651. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71444 by BAEOZ on September 18, 2007 at 7:39 pm

Damn hard, especially since the hip hasn't stopped bothering me. I got the OK to jog again recently, I started, but then the hip went weird on me so I've shelved it. Also, I'm bone lazy by nature, so that makes it hard too. I love food and beer too!

652. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71442 by BAEOZ on September 18, 2007 at 7:28 pm

I don't think they call in anyone in by default. They check with you or someone you know I believe before the god squad descends to condescend to attend your (non)ascendence.....sorry, it seemed cute when I typed it.

653. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71440 by BAEOZ on September 18, 2007 at 7:22 pm

Phasmagigas, everytime I've been admitted to hospital, not just seen in casualty/emergency, they ask my religion. I guess if things go arse up, they'll get a pastor/priest/imam to hold your hand or pray over you as you kick the bucket. I'm in OZ, so perhaps we're weird down this way.

654. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71437 by BAEOZ on September 18, 2007 at 7:15 pm

Goldy:

got lazy and slapped on 20 kg (about 45 lb) in a year while "recovering". Given decrepitute starts at about 30, the work we did in our twenties gets harder and harder for less and less. Don't trust God, you have to do it for yourself. Don't let those funny chest pains and that tingly left arm warn you - trust me, it's scary (even though it turned out to be indigestion. Phew... :-))

18 months ago I fell off my bike whilst going too fast in the rain and trying to turn when the light was amber. Hit the road hard and later Dr. told me to stop jogging and after that I stopped riding and chucked on the 20 Ks. Just went to the hospital yesterday because I had the chest and left arm pains, nausea and felt dizzy (although that was after chatting with revcort, so....). Anyway. No problems though, only gastric. They asked what religion I was when I was quickly admitted, I'm proud to say I replied "none", even though at the time I was quite unsettled by all the weirdness going on in my body and according to religious people atheists recant when scared. Feeling better today. True story :)

655. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71430 by BAEOZ on September 18, 2007 at 6:51 pm

Revcort I think you take me as deliberately being cruel. It's fun because you are so proud of your knowledge and so willing to demonstrate it. It's your pride that I find humourous. I don't wish you any harm at all.

Anyway, I think you've got it wrong.

Amen, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. (Matthew 23:36 NAB)

Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. (Matthew 24:29-35 NAB)

From a different source.

34Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.

It seems pretty unambiguous to me.
Also, your reply mentions Peter saying a day without Jesus is like a thousand years, not God. Now Peter knows god's word and thus Jesus lied? A conundrum, Jesus said he'd be back in a generation, Peter said that for god a day is a thousand years. Jesus is god, thus Jesus either lied in person, or lied to Peter. Sad.

656. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71413 by BAEOZ on September 18, 2007 at 6:00 pm

Hi revcort. I haven't read all the comments since we last checked so I'm not sure if you responded to one of my questions posted yesterday. Apologies if you did. Anyway, the question is, if Jesus said he'd be back in the lifetime of his followers. Why did he not return? An omnipotent god would surely be able to manage that, and being omniscient he'd know what he was gonna do and being omnibenevolent he'd want to do right by his followers. Seems strangely cruel from my point of view. Anyway, back to you my learned friend.

657. Catholic school board in Halton may ban HPV vaccination

Comment #71391 by BAEOZ on September 18, 2007 at 4:50 pm

Klaatu barada nikto:

Unless it's with an alter boy

So it's inappropriate with the primer boy, but not the alter boy? Oh, you meant altar boy :P

658. Radical Christians in Iraq

Comment #71386 by BAEOZ on September 18, 2007 at 4:15 pm

a part of me wants to put all the fundies from all sides (Jews, Christians, Muslims) into a piece of the desert they so adore (circa Armageddon perhaps?) and let the rip into each other with steak knives. But then I think that we shouldn't let children with emotional issues and imaginary friends play with steak knives or any for of weapon as they may hurt themselves and others......

659. Larry King Interviews Kathy Griffin

Comment #71340 by BAEOZ on September 18, 2007 at 1:24 pm

We all know that all atheists have faith. It's just another faith. Faith in communism, fascism, eugenics, baby skinning and broiling. It's the devil's work. God created atheists to temp believers and try to turn them away from eternal salvation. Atheism is a religion. Oh, I already said that one.

660. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #71329 by BAEOZ on September 18, 2007 at 1:01 pm

Danielos:

Take for example the random mutations that are necessary for natural evolution. If God had interfered with these random mutations in a systematic albeit statistically undetectable manner then God could very well have designed the species including us without in any way contradicting what we know about natural evolution.

If that is the case,then then taken to its logical conclusion nothing can be taken as evidence for god. As the world can be explained naturally, and as anything god does is not detectable, then there can be no revelation or miracles known because they are not detectable. God is invisible.

661. Catholic school board in Halton may ban HPV vaccination

Comment #71325 by BAEOZ on September 18, 2007 at 12:50 pm

The catholic church is so moral, it'll kill you if you don't follow it's precepts.

662. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71324 by BAEOZ on September 18, 2007 at 12:49 pm

Thanks guys! (insert pouting) I was having a nice conversation with revcort yesterday, and just after I turn off the 'puta and go home for the day, you guys get stuck into him and he leaves before I get back. That's no fair. I wanted to laugh at his inanity! Take all my fun.
When I saw epeeist, the fencing physicist, commenting with him. I thought he'd rip him a wormhole in his biblical space-time continuum. Alas, 'twas not to be.

663. State Senator Ernie Chambers Sues God

Comment #71152 by BAEOZ on September 17, 2007 at 11:23 pm

As far as I recall, fireworks were illegal in my adolescence. So, I don't know what date they did the crackers when not illegal. However, I was in Scotland back in 2000 and we had a fireworks night (bonfire night?) and that was sometime in November. I'm agreeing with V on this one.

664. State Senator Ernie Chambers Sues God

Comment #71150 by BAEOZ on September 17, 2007 at 11:12 pm

I was quite boozed up and supprisingly un hungover. I know the Guy Fawkes was a catholic involved in the gunpowder plot. I just didn't know the date. Sad, oh well.

665. State Senator Ernie Chambers Sues God

Comment #71144 by BAEOZ on September 17, 2007 at 10:51 pm

Got the PM. Sorry I've not responded. I'm not sure what day Guy Fawkes is and in any case I was hesitant to say "yes" to catching up and then have you arrange to meet me instead of going some other route, if I couldn't guarantee I could make it that time and date.

Happy Birthday, I was 35 last friday. Getting old, but not getting wisdom. :)

666. State Senator Ernie Chambers Sues God

Comment #71138 by BAEOZ on September 17, 2007 at 10:27 pm

Hey V, how goes it?

667. State Senator Ernie Chambers Sues God

Comment #71137 by BAEOZ on September 17, 2007 at 10:26 pm

Where's the Onion when you need them?

668. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71134 by BAEOZ on September 17, 2007 at 10:19 pm

The law of identity applies infinitely within our system. God is not within our system. He is a paradox in our system. He is not a paradox in His system. He is perfect existence.

The god of the Bible is supposed to be reasonable, to us. He isn't. He is supposed to be manifest and all around. He can't be and not be. As for him not being of this system, how? why? The bible doesn't at all suggest this.

Now that my kids are being lied to, it's now billions of year- or is it trillions now? I'm losing track.

Why is it a lie? You exaggerate the change in years, but science bases these estimates on evidence. That's the strength of science, it gets better with evidence. As the evidence accumulates, our estimate will alter. You surely aren't old enough to have been at school when Lord Kelvin said it was millions of years old are you? He did retract his estimate when he realized that certain forms of radioactive elements decompose over much greater time lengths. C14 is not used in dating the earth, only recent organic matter. That is just a red herring on your part.

If he was mistaken, he wouldn't have been resurrected from the dead nor ascended into heaven, which is true according to the eyewitness accounts. Further, these very eyewitnesses might have had reason to perpetuate a lie for political or financial gain, but would they have ALL been willing to go to their deaths for a lie? I don't think so. As for His words, they are unmistakable. Here you go...

Oh dear, you assume that the Bible accounts are accurate. They have no independent corroborations and violate the laws of physics. Your god may not be of the system, but Jesus' body certainly was. The scriptures say that many raised from the graves, there was an earthquake, etc. Now, do you really think the Romans and Jews or anybody who saw dead people up and out of their graves wouldn't have thought to mention it? It's insulting to suggest this is historic.
Really what evidence do you have that Jesus existed outside the Bible? None, except mention of a cult of christus. As for the eyewitnesses there's nothing to suggest they existed, let alone died for their beliefs. I'd love some evidence that wasn't scripture. Until then it's a lie for me to say any of it is real or worth believing.

Just thinking further about Jesus' supposed words. He said he'd be back within the lifetime of his followers. Now, being god, he'd have been able to do that one, no? He didn't. Another failure of revelation I suppose.

669. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71125 by BAEOZ on September 17, 2007 at 9:35 pm

Recovert:

Now, He is either God or He is a liar or should have been locked up because He was crazy. Which is it?

Or he was mistaken or he didn't exist, or his words were misunderstood or many other things. Your line seems quite like C.S. Lewis false trilema. Hopefully you can see the problem with your logic there.
Also, why didn't god reveal himself before 4000 bc? Or do take that as the beginning of the world against all evidence that the Earth is many billions of years old and the universe more again?
Finally, can you explain how we can know anything without the law of identity holding in all cases? If the trinity is correct, then the law doesn't hold in all cases, so we don't have reason to have confidence in it. Thanks.

Further question. God didn't offer hope of Redemption until Jesus came along. So for the 4000 years of your argument people were condemmed without hope even with knowledge of god. Or not?

670. The Nonbelievers

Comment #71123 by BAEOZ on September 17, 2007 at 9:16 pm

Yeah, apparently Jesus was just one of many charismatic Jews in the day (obviously John the Baptist was another) and his message of love they enemy was well known, it appears in Plato's Phaedo (or is it Crito?) and many other ancient texts. Jesus said nothing new and the whole resurrection/miracle things was just standard marketing for the aspiring prophet.

671. The Nonbelievers

Comment #71119 by BAEOZ on September 17, 2007 at 8:56 pm

Behold the gourd, it is a sign! Follow the gourd!

672. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71118 by BAEOZ on September 17, 2007 at 8:55 pm

Recovert, it must be comforting to know that you're among the saved. Quite a nice security blanket.
As for the trinity, if it's true, then mathematics and anything else that relies on identity is false (i.e. you could be you but not you). You have to provide evidence that demonstrates that this outcome isn't as outrageous as it seems before I could honestly accept it.

673. The Nonbelievers

Comment #71114 by BAEOZ on September 17, 2007 at 8:51 pm

Quine you're of the People Front of Judea I wager...

674. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71110 by BAEOZ on September 17, 2007 at 8:45 pm

Recovert, you've set up a dualistic Jesus. He's god who can't be tempted, but he's a man who's able to be tempted. Can you explain how a god who knows all and is all powerful, is able to be tempted? Your explanation ignored that problem. No matter how human he is, he's still cogniscent of his godness. The fact that you say he's human is irrelevant, unless he's both human and god in which case he's two people and you don't know who your worshipping. Thanks.

675. The Nonbelievers

Comment #71108 by BAEOZ on September 17, 2007 at 8:43 pm

Heathen2 I find that I think theism sucks. Which is funny, or not, because a lot of my siblings and definitely my mother are practising catholics of various shades of devoutness. Still, I don't talk to my mother and a few of my brothers these days, so I dont' have to get into a god vs godless smack down with mum (she'd probably just get all upset and pray for my soul and think the devil's involved). The others don't bring it up the few times a year I see them, so it's not a major problem. But more generally, I still have to remember, dislike or hate the faith, not the sufferers. It's easy to attack people for their beliefs......

676. The Nonbelievers

Comment #71105 by BAEOZ on September 17, 2007 at 8:38 pm

mmmm, for those who are humoursly challenged, I used the term Schism because of it's religious connections. We are regularly accused of being "just another faith" by believers. It seems somewhat ironic of me to term the frequency of quite virtriolic discussions amongst us as somewhat similar to religious schisms. Oh well, I guess I'm the one who lacks humour or sleep. Not sure which, brain not functioning..... :)

677. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71103 by BAEOZ on September 17, 2007 at 8:32 pm

Recovert, can you explain something for me please? How could Satan ever tempt Jesus? Jesus is god, thus he created Satan and cast him from Heaven when Satan god all Adam and Evey. Anyway, Jesus knew that he was god, knew that his "death" and "resurrection were nothing for a omnipotent being such as himself. Just a conjurers trick really. Why would Satan be anything more than another bauble to him?

678. The Bili Apes Are in Trouble!

Comment #71090 by BAEOZ on September 17, 2007 at 8:04 pm

Damn humans! I blame god for creating us! He's a prick.

679. The Nonbelievers

Comment #71088 by BAEOZ on September 17, 2007 at 8:00 pm

I obviously didn't read the article thouroghly enough. From the posts is seems to be a pretty sucky idea. I can't be bothered to read it again though. Don't have the energy for the atheistic schisms that seem prevalent on this site at the moment. So, I whole heartedly agree with whomever protests the most, and also those who disagree with him/her. That should cover me. :)

680. The Nonbelievers

Comment #71078 by BAEOZ on September 17, 2007 at 7:15 pm

Just reading the last few posts, which make good points, I reckon that a humanist "church" isn't really for happy atheists/humanists like many here. It would be suitable, perhaps, for people who are loosing their faith, but won't let go because of fears of isolation or loss of community. A lot of people seem to, in part at least, hang onto faith because of the social aspects.....just a thought....

681. The Nonbelievers

Comment #71057 by BAEOZ on September 17, 2007 at 5:37 pm

First, no second post! I have nothing to say. I applaud the humanist ideal and community building, but I don't think I've anything useful to add. Oh dear. :)

682. Enough religion. Stop shoving it down my throat

Comment #70813 by BAEOZ on September 17, 2007 at 1:38 am

You old francophile Richard Morgan.
Les ateistes catoliques... or some such

683. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70806 by BAEOZ on September 17, 2007 at 1:03 am

[Begin silly comment]
Richard Dawkins used some of my comments posted on the other thread. I should sue him for plagiarism!
[End silly comment]
Good comment Richard. It will probably be interpreted as shrill and such because many people can't see past their god tinted glasses....

684. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #70788 by BAEOZ on September 16, 2007 at 11:18 pm

Danielos, I'm not going to argue with your characterisation of RD's arguments. I'd just say this, the god of the Jews, Christians and Muslims is not a hidden god, he interferes in the material world when he chooses. This is a statement of fact open to the scientific method. His interference can and would be measured and would not be explainable naturally. This has never happened, so belief in the god of the Abrahamic religions is belief without evidence.

685. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70477 by BAEOZ on September 15, 2007 at 5:03 pm

I just finished reading Victor Stengers: God the failed hypothesis. That had a lot in it about debunking the all knowing, all powerful all loving god, and many besides. A good read. I now have to track down my copy of the god delusion which I loaned out and give that another read.

686. Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science

Comment #70175 by BAEOZ on September 14, 2007 at 8:47 am

Oxcytocin, I'm a pimple in the arse of a pimple in the arse. And not necessarily of science.

687. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #70165 by BAEOZ on September 14, 2007 at 8:27 am

I dont want a saviour or a prophet(other than Quetz and Billy!)

What's wrong with Quetz (Tea be upon him) and Billy? Got a better saviour? Huh?

688. Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science

Comment #70161 by BAEOZ on September 14, 2007 at 8:21 am

Yorker:

That's shocking! Isn't evolution the basis of biology?

As a programmer you'd understand the HAL (hardware abstraction layer). Engineers understand math but many will tell you it doesn't interfere with their belief (because the can ignore the science). Just as doctors understand the body, but they abstract that from the physics, chemistry and biology. It's not necessary to understand evolution (except on a micro level that comprehends resistant bacteria, they all accept resistant staflicocci) to get a degree and make your preacher happy.

689. Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith

Comment #70160 by BAEOZ on September 14, 2007 at 8:18 am

From an evolutionary point of view their ignorance should not prevail.

Um evolution isn't interested in social movements. It isn't human. Whether we bother or not, it'll continue.....

690. Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science

Comment #70156 by BAEOZ on September 14, 2007 at 8:13 am

Oxcytocin: I would refer you to your own sagacity. Are you and Russell Blackford actually Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris?

691. Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science

Comment #70153 by BAEOZ on September 14, 2007 at 8:08 am

Russell. I've just commented on the blog of Irfan Yusef, who seems extremely reasonable to me. But then he contradicts his reasonable comments by pointing out that this or that Imam stopped him suicide bombing because that Imam convinced him that it was written in the Quran that it is wrong to kill yourself. He's proud of that. To me, it seems that if there was no book for muslims nor for christians, etc, there'd be no reason to kill yourself to curry favor....Yet he never got that.
How can we convince believers that their moderate stance is only one part of the continuum of lies that is the death stance? All supernatural is unatural (lie), we just need a way to point that out....

692. 'Jane Doe' Testifies as Trial of Polygamist Leader Begins

Comment #70148 by BAEOZ on September 14, 2007 at 8:00 am

Purgatory Correctional Facility

Satire?

. Give yourself mind, body and soul to your husband.

Translation for materialists: give yourself body, body, and body to your cousin as determined by your delusional uncle.

A defense lawyer, Tara L. Isaacson, told jurors that the state had failed to prove that Jane Doe had been raped by her husband.

Nor could Mary prove she was raped by Gabriel, thus we have the virgin birth.....It's important for a woman to keep honor in a patriarchal society (Yes it's a satirical joke!).

693. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70143 by BAEOZ on September 14, 2007 at 7:50 am

ClemIsMe:

I grew up around addicts and enablers. Why, when I read critiques of the current tide of atheist literature, do I hear so many echoes? Must be me.

There's a lot of that going around this site. Every time you shut a faith head down (which means he stops talking to you, he doesn't examine his faith to see where the error in logic is), another pops up and says the same line you just debunked like he just thought of it.....What comes around, goes around.....

694. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70133 by BAEOZ on September 14, 2007 at 7:39 am

The caricature of all church-goers as simple-minded fundamentalists provided by Richard Dawkins

Lie number 1. RD doesn't tar all believers with the same brush.

Perhaps the most telling point is just how small and self-serving was the reading list for The God Delusion.

More ample than the reading list or primary source of all believers. After all, they base their beliefs in a single "good"* book.

Dawkins's fact-based approach. And religion is hard to fit in to that agenda, for it simply isn't about facts.

First truth, religion isn't about facts nor truth.

Religion fails utterly this test.

Never a more succint phrase has been spoken.

You cannot prove God exists because religion is not primarily about belief

He forgot to add that it's faith without evidence. But he's right, you can't prove god, again he forgot fairies too. Why can't you prove them with a book? Why?

Dawkins would call it blind faith.

Would he? I don't know, but the author has his the proverbial nail on the head anyway....

It is an intuition, a sense of something more than meets the eye, a glimpse of transcendence, of a higher purpose, but nothing more tangible.

So is mental illnesss? This is an argument against faith?

*Not guaranteed to be good nor no warranty of after life implied.

695. Mind Over Manual

Comment #70054 by BAEOZ on September 13, 2007 at 11:43 pm

robotaholic:

I don't think the brain should be treated any differently than your other organs. Pathology should be recognized and treated.

Do you recommend that we section someones frontal lobes or cerbellum or whatever because of mental illness? It's quite easy to change personality, disable or kill a person messing with the brain. You can replace the liver, heart, lungs etc and still have the same person. Can't do that with the brain. I know that psychology and psychiatry are young sciences that don't have the extent of knowledge that other medicine does. They are sciences though.

696. Mind Over Manual

Comment #70016 by BAEOZ on September 13, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Corylus, when I first stated studying psych a few years back I went to borders and had great fun with the DSM. Didn't buy it, but realised my disorder is that I just don't give a rat's arse sometimes. :P

697. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #70012 by BAEOZ on September 13, 2007 at 4:30 pm

Russell, I just went to the link you posted and had a go at some catholic believer (Whoops). I thought your comment was quite good. I admire your restraint and how you can agree with Dawkins and not come across as a sycophant. Kudos.

Fides sin ratio: Have you admitted the Trinity as formulated by your church is logically incoherent yet? Or you still lying?

698. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #69812 by BAEOZ on September 12, 2007 at 10:55 pm

At the risk of being labelled some atheist version of a fawning beatles fan....another great article from Sam. I still think his writing rocks.

699. Censoring Sir David

Comment #69786 by BAEOZ on September 12, 2007 at 7:26 pm

Dr. Benway, you are indeed evil.

700. Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith

Comment #69328 by BAEOZ on September 10, 2007 at 10:49 pm

Brave people, very brave. Especially to want to leave such a peaceful religion.