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


1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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 -

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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?

11. 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.

12. 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?

13. 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.

14. 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?

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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?

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #178456 by epeeist on May 11, 2008 at 1:01 pm

Comment #178451 by Nairb


The first important step is to Perceive muslim behaviour in society AS IT IS.

The above article is factual but not representative.
You mean like this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1524023/Honour-killings-increasing-in-Britain-as-women-stand-up-for-their-rights.html

EDIT: Fixed the URL

31. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #178349 by epeeist on May 11, 2008 at 9:39 am

Comment #178310 by Stuart Paul Wood

"Thought" for the day" - 5 minutes given over to some platitudinous religious wanker of one description or another.
The only one I have ever had time for on this has been Lionel Blue.

These days I just switch to Radio 3.

32. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #178318 by epeeist on May 11, 2008 at 7:30 am

Comment #178247 by Paula Kirby

Just in case anyone's interested in a completely DIFFERENT take on this event, this is the review posted on www.christianstogether.net:

http://www.christianstogether.net/Publisher/Article.aspx?id=112791
I don't think I am going to thank you for that Paula, I could lose less brain cells by downing a bottle of Uzbekistanian vodka.

Just one long jeer from end.

The thing that gets me is the dishonesty of much of the so called arguments that theists seem to put together. This and the cardinal's speech on R4 embody just about all the fallacies from Nigel Warburton's wonderful little book "Thinking from A to Z". Emotive language, bad company fallacy, hasty generalisation, poisoning the well, argument by force and by improper authority, the list goes on and on.

The one that is currently making me angry is the special pleading that is occurring on another site that I am contributing to. Within two posts we were at the "argumentum ad hitlerum", Hitler was an atheist therefore all his crimes are down to atheism. Conversely when you present the sacking of Beziers in the Albigensian crusade the demand is that you show exact causality for it being a religious crime.

While similar practices are made by non-theists there doesn't seem to be the immediate recourse to the vicious tactics that theists employ.

33. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #178293 by epeeist on May 11, 2008 at 5:26 am

Comment #178211 by huzonfurst


Speaking of wanking, isn't that precisely what religion is?
Well it certainly is what Atum was all about - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atum

At least he sounds to have some fun creating the world.

34. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #178292 by epeeist on May 11, 2008 at 5:23 am

Comment #178084 by fides_et_ratio

Serious question Diacanu. What is reason?
You know, 30s of looking would have got you to http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/practical-reason/

Or were you attempting a different leg to the Trivium, i.e. rhetoric?

35. British Airways takes beef off the menu to avoid offending Hindus

Comment #178069 by epeeist on May 10, 2008 at 11:56 am

Comment #178055 by Nova


This newspaper is right-wing and is just plain lying when they say that it was to avoid offending Hindus
Look at the bottom of the page - the Evening Standard is part of the Mail group. A paper so thoroughly nasty that irate_atheist won't even take a copy for his cat to crap on.

A paper whose principle method of selling itself was to give its readers a daily hate.

36. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #178038 by epeeist on May 10, 2008 at 10:28 am

Comment #177937 by fides_et_ratio

Why was the Cardinal's lecture given such prominent billing on a national news programme AT ALL?
Clearly an admission that the Cardinal's response to Richard Dawkins et al should not be given a public forum.


Fides - see that little symbol that I have emboldened in the quote from Paula, it means she was asking a question.

37. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #178036 by epeeist on May 10, 2008 at 10:22 am

Comment #177743 by Apathy personified

Your assertion that the Cardinal represents millions, probably true, but i bet the views of RD are far more popular.
You have changed fides words slight.

The cardinal would presumably claim to represent god, the millions that tag on behind just have to get with the message.

38. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #178034 by epeeist on May 10, 2008 at 10:15 am

Comment #177708 by fides_et_ratio

What about 'The Root of All Evil' or even the countless invitations to discuss the subject on TV, the wireless, and in the print?
What about "Thought for the Day", "In the Light of the Spirit", the "Heaven and Earth Show", "Songs of Praise", "Sunday", "Sunday Worship" to name just a few off the BBC. All of these are regular programmes for the religious.

What about regular programmes specifically for atheists or secularists?

39. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177392 by epeeist on May 9, 2008 at 2:38 am

I had some musings on this on another thread. This effectively confirms my thoughts.

The thing that troubles me is that as the (relatively) reasonable people in the CofE and Catholic church disappear then all we will be left with are the real nutters, the bible literalists, creationists, follows of Wright, Hagee and the Phelps family. And that is only the Christians!

40. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #176901 by epeeist on May 8, 2008 at 9:53 am

I deny Bunnahabhain, I deny Lagavulin, I deny Bruichladdich, I deny Ardbeg.

Well I deny them to most visitors, I keep this kind of spirit to myself.

41. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176899 by epeeist on May 8, 2008 at 9:45 am

You know there is one thing that I am sure clearmind can explain.

Given the central thesis of Ben Stein's wonderful movie - if evolutionists evolved into Nazis, why do we still have evolutionists?

42. Home-schooling special: Preach your children well

Comment #176897 by epeeist on May 8, 2008 at 9:27 am

There was a recent report showing that children who had gone to pre-school had a reduced risk of leukemia (http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=29990286-3bef-4773-97e8-3d65f7f9cf77&k=74971).

Given that home schooled children presumably mix with fewer children then this presumably means they are in the higher risk group. Assuming that prayer doesn't manage to keep it away.

43. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176871 by epeeist on May 8, 2008 at 7:58 am

Comment #176855 by ligfietser

The problem is, in Europe, fear of muslims IS de facto used as a disguise for racism, and Wilders is a poster child of this.
It is used by the extreme right to stir up racism and there are racists who do not distinguish between religion and race.

However it is also used by some Muslims, who are not averse to equivocating between race and religion to suit their views.

And there are those of us who just loath the religion and recognise that there are black, white, brown and yellow Muslims.

44. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176753 by epeeist on May 8, 2008 at 12:46 am

Comment #176685 by Goldy


No, gravity is just a theory. we are stuck to teh ground by air pressure and microscopic velcro.
Untrue, the proper description was made by Shayne Dark, i.e. lintelligent design.

It is lint that sticks us to the ground (he doesn't specify what kind of lint, so I can see future schisms on this though).

45. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176752 by epeeist on May 8, 2008 at 12:40 am

Comment #176640 by MPhil

Facts are non-temporal.
I have a slight, I think, semantic problem with this.

Measurement systems do have a temporal aspect, they improve over time, my Ph.D. would not have been possible 25 years earlier than I did it. As such the facts were not ascertainable or were or limited accuracy until appropriate measurement systems were put in place.

46. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176430 by epeeist on May 7, 2008 at 10:07 am

Comment #176421 by Podaar

Lets see if I'm learning...Dembski was the mathematician who tried to calculate the odds of human complexity by calculating backwards? His basic mistake was the assumption that life as we know it is a 'desired' end result?
It was that pesky flagellum that he got wrong - http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Desperately.cfm

See point 2.

47. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176417 by epeeist on May 7, 2008 at 9:35 am

Comment #176370 by Podaar

Uuuuh, I think you mean million. Yes?
Hey, cut him some slack. He wasn't off by as many orders of magnitude as Dembski.

48. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176309 by epeeist on May 7, 2008 at 6:56 am

Comment #176308 by seeker_of_truth

Do you think there was a global flood as described in the bible?
If so, when?
Sometime in ancient history I believe there was a widespread flood, possibly global, and not localized as we know floods to occur today. It becomes difficult to deny the possibility when you consider such flood stories exist in almost every ancient culture of the world.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html
It might just possibly because people preferred to live near water rather than in places where there aren't any?

And if you are going to reference talkorigins then you might want to include this one too - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html. An amount of it is relevant to any global flood.

49. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175960 by epeeist on May 6, 2008 at 9:34 am

Comment #175952 by irate_atheist

I note that Seeker has gone, for now. Perhaps he is trying to count his toes before learning such trivialities as logarithms and differential calculus.
It is a pity that putting mathematics on the site is so difficult. All it would have taken is the showing of the first order rate equation and its solution for the limits of detection.

50. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175936 by epeeist on May 6, 2008 at 8:57 am

Comment #175930 by seeker_of_truth


I would have thought by the lack-of, by this point at least, it would have caused a thinking man to have already reached a conclusion on this.
Oh, we reached a conclusion on you ages ago. You are a lying little creotard. Just giving you the benefit of the doubt and illustrating to others who read the posts on this site that there is no difference between your time wasting and that of wooter.

More Pages: 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