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 BAEOZ


51. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124345 by BAEOZ on February 9, 2008 at 6:03 am

My point exactly. Dawkins likes to make out that children are brainwashed by religious parents.....but he didn't find it difficult to escape....any more than millions of other people have done!!


Wow, let's chuck differences out the window, which Dawkin didn't do, and say either it's really easy to get out of religion, because so many cherubs do, or say it's impossible (which suits your strawman that it isn't, unless you're have a gun to your head, or have really insistent family or are muslim, etc.)

I think it's far more informative to find out what a leader's followers think he has written to find out what the whole movement is about.

OK lads and lassies. Let's fallacy hunt. By jove there's a big one in that last statement. Who can spot it first? What's that? Being an atheist doesn't mean you don't follow Richard Dawkins? That's not a good fallacy. It's just terrible reasoning. Any others? Yes, you, there looking innocent? What's that you say? That because Richard Dawkins said or thought it, it must be bad because he's an atheist? Why that's the Genetic fallacy young squire...

52. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #124339 by BAEOZ on February 9, 2008 at 5:43 am

. In your case schizophrenia or mild auditory hallucinations have not been ruled out. Have you been to a psychiatrist? My grandmother towards the end of her life had frequent auditory hallucinations and once even talked about god speaking to her. Ofcourse hers was a case of age induced dementia.


No offsense. But seriously, why do we need to put out the insane line? Everybody has had dreams. everybody has daydreamed. Everybody has heard a voice, or thought that someone was there. It's just the way the brain works. It puts in data where data is required. The brain really doesn't get the idea of not functioning. An hallucination is the brain's way of filling the void required by a person's current mental state*. Of course drugs can create these needs, but it's still the functioning of the brain, not violations of physics and rejection of science as Karda would have it.

*I deserve an award for dismissing so much neuronal activity with such a small hand wave I venture....

53. Richard Dawkins talks about The God Delusion

Comment #124336 by BAEOZ on February 9, 2008 at 5:33 am

I can be sloppy with use of language.

I would refrase thus: Language is a crappy medium for precise thought.

My comment was an attempt (probably poor) at humor. Not intended as an ad-hom or to lessen your opinion.

54. Richard Dawkins talks about The God Delusion

Comment #124334 by BAEOZ on February 9, 2008 at 5:28 am

Sorry Steve. I was riffing on the meaning of actual. In a lot of languages, actual means present. So, if it's actually impossible, it follows that it's presently impossible. My bad.

*EDIT: Even in English, it can mean present:
existing now; present; current: The ship's actual position is 22 miles due east of Miami.
From dictionary.com.

55. Richard Dawkins talks about The God Delusion

Comment #124331 by BAEOZ on February 9, 2008 at 5:21 am

Exactly. It is unreasonable. But not actually impossible.

But don't apologists claim that their faith is reasonable?

By the way, when is it impossible? Or did you mean "not really impossible?"

56. Richard Dawkins talks about The God Delusion

Comment #124329 by BAEOZ on February 9, 2008 at 5:20 am

I think therefore I am.

Another person who falls for the cartesian howler. If there is thinking, it doesn't make an I....

57. Richard Dawkins talks about The God Delusion

Comment #124328 by BAEOZ on February 9, 2008 at 5:19 am

The problem is that this is isn't any kind of useful explanation for anything.

And, that is a big, let's say, insurmountable, problem. To adopt this idea as reasonable, just doesn't seem, well, reasonable.

58. Richard Dawkins talks about The God Delusion

Comment #124325 by BAEOZ on February 9, 2008 at 5:17 am

These Gods are not just "very, very, very, very, very, very unlikely." They are impossible.

Richard. Despite that totally reasonable abhorence you have to my attempts at music. I have to say that right now, I think you're just super....

59. Richard Dawkins talks about The God Delusion

Comment #124321 by BAEOZ on February 9, 2008 at 5:07 am

I already discussed that ghost is a necessity if life is to be logically relevant..

Before discussing the necessity of a ghost, how about demonstrating that a non-existent person exists?

60. Richard Dawkins talks about The God Delusion

Comment #124318 by BAEOZ on February 9, 2008 at 5:04 am

See! No violation of conservation of energy. God isn't impossible. Just very, very, very, very, very, very unlikely.

And he does this for every thought? Remember that mind/soul is separate for each person that exists. This isn't just his own activities. Not that a perfect being can have activities.....

61. Richard Dawkins talks about The God Delusion

Comment #124312 by BAEOZ on February 9, 2008 at 4:47 am

the second a matter of neuroscience.

Again, my query about the 1st law of thermodynamics...

62. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #124311 by BAEOZ on February 9, 2008 at 4:45 am

Corylus, I love that essay. Brilliant.

63. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #124304 by BAEOZ on February 9, 2008 at 4:20 am

I shall be writing a stiff letter to the BBC (a good British response):

Double bonded paper I hope (for the stiffness).

64. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #124302 by BAEOZ on February 9, 2008 at 4:18 am

rather than on the living God

God isn't alive. He can't die.

Baeoz, about what you know of hallucinations... since you are evidently an expert on the subject.

Well, I've nearly completed a bachelors in psychology, have just done a unit of how chemicals in the brain can trigger thoughts and feelings. Like amphetamines can alter dopamine levels, which affect the nucleus accumbens which generates false, but fantastic feelings and ideas. What part of you brain did God affect my incredibly knowledgeable interlocutor?

By the way, you haven't said whether you think the 1st law of thermodynamics holds. You've, so far, said it's a lie because a "god" can interact with matter (your brain), but I'd like you to say you do think physics is false, which is what you say when you say there is a being of no matter nor energy communicating with you, and if possible, provide something more than voices in your head to prove it.

65. Richard Dawkins talks about The God Delusion

Comment #124301 by BAEOZ on February 9, 2008 at 4:10 am

But if you invoke God to explain this complexity, you are introducing the very thing you are trying to explain (the complexity of mind), but infinitely bigger.

Indeed Steve. I still wish to know how God can get about the 1st law of thermodynamics. Of course he needs to surmount the impossible in being simple and perfect, and thus being unable to do anything first. Buy I'm sure he'll get there....

66. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123968 by BAEOZ on February 8, 2008 at 3:29 am

Sounding like Bertrand Russell is better than polemical ranting

I reckon sounding like Bertrand Russell is just good in itself. No need to make it appear better by comparison.

I know that Goedel's incompleteness theorem stopped Russell's attempt to describe all mathematics as logic in its tracks. But if Russell hadn't have applied his genius to the problem, and nearly achieved it, Goedel would've been an unknown.

67. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123964 by BAEOZ on February 8, 2008 at 3:11 am

I think it's intellectual envy.

Well, Dawkins does have a Ph.D. and is regarded as one of the foremost scientists, at least biologists of his day. Similarly with Dennet amongst contemporary philosophers. Again with Hitch amongst journalists and people who know way too much. Hench the drunkard ad-hom. The best argument he could mount against Sam was that he hadn't done his doctorate yet, and sounded like he parroted Bertrand Russell. How sounding like Bertrand Russell can make one seem foolish, I'll not understand I venture.....

68. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123960 by BAEOZ on February 8, 2008 at 3:04 am

Given the massive antler-like protrusions the Archbishop sports on his brow however

Are you calling the Arch B a dickhead?

69. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123957 by BAEOZ on February 8, 2008 at 3:00 am

Thank you. I'm here all week. try the veal.

Bastard! That's my line. Get him Vivien.

70. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #123949 by BAEOZ on February 8, 2008 at 2:42 am

You just gave me an idea for a cocktail

I prefer my Guiness (or any beer for that matter), to be swallowed in a separate mouthful from my Anchovies and Olives. :) Or for my beer to wash down the Anchovies and Olives. Oh well, it all ends up coming out the same holes.....

71. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #123945 by BAEOZ on February 8, 2008 at 2:36 am

Nothing wrong with Guiness. 10 years ago I hated Guiness, anchovies and olives. Now I love all 3. Now accounting for tastes I suppose. :)

Travelling in Spain for a few months, then returning to live there a period is partially responsible. When I traveled about Spain. The tap beer was so variable, and generally aweful, and Guinness was almost everywhere, that I just drunk Guinness, even though it wasn't what I wanted. After a while I wanted it. Similarly with Olives and Anchovies. I'd never eaten them, apart from on a few Capricciosa pizzas, but once in Spain. Qué me gustan! Anchoas y Olivas!

72. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #123937 by BAEOZ on February 8, 2008 at 2:25 am

As for telling you off? Why would I... I thought that was pretty funny.

I didn't think that you would. I thought the politically correct brigade might.

73. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #123935 by BAEOZ on February 8, 2008 at 2:23 am

that's more of a story than a fact.

But at least it's logically possible. Not like those God stories. :)

I've never made it to Ireland. I'm confident that if I did, I'd never make it out alive. An Australian prone to drinking would never give up on the challenge, and the Irish would keep challenging. At least the Germans are nice enough not to rub it in when they've drunken me under the Tisch. :)

74. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #123932 by BAEOZ on February 8, 2008 at 2:17 am

We could all build up our Dutch courage and drink German beer at an Irish pub.

I've drunk Irish beer (Guiness) in English, Australian, Spanish and other pubs. I've drunk crap Aussie beer in every country I've visited. (There are good Aussie beers, but they're not from Fosters brewing.) I've drunk warm English beer (I know, it was hard, but I managed.) I've even drank in a German beer Garden knocking back litre Steins. I lasted five, my hosts took me home with a smile and went out partying. I used to think I could drink....

75. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123930 by BAEOZ on February 8, 2008 at 2:14 am

I think the book would be about 50% shorter!!!

And maybe 0.50% percent more intelligent (I didn't mean 50% for the pedants out there. :))

76. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123925 by BAEOZ on February 8, 2008 at 2:06 am

"someone put a chip in my head"

Steve. I have some handy aluminum foil for sale to help stop that chip receiving transmitions ....

77. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #123922 by BAEOZ on February 8, 2008 at 2:02 am

I'm gonna go drink 5 litres of beer in my Lederhosen now while having no sense of humour, but being meticulous to the point of pedantic and seeking for a leader so that the arian race of the fatherland can rise to world domination

I'm available. I have blue eyes, am of anglo-irish-danish extraction. I mean, Hitler was an Austrian with Jewish blood. Why not an Australian with all sorts of odds and ends in his ancestry?
/END DARK HUMOUR.
(Please don't feel the need to tell me off. I despise racism and discrimination, but love dark humour.)

78. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123920 by BAEOZ on February 8, 2008 at 1:56 am

But if all you can bring to the table is a voice in your head then you aren't going to convince many people.

Amen man-o-foils. I have two voices in my head, is that evidence?

79. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #123915 by BAEOZ on February 8, 2008 at 1:51 am

I was was very touched to learn that your avatar is, in fact, a photo of your husband.

For all you masters of first order logic. What does this chorus of an old standard logically describe my baby as:
"Everybody loves my baby, but my baby don't love nobody but me"?

The answer is below*.

I happen to be gay. And not an animal

For the first time, I feel less fraternity with you Steve. I'm an animal. I have almost the DNA of a Chimp. I'm am classified as homo sapiens (in)sapiens, which is part of the family of homididae, part of the primate (why do humans think there order is premier?) order, etc....What are you? ;)

*My baby is me, Just like the picture of Steve's husband is really Steve.

OK, for those who don't understand the universal qualifier:
Everybody loves my baby (this means everybody, so my baby loves my baby).
But my baby don't love nobody but me (the only person that my baby loves is me, but as my baby loves my baby, I must be my baby.)

80. Scientists Say Mummies' Lice Show Pre-Columbian Origins

Comment #123854 by BAEOZ on February 7, 2008 at 6:35 pm

Pediculus humanus is divided into two subspecies, Pediculus humanus humanus, or the body louse, sometimes nicknamed "the seam squirrel" for its habit of laying of eggs in the seams of clothing, and Pediculus humanus capitis, or the head louse. Phthirus pubis (the pubic louse) is the cause of the condition known as crabs.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucking_louse"

Looks like crabs are a separate species.

81. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123827 by BAEOZ on February 7, 2008 at 5:16 pm

Night Corylus, and MPhil if you've gone. Thanks for your help.

82. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123826 by BAEOZ on February 7, 2008 at 5:14 pm

That is not to say that we have reason to assume anything else than what science postulates.

This is the bit that irks me when discussing with a apologists. The "science is based on assumptions too, it's not so certain as you think" gambit. Given that science isn't describing reality, so much as modeling it, how does this strengthen the theist position? How does this make the evidence for the God hypothesis, any god hypothesis stronger?

Good post MPhil.

83. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123810 by BAEOZ on February 7, 2008 at 4:36 pm

When you automatically assume that x causes y, you may indeed be right, however if you are not aware that is notion is only contingently valid then you leave yourself open to the charge of dogmatism.


I think I've got you. I'd hope most scientists wouldn't assume they've got the best explanation and all copy each other. That's what think is the beauty of science. Some anarchist comes along, tries something completely different that fits the evidence and has better explanatory power. Putting a rocket up the previous scientific understanding.

84. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123787 by BAEOZ on February 7, 2008 at 4:04 pm

My wife will kill me if I order all them books at once, a few are quite expensive. Better do it piece-meal. Stealth is my friend. :)

Do you recommend Dennet's work on the philosophy of mind?

85. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123781 by BAEOZ on February 7, 2008 at 3:58 pm

...Just a few suggestions, if you're interested.

Thanks. I'm very interested. I think I've gotten great suggestions from a lot of the philosophers who I've chatted with on this site. I've got Tarski's introduction to formal logic, and a Carnap book on Symbolic logic so hopefully that'll put me in good stead. I got Nietzsche because he invariably appears as a stick to beat atheists with in the apologists arsenal. I thought I should probably at least understand where he's coming from and what, if any, points of view I share with him.

Thanks heaps. :)

86. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123771 by BAEOZ on February 7, 2008 at 3:46 pm

Induction. Is. Not. Good. Enough.
It kills enquiry. That way lies stagnation.

Corylus. Can you expand on this? I would think science, in fact all knowledge generation would be lost if we didn't presume that what was the case in our experience will still be the case tomorrow. I'm not trying to argue with you, just to understand your point.

87. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123765 by BAEOZ on February 7, 2008 at 3:39 pm

Though a little out of date. It's hard to talk about logic, existence, predication etc on the level of 18th or 19th century philosophy - without the analytical tradition.
Anyway - great blog!


Thanks. My philosophical reading has been very slap-dash. A bit of Tarski, Plato, Aristotle, Carnap (Very little), Hume, Kant, Russell (only his non-technical stuff), and bits and pieces from introductory texts and online resources.
I went to Amazon and bought a heap of philosophy books, I'm still working my way through them haven't gotten to Nietzsche for example, after reading The God Delusion, End of Faith, Breaking the Spell and God is not great. I wanted to better understand the arguments and be able to defend those that I agreed with and to argue against those I didn't.

So, I've no idea what I'm doing, but so long as I keep learning and enjoying it I'll keep chugging along, even if I'm beating a dead horse and not arguing the latest philosophical understanding. It's never bothered apologists to recycle Aquinas' and Aristotle's arguments after all.

88. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123754 by BAEOZ on February 7, 2008 at 3:22 pm

If you deny that, you deny physics - the discussion is over.

I agree. I find it interesting that so many believers claim they have no problem reconciling their faith with science and yet can't see that basic physics shoots down their faith. It's a bit baffling that they can't see the proverbial Elephant in the living room.....

89. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123750 by BAEOZ on February 7, 2008 at 3:18 pm

care to post it?

Only if you promise to be gentle. ;)
I'm not a philosopher, just very interested by ideas and arguments.

The post where much of what Steve refers to (I don't know if I won, I just got some text from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy):

http://philosophicalneuron.blogspot.com/2008/01/morality-divine-command-theory.html

The blog has some other posts you may find interesting. Feel free to comment on any.

http://philosophicalneuron.blogspot.com

90. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123742 by BAEOZ on February 7, 2008 at 3:12 pm

A not so philosophical problem for God and souls is the 1st law of thermodynamics. Nothing without matter (thus energy) can affect something with matter (energy). So, you can't have a Cartesian mind/soul or God interacting with a human or any part of the universe.

91. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123739 by BAEOZ on February 7, 2008 at 3:10 pm

so that God is made up of these three entities.


But that is not the doctrine. It may be easy for theologians to avoid the bullet, but that's not what they say when they recite the Nicean creed. What do we have, intellectual dishonesty or plain dishonesty?

92. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123724 by BAEOZ on February 7, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Logical inconsistencies of the Christian god:

The Trinity.
God is the father (g = f)
God is the Son (g = s)
God is the holy spirit (g = hs)
Therefore, the father is the son is the holy spirit
(f = s = hs = g)
If this is not the case, then the law of identity is violated. We have a contradiction. But, the doctrine of the trinitity states that the father, son and ghosty are separate identities. Thus the trinity is logically incohorent and false.

Omniscience v omnipotence.
Omniscience implies knowing everything that can be known at all times.
Omnipotence implies the power to do everything logically possible.
An omniscient god knows what it will do, it can't change it's mind, thus it's not omnipotent.

Perfection can't change.
The doctrine of immutability says god is perfect and can't change. Thus god can't intervene in this world, or change his mind, etc.

There are more contradictory properties of the Christian god too....

93. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123719 by BAEOZ on February 7, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Kardashovel is a humourous chap. Dog's have fleas. Vox is a flea, therefore Dawkins is a dog, apparently a female dog. Thus Dawkins is Vox's bitch. So clever.
Anyhow. Kardashovel, what is to distinguish your privileged conversations from hallucinations? You seem to have no knowledge of the human brain.

94. Help Build The Reason Project Archive!

Comment #123323 by BAEOZ on February 7, 2008 at 1:01 am

Great archive site:
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page

Project Gutenberg is loaded with published material that is now outside of copyright. I just today downloaded and printed David Hume's Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. I highly recommend reading Hume's work. He shreds religious pretence and arguments with an inimitable laconic, literary style.

95. Math Religion Trouble

Comment #123174 by BAEOZ on February 6, 2008 at 2:39 pm

As we say in Chinese, who doesn't know your mother is a woman? It is true but trivial to the point of pointlessness.


Ah yes. Ideas v Facts. The idea of woman is contained in the idea of mother. This doesn't prove the existence of a mother (or woman) though. It's only a definition, that is, it's not illogical to imagine a world where no women and so no mothers exist. Same as it's not illogical to imagine a world without God or unicorns. This is the essence of Hume's fork. That ideas, in themselves, prove nothing about the world. Exemplia gratia: The idea of God being all loving proves nothing about the world, or God's existence and his supposed attributes as it's logically possible to imagine a world, I'd say this world, where God doesn't exist or doesn't possess those attributes. We need evidence!

Now where's that empirical evidence a mother? Oh wait. :)

Sorry, I recently blogged on this and quite liked the idea. Feel free to shoot me down.

96. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122662 by BAEOZ on February 5, 2008 at 6:44 pm

Richard. I support you motion for a Steve Zara day. However, I won't have time for any Richard Days, due to my calender being full of me days. I hope you understand.

97. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122661 by BAEOZ on February 5, 2008 at 6:43 pm

Steve. By all means write a book, or many. When you start your blog, can you post a link that I may pilfer your best thoughts to place on my middling blog? Pretty please?

98. Sprinting down the evolutionary highway

Comment #122537 by BAEOZ on February 5, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Thanks Billy. :) So we don't need to evolve, we just need those pesky mosquitoes (with much shorter life cycles) to help us out and the malaria issue is solved. Someone ring up Bill Gates!

99. An Altar Beyond Olympus for a Deity Predating Zeus

Comment #122534 by BAEOZ on February 5, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Jupiter (Dius-pater)

Damn Wheelcock's Latin! It told me that Jupiter is a contraction of Iove Pater (Father Jove) and whence our saying "By Jove!". OK, I've never used that saying, but I'm sure someone has.....

100. Sprinting down the evolutionary highway

Comment #122268 by BAEOZ on February 5, 2008 at 3:39 am

Hey Billy. Can you correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the female anopheles mosquito only carry the spores of malaria? She doesn't need to be resistant to the disease as she doesn't have red blood cells to be affected by it. I just don't get why mosquitos adapting has anything to do with malaria persisting. It would have everything to do with the malaria bug adapting.
Thanks.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 | Next