheists to ridicule for so long (and burning at the stake I suppose) it is little more than negative peer group reinforcement and it works. Clearly you are also correct NC that it is unlikely to be convincing to any individual or small group to act arrogant and belligerent. If that is what you meant.

334. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116948 by Radesq on January 27, 2008 at 9:20 pm

Or in other words "don't be hasty". I look forward to your next manuscript but now I need to get some rest - back to work tomorrow.

335. Fish out of water: Your Inner Fish

Comment #116946 by Radesq on January 27, 2008 at 9:16 pm

Not bad at all, was it published in the USA? I was not around for the McCarthy era but I get the feeling that there was some mid 20th century backsliding into religiosity here in the USA due to the fears of Fascism and Communism. The only thing that comes to mind in evidence of this is the insertion of "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance" during that time. Had to be the Truman or Eisenhower administrations. I'll go look it up.
~ yes it was Ike in 1954.

336. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116937 by Radesq on January 27, 2008 at 8:35 pm

Joshua and Steve ~ I have to say I agree with the gist of your argument about standing up for your rights. But can you come up with some other phrasing. Now I can't seem to get the image out of my head of Fabio saying "I can't believe it's not gay but ery"

337. Banks are helping sharia make a back-door entrance

Comment #116933 by Radesq on January 27, 2008 at 8:16 pm

Cartomancer If there were enough of you Mammonites around looking for mortgages and car loans I think you could get banks to come around to your way of thinking. By the way I did go and look up Mammon to see what you were referring to very clever. I also went and looked up what a cartomancer is. My apologies -- I originally thought you really liked cats and were a bad speller.

...and yes if you had a nickel for every time you heard that you would probably be Mammon right?

338. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116929 by Radesq on January 27, 2008 at 8:05 pm

dragonfirematrix ~ I like your idea it seems kind of Eastern in its cyclical nature. I don't know that the evidence backs it up at the moment (but I secretly think it might someday) you still have the issue of something from nothing though. The cycle had to start from nothing I guess. These cosmological absolutes are hard for me to grasp.

339. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116928 by Radesq on January 27, 2008 at 7:59 pm

No I wouldn't think so as you aren't in the Bible belt (although Joseph Smith did discover Mormonism in upstate NY if memory serves). I'm no advocate of violence but wouldn't it be nice if (like in old movies when there was someone, usually a woman, in hysterics)you could just slap them across the face and say "get a hold of yourself" and that would work?

340. Math Religion Trouble

Comment #116925 by Radesq on January 27, 2008 at 7:48 pm

DBA ~ I assume that the NY Times was reporting on a study of mathematicians and biologists in Canada? If not that is pretty funny.

341. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116923 by Radesq on January 27, 2008 at 7:40 pm

Good for you Fire1974 they may not go and look it up but at least you get points for trying.

342. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116919 by Radesq on January 27, 2008 at 7:35 pm

That's in addition to the red shift caused from the movement away from us then? So it has to be taken into account or we would think things are receding from us faster than they really are?

343. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116917 by Radesq on January 27, 2008 at 7:29 pm

Please tell me you told them to look up Tiktaalik at the U Chicago website! That was just discussed on another thread a little while ago (the Leeds interview article)

By the way where were they from these JW science teachers? How does that happen? Must be at a religious school (I hope) Oh sorry I see you already said you didn't know where. Would you mind saying where you are? Only as specifically as you wish to.

344. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116915 by Radesq on January 27, 2008 at 7:26 pm

That is so cool I really hope it is right. The analogy I added afterward is a little off as not everything on the Earth was expanding but I was really driving at the sense of gaining distance without actually moving oneself. I can't understand why anyone would want to go with Genesis when they could go with this alternative -- even if this turns out to be incorrect.

345. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116913 by Radesq on January 27, 2008 at 7:16 pm

Argh..science hard! Would it be better if I imagined that the matter wasn't really "moving" (like an arrow moving away from an archer and toward a target) at all but that new space was being created between all of the matter everywhere in the universe? I could imagine that.

Sort of like you could stand still long enough on one part of Pangea and even though you didn't move you would find yourself farther away from the other continents as they drift?

346. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116907 by Radesq on January 27, 2008 at 7:01 pm

Rational G I went a read the inflation piece you posted a link to thanks. If any of you are still awake (I know Dr. Steve is in UK timezone don't know about the everybody else)-- what I'm still not getting about the shape and size of the universe is why everything is moving away from us and why there isn't a big hole that everything is moving away from . Sort of like a donut shaped universe. I remember the expanding surface of a balloon analogy but I'm still having a hard time with a three dimensional picture of this. SHouldn't something that was closer to the "center" of the inflation be moving closer to us. There probably is no discernible center as I am thinking of it -- but does someone have a better way for me to try to visualize this? If you are all getting annoyed with my not getting this I can move on...but I do find it very interesting.

347. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116882 by Radesq on January 27, 2008 at 5:30 pm

I wasn't going to say anything DB but since Paula and NMcC have somewhat conflicting views I thought I might add my opinion. When I was a young man I rarely appreciated my parents getting involved in issues with other school children and I was not kind to children who got their parents involved. Certainly, it is always an option and sometimes the best one when your child's safety or well being is at stake. Since your child seems not to be afraid of or particularly close to the kid spreading this stuff around; maybe he should survey his (it was your son right?)friends and see what they thought if they viewed it. Then they could ask this boy "why did you send us that garbage?" and ask him not to do it again. Maybe they could tell him it makes him look bad to send such nasty messages to other people and why they think so. Not in a threatening way but in a confident way. You could support him in that endeavor. Of course you and others may think that is not enough and you/they may be right...but I would ask your child what he would prefer before pressing the issue. Good luck whatever you decide to do.

348. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116877 by Radesq on January 27, 2008 at 5:16 pm

That larger universe would probably be 10 to the 90th power bigger in volume! our visible universe is the smallest speck in the larger universe.

I was just saying that if we are only basing our estimates of the size of the universe on extrapolating data form the visible (tiny)portion then wouldn't there be a lot of room for error in the calculations sort of like sample size and margin of error in a survey. No?

349. Ore. Court: Boy Has Say in Circumcision

Comment #116875 by Radesq on January 27, 2008 at 5:12 pm

Oh come on dlitt, you're not even going to give me a smiley face or a haha ? You're going to play straight man? That was my "A" game punnery there, give me something a smirk, a chuckle (*off stage crickets*). This is a tough crowd - I tell ya I can't get no respect...

350. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116867 by Radesq on January 27, 2008 at 4:59 pm

That is very interesting...so time doesn't really exist (or at least pass) for photons then? Everything is now and there is no past for them?

See what a lack of math can do for you (I do understand a 3,4,5 triangle though)
...the last part of your response relates to Doppler shift right? But what does learning what you can about what you can see tell you about what you can't? Now I'm not saying you can't - I understand for instance that you can surmise celestial objects that are unseen from the influence they have on things you can see. But you are extrapolating a really big universe from a relatively small (though also really big)sample wouldn't that normally have a pretty high margin of error? Thanks for your informative replies.