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 epeeist


401. What is science for?

Comment #183369 by epeeist on May 22, 2008 at 2:10 am

AS Marques - can I introduce you to clearmind, he is a Romany.

Clearmind - can I introduce you to AS Marques, he is a facist.

402. In God's Name

Comment #183366 by epeeist on May 22, 2008 at 1:55 am

Comment #183363 by SOAS

I presume as they are indepandent, they are independent of my Taxes too?
Possibly, but if they have charitable status then they are going to have to show that they are doing charitable work. Something that all independent schools in the UK now have to commit to.
I feel a little campaign coming on,..
They are obviously loners, they don't seem to be registered with any of the standard independent school groups, so writing to the Independent Schools Inspection service may not get you very far.

Personal Interest Alert: My wife teaches at Withington Girls' School in Manchester. This is independent and gets results rather above the "Satisfactory" level.

403. In God's Name

Comment #183364 by epeeist on May 22, 2008 at 1:46 am

Comment #183360 by Rachel Holmes

where it didn't fare brilliantly but not badly either.
"Satisfactory" is hardly not doing badly, it is one step above "Inadequate". Note that it also didn't fare too well on the science side either.

404. In God's Name

Comment #183352 by epeeist on May 22, 2008 at 12:05 am

Good follow up on this detailing the need to lift rocks and expose what is underneath here - http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sunny_hundal/2008/05/fundamentally_flawed.html

405. In God's Name

Comment #183350 by epeeist on May 22, 2008 at 12:01 am

Comment #183277 by Partisan

Fundamentalists in Britain? I can't wait =D, hopefully I'll meet one of these cretins in the street and have the oppurtunity to rip the rug from under their feet with the information I've learned from this and other sites (talkorigins particularly).
Been there, done that.

Used to regularly get leaflets pushed into my hand by women in long skirts and tiny triangular headscarves. I finally got sick of it and when I had one that claimed the "truth" of the bible I rounded on the person who gave me it. I did the same with one about evolution. I spoke eminently reasonably, but with a somewhat louder voice than normal. It gathered a reasonable audience, lots of smiles when it became obvious than my opponents were totally clueless.

They tend to avoid me these days.

406. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183347 by epeeist on May 21, 2008 at 11:47 pm

Comment #183249 by clearmind

A lot of Muslim people out there believe in Islam and you are trying to say opposite.
A lot of people believe in the easter bunny. Doesn't mean to say it exists.

Though it would have a much better sense of morality than Mohammed if it did exist.

407. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183346 by epeeist on May 21, 2008 at 11:45 pm

Comment #182987 by qomak

Don't feed the troll.
As you can see by the posts, it isn't really a troll.

More like a cockroach infestation.

408. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183177 by epeeist on May 21, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Comment #183133 by fides_et_ratio

Specifically I was talking about late term abortions, 22-24 weeks.
Under 1.5% of abortions in the UK take place after 20 weeks. There are a variety of reasons for late abortions, you can find details in http://www.soton.ac.uk//lateabortionstudy/late_abortion.pdf

You might want to compare the sex education and contraception awareness in Britain compared to other EU countries and see what sort of correlation there is between this and teenage pregnancy rates, this is a good starter - www.sepho.org.uk/download.aspx?urlid=9355&urlt=1

Knowledge of and access to contraception, including things like the morning after pill would bring down abortion generally.

409. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183130 by epeeist on May 21, 2008 at 12:33 pm

Comment #183124 by al-rawandi

Religious opposition to abortion is about control of women, not about "life".
My elder daughter did an internship with Naral - http://www.naral.org/ (in Boston if Dr. Benway is browsing).

I was brought up as a Catholic and seen the attitude to women. Some of the stories she came back with confirm both your view and mine.

Having said that - living in a home with a wife and two daughters and even a guinea pig that was female it occasionally felt the other way around.

410. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183122 by epeeist on May 21, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Comment #183095 by fides_et_ratio

also agree with the poster who says that this needn't be a question of theist versus athiest
I don't think you can get away with it that easily.

The religious groups that are against abortion tend to be those that are against both sex education and contraception.

Get your Catholic buddies to drop the concentration on abstinence and start promoting the use of contraception. Make sure everyone gets a good sex education. Start treating women as first class citizens.

All of this would cut into abortion rates.

411. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183116 by epeeist on May 21, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Comment #183072 by clearmind

Still you are talking about six years old creepy stuff that western sick minded people do it.
And that is it is it? Your famous religious objective morality, a tu quoque? It was okay for Mohammed to take the virginity of a 9 year old girl 1400 years ago because some people in the west (bit of a slip about your location there wooter?) do it now.

As others have noted someone committing such an offence in an enlightened country would be jailed for a very long time.
You are giivng me Iran where there is no real Islam teaching applied.
So where is the real Islam? Saudi Arabia with it Wahabism, where you can be sentenced to hundreds of lashings for being raped? Afghanistan, where the Taliban burn schools and do not allow girls to be educated?

412. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183029 by epeeist on May 21, 2008 at 8:55 am

Comment #183022 by Incredulous

What does this mean shithead?
I suspect it means that he doesn't like his prophet being exposed for what he was, a child rapist. You seem to get a lot of this in religion, just think of all those Catholic priests. What else were Joseph Smith and Brigham Young in the religion business for? And of course we have this one - http://richarddawkins.net/article,2596,Texas-Megachurch-Minister-Busted-in-Internet-Sex-Sting,Fox-News

413. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182980 by epeeist on May 21, 2008 at 7:14 am

Comment #182974 by clearmind

Let's think it over. One day british newspaper made the headlines that a guy was caught and arrested for child abuse but they kept the name classified since the guy is famous or trying to be famous. So that guy is , say, Dawkins.
Oh no you don't you whining maggot.

The guy I posted about was an Imam who beat a boy during a religious education class. You can't get a more explicit case of religious child abuse than that.

Trying to shift it to some hypothetical straw man because you don't want to acknowledge this is simply not going to work.

Oh - nice improvement in the vocabulary and grammar for this particular post.

414. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182975 by epeeist on May 21, 2008 at 7:06 am

Comment #182966 by black wolf

A figment of crocoduck not confuse antworld, just as leaves not green caused from seasons.
Shun the crocoduck! Shun! Shun!

crocoduck

415. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182959 by epeeist on May 21, 2008 at 6:46 am

Comment #182938 by clearmind


Child abuse is a sick mind and a mind that has no fear of God and judgment day.
Wrong way round - they think they can get away with it because the have god on their side.

This guy - http://www.tamesideadvertiser.co.uk/news/s/1026293_savage_attack_on_boy_by_imam should have been sent to jail for what he did.

416. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182881 by epeeist on May 21, 2008 at 5:02 am

If Christians or Muslims want to play the victim and be offended each time someone points out

  • that their "holy books" contain material that is more stomach churning than the average slasher movie
  • that these "holy books" contain about as much truth as "Noddy and Bigears go to Toytown"
  • that classifying women as property and allowing them to be both physically and sexually assaulted is despicable now and was despicable when their religion was invented
  • that the rape of 9 year old girls is unacceptable
  • that the originators and perpetrators of these religions are simply snake oil salesmen

    • then I really couldn't care less.

417. Texas Megachurch Minister Busted in Internet Sex Sting

Comment #182490 by epeeist on May 20, 2008 at 8:45 am

Comment #182039 by al-rawandi

"Prominent Atheist arrested at airport with salamander in pants."
There is a quaint old Yorkshire custom - http://www.wesjones.com/ferret.htm

418. Geeks and Guinness: the formula for sexy science

Comment #182415 by epeeist on May 20, 2008 at 3:45 am

There is a Cafe Scientifique in Manchester (UK). This provides a link to the RSA and some of their events, including one by Steven Pinker - http://www.rsa.org.uk/events/events_all.asp

419. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #182396 by epeeist on May 19, 2008 at 11:57 pm

Comment #182395 by MaxD

That was...well...it was priceless.
Thanks for that. I had thought of using the Sorites paradox...

The ToE works for fruitflies, add a bit more complexity and does it still work, add a bit more...

However I couldn't think of a good chain of examples. If he wants to claim that there is a different mechanism for "higher" organisms then he is going to have to present it and show where the demarcation is between natural selection and his method. And explain why there is a difference.

I wonder whether "parsimony" is a word to txpiper?

420. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #182394 by epeeist on May 19, 2008 at 11:46 pm

Comment #182333 by txpiper

But you can't hang out with yeast and fruit flies and consider some measurable nuance that occurs at that level into the kind of changes that are said to have happened in large animals.
But you can't hang out with a wheel and an axle, a pulley or a screw and consider some measurable nuance that occurs at that level into the kind of mechanics that occur in motor bikes or aeroplanes.

421. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #181858 by epeeist on May 18, 2008 at 1:17 pm

The one thing that nobody seems to have picked up is what stance the previous prime minister would have taken, having been worked upon by his wife and her "lifestyle advisor" Carole Caplin.

422. Group finds Starbucks logo too hot to handle

Comment #180912 by epeeist on May 16, 2008 at 4:47 am

Comment #180910 by toddaa

For a big heapin' helpin' of crazy, go take a look at the Resistance web site. Don't post there, though. Atheists and their brothers in arms Satanists are not welcome.

http://www.theresistancemanifesto.com/
Wow, something that makes Vox Day look sane.

423. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #180907 by epeeist on May 16, 2008 at 4:12 am

Comment #180902 by Szymanowski

My goodness. Elgar is apparently a second-rate composer after Vaughan-Williams, who apparently didn't write jingoistic music?
Elgar and jingoism - not too difficult, "Caractacus", "Crown of India", admittedly "Land of Hope and Glory" was appropriated and Elgar apparently did have doubts about the words. Vaughn-Williams wrote lots of English music but I don't find it jingoistic and it hasn't been used as such.
And both apparently were composers of Victorian England?
I was mainly commenting about "Dream of Gerontius", the words of which I find vile. This was (just) composed in the Victorian era.

424. Group finds Starbucks logo too hot to handle

Comment #180892 by epeeist on May 16, 2008 at 3:17 am

Comment #180890 by Quetzalcoatl

what about the Star of David? That could do some damage if it got lobbed at you.

cough

Of course there are some gods who are execution/torture devices in their own right.

425. Group finds Starbucks logo too hot to handle

Comment #180851 by epeeist on May 16, 2008 at 1:02 am

Comment #180848 by Tagred

How do these people actually populate the planet?
The same way as you and I. The difference is they do it with all the lights out, blackout material over the windows and wearing neck to floor nightclothes. Foreplay probably consists of praying for god to forgive the sin they are about to commit.

Presumably they never watch TV, look at advertisements if they can help it, never look at pictures like the one I have linked to, never read books that contain the word f*ck (expletive suitably censored to avoid frightening the horses) or any reference to human biology etc. etc.

426. Group finds Starbucks logo too hot to handle

Comment #180843 by epeeist on May 16, 2008 at 12:29 am

Comment #180830 by mordacious1

John Ashcroft drinks starbucks, but he keeps his thumb over the boobs.
So is he using his thumb to hide them or to fondle them?

EDIT: And what do the faithful think of something like this -

427. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #180486 by epeeist on May 15, 2008 at 5:04 am

Comment #180480 by Tyler Durden

Read up on Natural Selection, there are countless books out there, then try posting your opinions


And just to show an extremely simple example have a glance at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0 and the accompanying videos.

428. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #180301 by epeeist on May 14, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Comment #179350 by al-rawandi

2) His entire worldview is based around a strongly agricultural and labor centered society, and he speaks of the Industrial Revolution with disdain.
Disdain I think is a little mild.

I have lived a significant portion of my life in the industrial hinterlands of the north of England. If you look at the history of places like Manchester, Salford, Leeds, Bradford and Huddersfield during the industrial revolution you can see where some of Marx's disdain came from.

Can I suggest that you try Popper's "The Enemies of the Open Society" for his view on Hegel and Marx. I think they might strike a chord.

EDIT: I should note that both of my grandfathers were coal miners and both my grandmothers were "in service", i.e. domestic servants.

429. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180269 by epeeist on May 14, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Comment #180262 by annabanana

Also, I googled "Richard Morgan epiphany experience" and all I got was something about a science fiction writer named Richard K. Morgan.
"Richard Morgan epiphany experience" sounds to be a great ride, is it just in Disneyland Florida or will it be available over here in Europe.

I like Richard Morgan's books. Al might like "Market Forces", though "Altered Carbon" is still my personal favourite.

430. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #180012 by epeeist on May 14, 2008 at 5:31 am

Jesus the space alien seems to have returned already - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/1925338/The-church-is-ailing---send-for-Dr-Who.html

Unfortunately the Judean Peoples Front does not agree - http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/cult/a82130/doctor-who-slammed-by-christian-groups.html

431. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #180008 by epeeist on May 14, 2008 at 5:17 am

Comment #180002 by Vergil

I have to admit, I find the snarkiness and use of logical fallacy in this "clear thinking oasis" a bit disturbing.
You mean everyone here is guilty of committing logical fallacies?

Or is it just a few people, in which case aren't you making a hasty generalisation?

432. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #179963 by epeeist on May 14, 2008 at 3:25 am

Comment #179958 by Quetzalcoatl

as long as they're feathered snakes with wings, I'll be happy.
To be (semi-)serious. I can't remember reading anything about the contacts between Christians and peoples believing in snake gods (lower case g you will note, looking nervously around the clear blue sky for signs of thunderbolts).

I wonder whether this had any additional effect on the treatment of said peoples.

433. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #179957 by epeeist on May 14, 2008 at 3:12 am

So what happens when the spaceships arrive and a set of talking snakes comes out?

434. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #179905 by epeeist on May 14, 2008 at 1:26 am

Comment #179283 by Philip1978

epeeist

What on Earth do you mean? Elgar wrote a lovely cello concerto in E Minor its fantastic stuff!
Agreed, and Jaqueline Du Pre was one of the lusts of my youth.

However, I would still argue he is a second rate composer. Vaughn-Williams is far better but didn't write jingoistic material so he isn't as generally popular. He was the great-nephew of Charles Darwin, so he should be celebrated by more on this site at least.

And of course after Elgar we get people like Britten and Tippett who produced much better music.

435. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #179045 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 12:51 pm

Comment #179043 by Artful_Dodger

Jim Jones, for example, in a documentary I saw, at one point threw the Bible down and said "you don't need this any more. I am the word of the prophet"
So what did Jesus do that was different?

436. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #178959 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 10:07 am

Comment #178953 by hungarianelephant

The hymns are mostly 19th century, with a smattering of Wesely
Virtually all of the religious music from Victorian England is dreadful, whether it is Parry, Stanford, Wesley or Stainer.

Personally though I think Elgar is responsible for the worst stuff. "Dream of Gerontius" is completely sick making.

437. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178823 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 5:29 am

Comment #178813 by riandouglas

Ok, my straight out answer, just so you don't keep trotting out that tired old response - "I don't know". That isn't to say that the supernatural is a probability, as there is no evidence to support that assertion at present. EDIT: If anyone knows of some good papers, I'd be interested in reading it. Thanks
MPhil has pointed me at Mackie's "Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong", Churchland's "A Neurocomputational Perspective: The Nature of Mind and the Structure of Science" and Dennett's "Consciousness Explained".

Given he has pointed me at a whole stack of other stuff as well it may take me a while to get around to these, but they look to be a starter.

438. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178806 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 5:02 am

Comment #178801 by Artful_Dodger

I have read a number of physicalist accounts of mind and morality and none of them addresses this cardinal difficulty in anything like a satisfactory manner.
So give us some names, rather than a woolly "physicalist accounts".

And I still think you are committing the fallacy of bifurcation. Just because we (currently) cannot account for something does not mean that goddidit.

And I find it somewhat irritating that you accuse us of not answering questions when you ignore most everything that is put to you, my comment #178735 for example or even something as simple as why you assume something is true until proven false as raised by Mitchell Gilks in comment #178732.

439. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178766 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 2:33 am

Comment #178765 by scooternyc

And so early to be so sarcastic - I'm impressed and amused!
It might be early for you, but I have done half a morning's work here.

I note that Artful seems to have left us. No doubt he will appear in another thread as though he hadn't got anything to answer.

440. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178763 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 2:27 am

Comment #178760 by scooternyc

Their morals are so subjective
No they are not.

*stamps foot*

Religious morality is objectively valid. It says so in the bible.

441. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178759 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 2:23 am

Comment #178754 by Quine

It is short, but dense with thought.
I think I must be reading it in Winnie the Pooh mode - "I am a bear of very little brain and long words bother me".

As I say, I do wish theists would go and read some other books. I don't necessarily expect them to agree with and accept the contents of, say, Aristotle's "Nichomachean Ethics" or Quine's ontology, but I do expect them to be aware and knowledgeable of other positions.

442. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178745 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 1:49 am

Comment #178742 by Quine

Well, it seems to have gotten much more difficult for the faithful to float the usual theological circularity around here.
At MPhil's suggestion I am attempting to read "On What There Is". I am finding it tough going. I really wish that theists had more than one book in their library.

443. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178735 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 1:31 am

Comment #178731 by Artful_Dodger

Not any more than your presupposing the non-existence of God makes your argument circular.
If an entity X is postulated to exist, and no substantive evidence capable of withstanding intense critical scrutiny is present to support the postulated existence of entity X, then the default position is to regard entity X as not existing until said supporting evidence materialises.

I accept that there are lots of things in the universe that cannot (yet) be explained by methodological naturalism. So far all the things that we can explain have not needed an additional entity X.

I put it to that if you want to posit an additional entity then the burden is upon you to show evidence for its existence.

Some while back I posted a set of lemmata. They must have been apposite since MPhil was kind enough to re-use them. I would suggest that you need to fulfil them one by one if you want us to accept your god exists:
  1. The Universe was created
  2. The creation was performed by a deity
  3. The deity is interventionist and keeps interfering in the universe
  4. The deity happens to be that of an iron-age Semitic people from one region of a small planet circling a star in a galaxy of some 100 billion others, the galaxy being one of some 150 billion others
  5. All of this is documented in the "holy book" of that particular set of people


You might want to try and establish a couple of auxiliary premisses
  1. The deity is omni-maximal, i.e. omniscient, omnipotent and omni-benevolent
  2. All other creation myths, gods, demi-urges and supernatural beings are false

444. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178727 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 1:02 am

Comment #178717 by Artful_Dodger

Epeeist, there is nothing metaphorical about the fall, except (possibly) the images, the word pictures, that were used to describe it. The tree and the fruit and the talking serpent may not be literal, but the all too real narratives that they are intended to illustrate: of defiance against God,
To take Rian's comment further. Not only are you presupposing a god (which makes your argument circular), but a particular god. Why is the story of the creation and the fall (including Ningizzida the talking serpent, lord of the tree of life lifted straight from the Epic of Gilgamesh) any more true than that of Hiranyagarbha the golden embryo or the meeting of ice and fire in Ginnungagap. Note that neither of these two mythologies has a fall. In fact the idea of a fall is an exception in mythology.

445. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178716 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 12:49 am

Comment #178713 by Artful_Dodger

The one that is relevant to this thread is the very existence of the faculty of reason, which is not reducible to natural causes.
You have proof for this assertion?

Even if it were true it doesn't necessarily point to your particular deity, or a deity at all.

446. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178709 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 12:30 am

Comment #178704 by riandouglas

I did note that, but isn't the term "god" a generic term and not a proper name?
Yahweh, Zeus, Thor are all gods, right?

No they are all myths.

Whoops, sorry. Zeus and Thor are myths, Yahweh is real.

And of course there aren't just literal and metaphorical bits in the bible. Large amounts of it are just the myths of a cattle-sacrificing (see Leviticus for the excruciating details) primitives. There is is no reason to give them more provenance than, say, the Kalevala, Hávamál or Mabinogion.

447. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178706 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 12:25 am

Comment #178702 by Artful_Dodger

Epeeist, read the rest of my post. Of course there is a range of literary devices in any text.


Fine, I can accept that. However, since you didn't answer my second part then I am free to conclude that the whole of Genesis is actually a metaphor. I have as much authority to declare this as you.

Given that it is, then the whole story of Jesus is an irrelevance since there was no literal fall only a metaphorical one.

448. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178700 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 12:08 am

Comment #178695 by riandouglas

Artful_Dodger: Let's first establish the willingness to take seriously the possibility of God speaking through "words".
Ah, you're simply presupposing a god. It's better than going all the way to Yahweh & Jesus, but it still needs justification.
No he isn't, he is presupposing his "God" (note the capital G) and at the same time implicitly denying the existence of other gods. How about literal and metaphorical in the Rig Veda?

449. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178686 by epeeist on May 11, 2008 at 11:29 pm

Comment #178521 by Artful_Dodger

I have answered the literal v metaphor question.
No you didn't. You gave one particular instance.

What you didn't provide was the general decision procedure. Nor did you tell us who gives you the authority to determine that something which is supposedly the direct or indirect word of your god is a metaphor.

450. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178476 by epeeist on May 11, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Comment #178464 by Artful_Dodger

"I'm a passionate Darwinian in the academic sense (...), yet I am a passionate Anti-Darwinian when it comes to human social and political affairs."

I really can't get over the fact that nobody on this site is willing to challenge Dawkins on the glaring inconsistncy here.
You really are a tosser aren't you? The only reason you raise this is to cause quarrel dialogue.

Who says we get "everything" from natural selection? Do you really think that Beethoven's Opus 131, Homer's Illiad, Newton's Principia or even religion are a direct product of natural selection?

I had a moan on another thread about the way theists seem to conduct arguments. Your post typifies what I said, emotive language, loaded questions and simply bad reasoning.

And by the way - you still owe me a description of how you separate the literal from the metaphorical in your "holy book". And who gives you the right to do it.

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 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 | Next