1. Evangelical Christians sign up to a 'Church within a Church'

Comment #203097 by elfinabout on July 2, 2008 at 11:19 am

Archbishop Peter Jensen, of the Sydney Diocese in Australia, told the meeting that sex was at the heart of the debate. He said: "Sexual immorality leads you outside the kingdom of God, just as does greed..."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

Go back to your palace, put on your jewel-encrusted silk robes and gold ornaments, and enjoy your banquet. Arsehole.

2. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #174677 by elfinabout on May 3, 2008 at 7:59 am

Bizarro,

I believe that this particular area is one where the Church is failing miserably, and it is a situation that must be remedied if for no other reason than to attain a respectable level of intellectual honesty.

I want to applaud your sentiment, I really do. However I must point out the oxymoronic absurdity of an institution that insists upon the existence of their particular deity understanding, never mind attaining, intellectual honesty.

3. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #127428 by elfinabout on February 15, 2008 at 9:21 am

@annabanana:

Throwing the phrase "conspiracy theory" at someone who points out something patently obvious but undesirable is exactly the reaction those in control want you to have - carefully fostered over the last few decades via very careful media manipulation.

If you are _actually_ under the impression that this is _not_ happening, and you think that the American administration has your best interests at heart, then I'm afraid that however informed you may consider yourself, you are one of the many and I'm afraid I must suggest you are quite naieve.
This situation is painfully, sadly obvious to most people living outside the US.

4. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #127404 by elfinabout on February 15, 2008 at 8:44 am

The current American "condition" is progressing exactly as intended by those at the top.

Informed, knowledgeable people are difficult to control. They are aware of their rights, able to spot abuses of it and have the annoying tendency to react unfavourably if taken advantage of.

If you want to be able to use your population for your own purposes - to have a virtually unlimited supply of cheap labour and willing army recruits to keep the wars (and hence the military-industrial complex) going, you do the following:

Keep them stuffed with cheap, addictive junk food that temporarily satiates them but has little nutritional value needed for complex thought or general fitness - this keeps them tame;

Force upon them an unrelenting, homogenous media barrage controlled by a select few individuals that tells them over and over and over that they are in imminent danger from unspecified and undefinable external agents - this keeps them scared and lets you remove their rights in the name of "security";

Keep them working their arses off 12 hours a day to keep a roof over their heads and pay for all medical assistance - this stops them having too much free time to relax and think;

Make exams easier, dumb down science or ignore it completely, and encourage anti-scientific, religious thinking. Make rationality and critical thinking seem elitist or pointless. This promotes credulity to the point that they believe without question the vast majority of what the aforementioned media channels tell them;

Encourage segregation and suspicion of all cultural groups that do not fit within one narrow set of parameters. Make vague associations between countries/colours and terrorism, etc., and reinforce them constantly - this keeps the embers hot and allows you to mobilise vast numbers of people to your cause in deeply emotionally-charged ways at the drop of a hat.

Americans - take a step back, and maybe have a look at some of Herman Goerings' writings - the methods he employed on the German people before they marched en-masse on Europe. The parallels are astonishing...

5. New meat-eating dinos identified

Comment #126848 by elfinabout on February 14, 2008 at 10:53 am

Fantastic!

Minor BBC gripe:
"short, armoured jaws and small teeth, well designed for gobbling guts and gnawing carcasses"

Well ADAPTED, not "designed".

6. Pleas for condemned Saudi 'witch'

Comment #126846 by elfinabout on February 14, 2008 at 10:50 am

@Epinephrine:

I take it you got better? ;o)

7. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108129 by elfinabout on January 6, 2008 at 4:46 am

This thread is moot - I am atheist (note - it's not a noun - I am not "an" atheist, I'm a-theist - without theism) by default, simply because there is no evidence whatsoever to support any other worldview.

@ADH:

Actually, I'm rather hoping that you pop back to this thread:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2105,n,n

And respond to the comments there. You challenged people for citations and evidence, and they provided you with copious quantities of both. You seem to have gone silent there now.

8. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106538 by elfinabout on January 3, 2008 at 5:41 am

@34 (Radesq):

Very droll - nice wordplay. ;)

9. Double-checking Dawkins

Comment #93058 by elfinabout on December 2, 2007 at 4:42 am

I've always found it strangely gratifying tat Prof. Dawkins is a long-time Mac user... :o)

10. African Crucible: Cast as Witches, Then Cast Out

Comment #88199 by elfinabout on November 15, 2007 at 8:44 am

People sometimes ask me why I get so incredibly heated about religion. Why it matters to me what myth, fantasy or folklore some or other idiot believes. Why it's relevant. Why I'm so fiercely and passionately of the belief that we should no longer tolerate religion of any sort. Why we should shout, slap and shake people out of their ignorant, destructive, childish stupor with vigour and commitment.

It's about education. It's about dignity. It's about our own humanity. It's about being personally accountable for our actions.

I invite those people to read the above - one of many, many examples of similar behaviour the world over. Right now. Here. Today. In the 21st century. And then never ask me those questions again.

11. Onward Christian teachers?

Comment #87776 by elfinabout on November 13, 2007 at 4:46 am

Monosilabbiq - fides_et_ratio is indeed a christian apologist forum troll. Click the link under his post to see his other postings - all the usual unsubstantiated waffle, accusations of others being illogical/unscientific, etc. - all with the usual failure to recognise the irony in what he says. I really wouldn't bother.

12. American kids, dumber than dirt: Warning: The next generation might just be the biggest pile of idiots in U.S. history

Comment #81644 by elfinabout on October 25, 2007 at 1:52 am

I'm afraid I must agree with the prognosis. I live in Brighton (on the South coast of England), and we're seeing it here too - growing numbers of estates filled with tracksuits and fake gold.

Attempting to communicate with these people on any meaningful level is futile. We are (over)breeding a generation of idiots, because our government has created a welfare society that panders to young people dropping out of school, getting a council flat, and having as many babies as they want - and handing out a subsidy for each.

There's no sense of responsibility or ownership of the facilities and services we as a nation pay for, and so things get smashed and covered with graffiti - no problem, the bottomless magic purse will appear and replace it.

I am of the opinion that our government is also actively dumbing down the populace, and I am saddened.

13. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #79636 by elfinabout on October 18, 2007 at 2:04 am

Oh, this is just too good to be true! Backed into a corner, scared, and encouraging their sheep to attempt intellectual confrontations with critical-thinking individuals?

This is a very encouraging time. :o)))

14. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78815 by elfinabout on October 15, 2007 at 2:12 am

Congratulations, Prof. Dawkins - well deserved.

We seem to be collecting trolls today...

15. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74585 by elfinabout on September 29, 2007 at 3:58 pm

Comment #74581 by DV82XL on September 29, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Well they say Benito Mussolini made the trains run on time

And in fact, he didn't even do that. The advancements in the rail services happened shortly before he came to power. It was later wrongly attributed to him.

16. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74582 by elfinabout on September 29, 2007 at 3:40 pm

Recent bestsellers by Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and others suggest that religious faith is a sign of backwardness, the mark of primitives stuck in the Dark Ages who have not caught up with scientific reason. Religion, we are told, is responsible for violence, oppression, poverty and many other ills.

...if the cap fits...

17. Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin

Comment #74251 by elfinabout on September 28, 2007 at 1:29 am

Here's another example of the alleged atheism of Hitler for you, js5535:

"I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work". ~ Adolf Hitler

18. Keeping the faith at school

Comment #73192 by elfinabout on September 24, 2007 at 11:58 am

I'm either going to cry or vomit. I feel genuinely nauseated.

19. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72118 by elfinabout on September 20, 2007 at 11:37 am

Oh, where shall I start with this apologetic shamble of an article? I know - I simply won't bother. We've been here before...

Next?

20. Good News: Both our Foundations are now Officially Recognized as Charities

Comment #70356 by elfinabout on September 15, 2007 at 3:44 am

Fantastic, heartwarming, inspiring news - congratulations to Richard and all involved! :o)

21. Another view

Comment #66206 by elfinabout on August 29, 2007 at 9:20 am

I think he demonstrates clearly the reason for his offence:

I was in practice for 20 years

Quite.

I wasn't treating idiots.

Yes you were, Stephen - you were.

Next?

22. Anger at Malaysia 'Jesus cartoon'

Comment #66063 by elfinabout on August 28, 2007 at 6:57 am

That's it - that's the limit - I've now officially had enough of this crap.

It will henceforth my sworn duty to piss off, offend , harass and harangue as many religious idiots as possible. I'm going to be as sarcastic, offensive and unforgiving as I can be, and at all opportunities explain WHY.

Enough!

23. Curriculum for Baptist School

Comment #62320 by elfinabout on August 9, 2007 at 9:05 am

I want to scream.

24. Scarlet Letter Campaign Update: A Victory

Comment #62319 by elfinabout on August 9, 2007 at 9:01 am

Greybishop:

Yes, I have. I felt like laughing and crying simultaneously...

Yes, good point. Never underestimate the insanity of those intellectually crippled by religion, I guess... :o/

Cato: I beg your pardon?

25. Scarlet Letter Campaign Update: A Victory

Comment #62297 by elfinabout on August 9, 2007 at 7:59 am

Okay, I stand corrected - I've just read the atheist-skinning-cats childrens story.

Nobody - nobody, is that insane. Parody at it's committed best.

26. Scarlet Letter Campaign Update: A Victory

Comment #62273 by elfinabout on August 9, 2007 at 7:22 am

I'm afraid to report that the site in question is not a parody.

I have, however, been having a little fun with the particularly insane Mrs. T D Gaines-Crockett. She's very entertaining.

Here's her very own prayer to say before visiting any rational websites: http://baptistsforbrown2008.wordpress.com/sow/

I... just... *pop*

27. Christopher Hitchens Is a Treasure

Comment #43548 by elfinabout on May 22, 2007 at 1:27 am

*yawn* - the usual, rambling nonsensical ad hominem. Filed under "b1n".

Next?

28. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43546 by elfinabout on May 22, 2007 at 1:23 am

Oh Mr. Hitchens, you are my linguistic hero.

"If you gave Falwell an enema, he could be buried in a matchbox" - I nearly wet myself on the spot.

Beautiful.

29. Scientists Draw Link Between Morality And Brain's Wiring

Comment #43368 by elfinabout on May 21, 2007 at 7:31 am

Thanks, BaronOchs. Yes, it could be substantially clearer.

30. Scientists Draw Link Between Morality And Brain's Wiring

Comment #43346 by elfinabout on May 21, 2007 at 6:39 am

Thanks, BaronOchs. Out of interest, does anyone know if that is noted anywhere on the site?

31. Scientists Draw Link Between Morality And Brain's Wiring

Comment #43337 by elfinabout on May 21, 2007 at 6:21 am

And yet again, I find an article on the front page that I emailed in over a week ago, the finding of which is credited to someone else. I'm actually getting annoyed about this now, especially since I've had no answer to my questioning of this from the site admins.

I can't see any email addresses other than contact@richarddawkins.net anywhere on the site, and nobody replies to emails sent there! Does anyone here know if there is another email address, or a recognised article submission procedure? I can't find anything...

Yours in frustration,


elfinabout

32. True faith is greater than the ranters

Comment #40335 by elfinabout on May 14, 2007 at 6:28 am

"sophisticated theologians" --> read "experts in imaginary friends". I mean really, how did theology/divinity become accepted qualifications?

33. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #40301 by elfinabout on May 14, 2007 at 5:18 am

You do that. :o)

34. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #40261 by elfinabout on May 14, 2007 at 3:51 am

mjr1007:

Here we go again. I'm not even bothering this time, so say what you will.

35. The Case Against Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name

Comment #40113 by elfinabout on May 13, 2007 at 6:43 am

Stuart Burgess deserves to be read.

No, he doesn't. He really doesn't.

36. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #40101 by elfinabout on May 13, 2007 at 5:34 am

This may prove interesting regarding the whole "Religion gives people morality" bullshit:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117884235401499300.html?mod=hpp_free_today

37. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #40098 by elfinabout on May 13, 2007 at 5:26 am

If it will help we can use COG (Concept of God). COG and religion are different. Not all religions have a COG and there are COGs that are outside of religion. Buddhism is a non-theistic religion and Spinoza
had a very interesting treatment of COG from a philosophical perspective.

I'm getting a little tired of playing semantics here. Call it what you will (and please settle on one phrase). Oh, and Buddhists would be rather annoyed with you calling their philosophy a religion.

Still not seeing it. It could be the term logic. I'm used to symbolic logic with existential and universal quantifiers predicates and so on. Which is in fact often considered a subfield of mathematics. It seems to me you are putting too fine a point on this. It has been decades since I was grading symbolic logic at University and have not kept up so I'm not claiming to be up to date. At this point a proper citation would be needed to convince me. Otherwise it's a side issue let's drop it.

More semantics. Whatever.

You claim basically is, if I may be so bold as to paraphrase, "there is no evidence or reasonable interpretation of evidence that supports the existence of a higher power"

My claim is that the Universal Observer (hope you are still enjoying the capitalization) is a reasonable interpretation of evidence. By no stretch of the imagination is it the only interpretation or does it prove the existence of a higher power. It merely disproves, by counter example, the statement that there is no reasonable interpretation. It now throws the issue into a gray area where nothing is provable or disprovable.

As all your arguments appear to. This obfuscation is becoming tiresome.

Just as you don't have to prove the nonexistence of God I don't have to prove the existence of God, I merely have to show a reasonable interpretation of facts is not inconsistent with a Universal Observer.

It's your interpretation of "reasonable" that I take issue with.

My guess is you haven't been a parent in a while. Getting kids, particularly teenagers to do much more then stay sober and not get killed is about the best you can hope for now. Hope that isn't too glib.

Never been one. Fair point though.

I would be remiss here if I did not at least allude to some of the positive things religion does. Many seem incapable of self restraint so if the fear of eternal damnation restrains them, that is fine with me.

Not with me, it isn't. If the acceptance of the existence of "God/COG/UO" (to use your ever-increasing acronyms) is able to modify their behaviour in a way that benefits others, it is also able to modify it to the detriment of others.

Also religion gives many a great deal of comfort, particularly in times of personal sorry, like a death in the family.

"It's okay dear, he's in a better place now". Really? Bollocks - prove it. Why heap false hope upon an already sad event? This is truly sickening to me.

Religion may also give those who need an ego check a sense of perspective.

Rubbish - utter rubbish. Someone who "knows" how the universe was created and that it popped into existence by the will of "God/COG/UO" has already abandoned perspective.

Statistically religious people give more of their disposable income to charity, and not just religious charities.

A grand claim - evidence, please.

Religion may well be like a knife. In the hands of a felon it's a dangerous weapon, in the hands of a surgeon it can be a life saving tool. Surprisingly, to me anyway, several evangelicals I know expressed dismay and embarrassment over some of the televangelist. Facts logic an reason are not the context that religious people feel comfortable in so you will never be an effective communicator with them if that is the only tool in your toolbox.

QED.

My suggestion is to at least familiarize yourself with critical parts of the Bible. A surprisingly small number of pages will arm you when talking with Christians.

Actually, I've read two versions of The Bible - The King James and the Gideons International (and was overjoyed once, in an hotel room, to find written inside the front leaf of a Gideons Bible the words "All the best - Jesus".)

I have also read some of The Q'uran, the Torah, a substantial portion of the Bagavad Gita, and several other religious tomes.

I think you may have missed my point here. If you have no concept of something then you are unable to hold an opinion of it's existence. With non concept you would have no frame work to decide. I suspect this was just a poor choice of words. For me I have no opinion on the existence of the Higgs Boson because I have no real concept of it.

To have a concept of something, you must first accept it's existence. You then create a concept of it, personal to you. For me, it is sufficient to understand that others have varying concepts of "God/COG/UO". Regarding the Higgs boson, there is at least evidence that points to it's existence, so I am able to have a concept of it.

elfinabout ended with:
"I look forward to your reply - hopefully we're back on track now. "

It is my hope as well.

Oh well.

38. Cardinal: homosexuality a form of prostitution

Comment #39812 by elfinabout on May 12, 2007 at 2:28 am

BaronOchs & SRWB:

I understand the left-handed were regarded with suspicion in years past (based on some religious superstition probably). I had a teacher whose (right-handed) hand-writing was somewhat messy. She said this was so because she was really left handed but had been forced to use her right hand when she was a catholic school-girl.

My father was also forced to write with his right hand as a child, although he was left-handed (my heritage is Scottish, and for some reason a significant proportion of Scots are "lefties"). It eventually made him more or less ambidextrous. Strangely enough, although I favour my right, I'm virtually ambidextrous too.

Another example is the English word "gauche", strangely enough, from the French for left as well (what is it with all this anti-leftist rhetoric?). See my point?

Yes, lots of references to "left" are negative - I think left-handedness was seen as a defect or strangeness. I'm sure I read it was associated with "witchcraft" at some point, which certainly wouldn't have helped...

the fact is that in a large part of the English-speaking world it is the standard (at least it is in Canada and the UK – I'm not sure about Oceania) and common usage trumps. Other dictionaries probably do likewise. Furthermore, etymology concerns origin and sources of words, nothing more. Language, like life, evolves.

Very true, and of course, language does and should evolve. It just irks me because I'm a pedant when it comes to the English language... ;o)

By the same token, why do Brits insist on saying things like aeroplane and aluminium?

The snob in me wants to shout "because that's how the're spelled, dammit!" ;o)

Ivan The Not So Bad:

As I understand it, a paedophile is someone with a sexual attraction towards children whereas a pederast is specifically a man who is attracted to boys.

Sex is not differentiated in either expression. The prefixes "paed-" and "ped-" refer simply to children.

For the record, according to UK crime statistics 98% of sexual offences against children are committed by heterosexuals (usually the parents or, if not, a relative or family friend).

As gay and lesbian people make up around six per cent of the population but commit only two per cent of sexual offences against children, this gives lie to the deeply offensive connection (often promoted by the religious) betwen gay and paedophile.

Oh, don't get me started...

Veronique:
Wonderful - I have read Native Tongues and Eats Shoots and Leaves. Both very illuminating. I will find and read
Mother Tongue and Bryson's Dictionary of Troublesome Words - I like Brysons style, and I didn't know of these - thanks!

You may enjoy Mind the Gaffe by R. L. Trask. :o)

Back on topic:
Riga looks (from the photograph) like such a quaint little place. It's awful to think of the roiling divisiness being whipped up by the Cardinal (I also think he's a repressed homosexual) and his hench men, the neo-Nazis. When you think about it, it's not that different from that loopy born-again and his 14 or so children and hundreds of grandchildren, picketing the funerals of the forces' personnel in wherever in America.

Ah, Fred Phelps and the "Westboro Baptist Church". Yes, what wonderful people those children are growing up to be. I feel sorry for them if/when they realise in later life... Good ol' Granpa...

I think people have had enough of them now - just do a YouTube search. One of their most recent forays to an army funeral didn't go so swimmingly: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Jrxs9kUsHmc

I recall the first Gay and Lesbian Madri Gras in Sydney. The airwaves were full of it. There were the pickets, the supporters and the ho hums. Now, I believe, it's the biggest and most flamboyant in the world. They showcase all different groups as well - the police are represented, the arts, nurses, doctors, lawyers, the whole gamut as far as I know. It brings in thousands of people all over the world and Sydney has a ball (to coin a phrase).

I'd like to see the Sydney one - I live in Brighton (UK), and ours is pretty varied. Nobody bats an eyelid here, which is great. In fact, half the citys parents bring their kids along - it's seen as a great day out for everyone. And living in Brighton (often referred to as the gay capital of the UK), if you have seriously bigoted views on sexuality you're not going to make many friends. Most residents of Brighton moved here from elsewhere, and you really don't move here unless you're pretty open-minded. Fantastic city.

And if dear ol' Fred turned up here with his placards, I can guarantee he'd get lynched on sight.

Funny how a city with probably the least religious population in the UK is also so welcoming and accepting of differing lifestyles...

39. Cardinal: homosexuality a form of prostitution

Comment #39617 by elfinabout on May 11, 2007 at 10:04 am

SRWB:

Yes, unfortunately the Oxford Dictionary has a very unprofessional habit of redefining words according to common usage, ignoring completely their original, etymological roots. Most English words can easily be broken down into their Greek or Latin constituents, each of which is quite precisely defined.

Another of my annoyances (and I don't wish to offend anyone here) is the "Americanisation" of English words - the substitution of "z" for "s", arbitrary removal of letters, etc.

Thankyou for your concerns, but I made that comment and attempted to prompt discussion for this very reason.

BaronOchs:

I would definitely agree. Interestingly, I believe RD has quoted an "ex-religite" as saying that she would rather have been sexually abused than have gone through the religious indoctrination she suffered as a child, and has even suggested that religious indoctrination is a more sinister form of abuse.

Incidentally, did you know that our word "sinister" comes directly from Latin, and means "left"?

40. Cardinal: homosexuality a form of prostitution

Comment #39598 by elfinabout on May 11, 2007 at 8:56 am

Philip1978:

Indeed. The fervour with which those (usually "with faith") who pursue, demonise and vilify those of us who are attracted to members of the same sex has always, for me, pointed to a deep, deep questioning and fear of their own proclivities.

Take a group of deeply religiously indoctrinated men (who are probably highly insecure by that point), make them swear off sex for life (in fear of going to hell), surround them with other men and choirboys, make them wear garments that look suspiciously like dresses, then let them know that any "transgressions" will be dealt with in-house as opposed to with due legal process - you can see where I'm going here...

To quote Occam, the simplest explanation is usually the right one.

41. Cardinal: homosexuality a form of prostitution

Comment #39583 by elfinabout on May 11, 2007 at 8:07 am

How pathetic. Only the deeply religiously crippled could possibly object so much to this. As a gay man, I would love to sit down and discuss these "certainties" with this man.

I must chime in here with one point - the word pedofilia (sic - it's actually paedophilia) does not mean having sex with children - that is pederasty.
A paedophile is a person with a love for, and interest in, children, as an audiophile feels the same affinity with music, and a philatelophile with stamps. A pederast is the correct name for someone who has predatory sex with children.

It may be semantic, but the word is widely and inaccurately used, purely because it "sounds" worse in some way.

I love kids. I am therefore a paedophile. I am certainly not a pederast...

Discuss.

42. The Encyclopedia of Life

Comment #39533 by elfinabout on May 11, 2007 at 4:32 am

Awesome. As in the original meaning of awesome - actually inspiring awe. :o)

43. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #39502 by elfinabout on May 11, 2007 at 2:25 am

I think this argument is starting to become somewhat rambling and circular now, and we have both been guilty of meandering from the subject towards personal attacks. Still, I think we may still have some common ground to discuss, so I'll try and get back to the actual argument(s) and hope you reciprocate:

Excellent point, my mistake. Should have read, the idea of God exist without religion. Of course the original post was about a Universal Observer that some may wish to call God. My complaint was that you have conflated the Universal Observer with God and God with a religion.

Does it really matter what the entity in question is called? The fact remains we have no evidence for it. And my conflation was surely valid, unless you are arguing from the point of view of this "Universal Observer" being a purely passive entity, existing solely for the purpose of observing, hence satisfying one interpretation of the quantum argument you used earlier?

In previous post you defended conflating God and religion, if Bible based religions are not what you had in mind then please specify which religions you did have in mind.

I refer to any religion or cult - being a belief in an external enitty of any kind, for which we have no evidence.

Being patronizing doesn't confirm I have no basis in fact, it confirms I'm rude and obnoxious. A tone chosen because of the criticism, right so IMHO, of atheist tone.

An unjustified generalisation, in my opinion. I can only speak for myself, not all athiests, on this. But I personally get stroppy when someone tries to tell me "facts" about the universe in which I live that they cannot back up with evidence.

You really have me here, not sure what to make of this. Are you saying that numbers don't exist and have properties, such a primeness? Numbers are a human construct but they are a way to represent and quantify processes behind the universe. From an epistemological standpoint I'm really not sure what you are trying to say here. Logic is also a human construct similar to numbers. You do claim to be using logic, don't you?

It seems that you are saying that for some reason my nonexistence proof of a largest prime number is somehow different from other types of nonexistence proofs because of some property of numbers, but for the life of me I can't figure out what it is. Try restating it.

Okay - yes, numbers exist, but only as a human construct, created to quantify things. That is the property of numbers I'm getting at. Logic, in my opinion, is not a human construct as such - things happen naturally, according to logical rules. Constituent parts of atoms group in specific quantities, etc. Numbers are one tool we use to express that logic (as you say - representing and quantifying those logical processes). The logic exists without us - numbers do not, as such. Time would be another example - an arbitrary unit of measurement constructed by us to quantify things.

I didn't remove your paragraph, I simply ignored it. Do you really expect your opponents to make your points for you? It was nice that you read it though. If there was any underhandedness I would have searched for a reference without the paragraph.

It wasn't my paragraph, it was simply part of the article. And I still don't think it made your point.

You are correct it proves nothing, what it does is disprove the statement "there is no reasonable evidence for the existence of a Universal Observer who some may wish to call God".

No it does not. By any stretch of the imagination. Please elaborate.

People have a right to base their lives on what they please.

Of course - the problem arises when they force their children to inherit their "truths", which they invariably do. Speak to any of a number of people on this forum who were indoctrinated in this manner and let them tell you about the intellectually and emotionally crippling impact this had on their lives.

People will continue to influence how others base their lives, much as you are doing here. You sound as if you are strong willed enough to live your life as you see fit without constantly whining about this.

I'm not "whining", and not everyone is equipped to protect themselves against this indoctrination.

You seem quite capable of being a pot which calls the kettle black. Or did you really believe that your statement about me not really wanting you to continue wasn't patronizing? As far a you conflating similar ideas to use straw man arguments, it is a real and valid criticism. I can't decide yet whether it's purposeful or just a lack of imagination on your part. Hopefully future post will reveal which.

It was indeed designed to be patronising, and was a reaction to your comment made in the same vein. I certainly conflated, quite rightly in my opinion, "God" and "Religion" - please show me how these are _not_ related, and _not_ able to be conflated.

If you have no concept of God then how could you have an opinion of existence? Seems like a strange statement.

Because my worldview does not require a "God". Only those pre-programmed to require one would find conflict here.

A simple counter example here. There does not exist a greatest prime number. A greatest prime number would also mean a finite number of primes. If there were a finite number of primes then one would simply multiply all of the primes and add 1 to the result and a new prime number would exist.

Non sequitur. Prime numbers are a human construct, and do not actually exist as such. How exactly do you think this proves a point? If you are arguing that "God" (I'm not playing the game of what to call it) exists in that way, as a human construct, fine. If you assert it exists otherwise, evidence it...

I really question this. I hate to keep beating a dead horse here but if you didn't think it was a valid nonexistence proof then I'm not sure how one could be constructed. Particularly if numbers are excluded. This is truly puzzling to me. I suppose it's possible by excluding all possible ways of constructing nonexistence proofs you statement that they are impossible would be correct, but it seems like a trivial and uninteresting way to do it.

One _cannot_ be constructed. Please explain how you are using the nonexistence of a greatest prime (a human construct) to prove something? The expression is "flogging" a dead horse, by the way.

To answer you last question, no I am not an oxymoron.

Seems you are deficient not only in facts and logic but humor as well. Here I was just playing along with your statement. Since you were unable to figure it out before, no I am not a Christian Scientist.

You surely would have reacted unfavourably had I assumed one way or the other, so I asked you. You avoided the question. With some humour, yes, but you avoided the question. So I asked again.

I look forward to your reply - hopefully we're back on track now.

44. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #39215 by elfinabout on May 10, 2007 at 7:24 am

I'm getting tired of playing this game now... if you insist on arguing _around_ the issue, go and find someone else's time to waste.


"Obviously the study of God (religion) does not exist without God but God certainly exist without religion. Just as nature exist without the study of nature (science) but science does not exist without nature."

God certainly exists without religion? Again - EVIDENCE this BASELESS ASSERTION or drop the point.
Science is the effort to categorise and understand the processes behind the universe. Those processes exist without science.


"Just say something does not make it so, no matter how much you may wish to believe it. You really do need facts and evidence. Gee where has that been said before?"

I refer you (again) to "God certainly exist without religion."


"Once again your dogma is to incorrectly conflate the idea of a Universal Observer with a Biblical God"

Did I mention the bible? No. Moving the argument to what name we give to the idea of an unseen, supernatural force or entity again abstracts from the original argument. But nice try.


"and then proceed to argue against said Biblical God. This is called a straw man argument. Please eliminate the rhetoric and stick to the facts and reason."

Don't resort to patronising me - it merely confirms you have no basis from which to argue. This is called an ad hominem attack, and if anyone is using rhetoric here, it is you. Regarding facts and reason, I refer you for the third time to my request for evidence.


"A simple counter example here. There does not exist a greatest prime number. A greatest prime number would also mean a finite number of primes. If there were a finite number of primes then one would simply multiply all of the primes and add 1 to the result and a new prime number would exist."

Non sequitur. Prime numbers are a human construct, and do not actually exist as such. How exactly do you think this proves a point? If you are arguing that "God" (I'm not playing the game of what to call it) exists in that way, as a human construct, fine. If you assert it exists otherwise, evidence it...


"Hence my equivocating on proving something does not exist. You do seem to be prone to sweeping generalizations, I guess you consider that part of your charm."

Back to attacking me personally so soon? It's okay - I forgive you.


"Yes I did read the entire text. The next paragraph, which you obviously latched on to because it agrees with your dogma, was added for editorial balance."

I added the balance because _you_ removed it. And do not try to equate the acceptance of independently verified data with dogma, it is quite the opposite. Are we heading towards allegations of "dogmatic atheism" here...?


"The point here is not that this article proves the existence of a Universal Observer, it does not, it merely demonstrates that one possible interpretation is consistent with the existence of a Universal Observer."

Which proves nothing.


"You are right about one thing, it is trivial to find inconsistencies in religion, so much so one has to wonder why you even bother."

Because people base their lives on it, and are more and more frequently trying to base how I live _my_ life on it.


"Please don't bother since your "Dealing with" is nothing more then inappropriately conflating similar but different ideas and then using straw man tactics to argue incorrectly that you are right. You are correct in say I very much do not wish you to continue in such a manner. If on the other hand you wish to use facts and logic to continue, please do."

Unbelievable. You are actually accusing me of doing what you are doing to me. Who do you think you are fooling, besides yourself?


"In this post you continue to conflate the Universal Observer with your concept of God and God with religion."

I have no concept of "God". Incidentally, I like the capitalisation of "Universal Observer" - is this a new religion, or a new branch of one of the old ones? Or just more obfuscation to avoid the actual argument?


"You also overstated not being able to prove the non existence of something."

Because of the weight you attached to that argument in bolstering your own. And besides, how does that make my argument invalid, exactly?


"Hopefully my simple counter example is understandable even by you."

The non-sequitur? Yes, immediately understandable, thankyou.


"To answer you last question, no I am not an oxymoron."

More obfuscation. I shall ask the question, again, in the (fading) hope of receiving a straight answer - are you a "Christian Scientist"?

45. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #39109 by elfinabout on May 10, 2007 at 2:42 am

mjr1007:

If you're referring to conflation in relation to the use of language, and the conflated idioms are "God" and "Religion": They are intrinsically related. One cannot, and does not, exist without the other. Hence a congruent conflation is acceptable and correct - logically, semantically, grammatically and philosophically.


"In the case of this discussion it seems clear that some peoples have a much more limited understanding of nature then others."

Indeed. The assumption that an invisible deity controls it in some way is certainly a limiting factor in understanding the subject.


"Since you don't know me how could you possibly know what my assertions are, baseless or not?"

It is obvious that one of your assertions is "God exists".


""Thus God does not exist."

A conclusion consistent with the available evidence.

Once again all you have done is proven religion is inconsistent, nothing more."

Firstly, _you_ asserted that "God does not exist" is our conclusion. I merely stated that the (lack of) available evidence supports this conclusion.

Secondly, I do not need to prove that religion is inconsistent. That much is immediately evident.


"In fact proving something does not exist is almost impossible, epistemologically speaking. The best you can say is there is no evidence to support the claim of the existence of something, epistemologically speaking."

Proving something does not exist is not "almost impossible", it _is_ impossible. Logically, semantically, and evidentially.
The onus is not on us to _dis_prove anything. There is no evidence to challenge. My personal position, until proven otherwise by positive evidence, is that "there is not, and never has been, a single piece of evidence proving, or even vaguely suggesting, that a sentient creator being of any shape or form either exists or created anything".


Oh, and regarding "In quantum mechanics nothing occurs unless it's observed.":
"For those too lazy to RTFA the salient point in the second to last paragraph is:

[...] thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we're not observing it."

Have _you_ read the article? I note that you cherry-pick the one, single sentence that you like the sound of because it echoes your previous, woefully misunderstood statement about quantum mechanics - from a single article, discussing a single attempt at an experimental investigation of a cognitively narrow _thought_ experiment, when the same article goes on to state, in the very next sentence:

"However, Alain Aspect, a physicist who performed the first Bell-type experiment in the 1980s, thinks the team's philosophical conclusions are subjective. "There are other types of non-local models that are not addressed by either Leggett's inequalities or the experiment," he said. ""

Of course they are subjective, and of course the conclusions are philosophical. It is an interesting thought experiment, that at present proves nothing. It certainly doesn't prove that "In quantum mechanics nothing occurs unless it's observed.". That is a ridiculous statement, and if this is your evidence for the statement, and you are actually trying to prove the statement:

1. You misunderstand quantum mechanics even more than I first suspected;

2. You have demonstrated a willingness to latch onto the first "good-sounding" piece of text that appears at first glance to support your argument, and to discard the text surrounding it because it contradicts it;

3. You have shown that once you have made an assertion, even a patently ridiculous one in a subject you demonstrably misunderstand, you will attempt to defend that assertion, even when indefensible, by resorting to misleading paraphrasing and cherry-picking of sources that suit.


I really can't be bothered right now to deal with the other glaring misconceptions you display in the rest of that section - feel free to throw me a "probably not dealing with it because you can't" - that will give me the motivation to, but I doubt you want me to.

In my opinion, all 3 points above are typical of "Christian Scientists" (and I do like a nice oxymoron). I'd like to know if you identify as such?

46. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #38779 by elfinabout on May 9, 2007 at 7:13 am

Jonathan Dore, you beat me to it. I shall therefore deal with the first part of mjr1007's comments:


"This seems to be the same atheist drivel repeated over and over again."

Oh, you mean the same old challenges to your baseless assertions? The same old questions being asked about how you justify trying to tell people about the nature of the universe in which we live? Maybe that's because not ONE of those questions has EVER been answered. The onus is not on those without "faith" to come up with new questions, when the existing ones remain unanswered.

"First, conflate God with religion."

Oh, I'm sorry - are they not related then? How presumptious of us to assume they were. My apologies.

"Then poke holes in religion."

No poking is required. The many and varied "holes" are spectacularly apparent to anyone not blinkered by the aforementioned "faith".

"Thus God does not exist."

A conclusion consistent with the available evidence.

47. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #38476 by elfinabout on May 8, 2007 at 8:55 am

Tolerance,


The fact that you equate the multiverse theory directly with superstring theory in an attempt to make your argument, shows that you are using concepts you demonstrably do not understand in order to make a point, hoping that others will know no more about the subjects than you do.

Sadly, I do. Besides, "God exists" is an _assertion_, not a theory, for the simple reason that it is neither provable or disprovable. Superstring theory and the multiverse theory are both theories (the clue is in the phrases), and are potentially both provable and disprovable.

I wouldn't usually take time to play semantics, but I'm sick to the back teeth of people throwing non sequiturs like that about.

48. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #34144 by elfinabout on April 23, 2007 at 10:46 am

Konquererz, that summed it up perfectly for me (comment #34120) - thankyou.

Brian - kudos.

49. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34137 by elfinabout on April 23, 2007 at 10:25 am

Devolved is quiet... thanks to Lee for the info there.


/tumbleweed

50. If only gay sex caused global warming

Comment #27544 by elfinabout on March 25, 2007 at 8:35 am

*Ahem*

(sarcasm)
My fellow Americans, we have a crisis on our hands!

Our community of Christian scientists have determined that global warming is in fact caused by the Devil himself!
We have concluded that the Devil is concealing himself in carbon atoms, and each atom of carbon carries with it a small amount of the Devils hellish, fiery breath. This breath is having a cumulative effect, and is causing our planet to heat up! In time, the Devil will have raised the temperature enough to enable him to walk on the Earth, and claim dominion!

Fellow Christians, rally together and help to stamp out this evil! We number in the millions - we must join together - in prayer, and in carbon emission reduction. Together, we can stop Satans plan to destroy our planet!
(/sarcasm)

Toungue-in-cheek as my words obviously are, I seriously believe that if this happened, millions of religites would swallow it whole. Think about it - they believe far more ridiculous propositions, and do not generally require proof of any kind.

America would turn virtually carbon-neutral overnight. The positive effect on the planet would be huge, and the oil and related military-industrial companies that line the Bush coffers would stumble quickly.

Discuss.