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 Quetzalcoatl


51. Carlin on Religion

Comment #198700 by Quetzalcoatl on June 24, 2008 at 11:24 am

I would wonder why
we are reciting haikus
but the truth, I know

52. Saudi Marriage Officiant : 'It Is Allowed To Marry A Girl At The Age Of One'.

Comment #198675 by Quetzalcoatl on June 24, 2008 at 11:02 am

Dr. Ahmad Al-Mu'bi: He married her at the age of six, and he consummated the marriage, by having sex with her for the first time, when she was nine. We consider the Prophet Muhammad to be our model


This quote will be a good answer to anyone who claims that Muhammad was not a paedophile, I think.

53. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198661 by Quetzalcoatl on June 24, 2008 at 10:53 am

Steve-

By "let them hit me" Epeeist probably means get hit, then say that he meant for that to happen.

54. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #198526 by Quetzalcoatl on June 24, 2008 at 7:58 am

"theIDiot"- appropriate.

55. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198324 by Quetzalcoatl on June 23, 2008 at 2:57 pm

Hello Tezcatlipoca, haven't seen you around much lately. Been busy wandering roads at night looking for people to wrestle?

56. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198319 by Quetzalcoatl on June 23, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Sharon McT-

Trust a god to be the voice of reason and rain on the parade


You should be grateful, reason is a rare quality among most gods :)

57. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198310 by Quetzalcoatl on June 23, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Phil-

that's been tried before- it would have to be a moderator who did it, otherwise they would quite rightly ask "who are you to take my posting rights away?"

The problem with a scoring system is that there are enough posters on the site that even one bad comment could be met with dozens and dozens of flaggings, even if it doesn't necessarily warrant such a response.

58. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #198077 by Quetzalcoatl on June 23, 2008 at 6:53 am

Fanusi-

It's worth remembering that the really nasty elements, the white supremacists, are figuring out that it's the 'supremacist' and not the 'white' bit they like. Yestreday there was a BBC report on a former BNP activist who converted to Islam while in the slammer and now was recruiting for Al Qaeda


I remember wondering if the BBC had asked Nick Griffin for a comment!

59. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198050 by Quetzalcoatl on June 23, 2008 at 5:37 am

Brian, Steve-

I'm reminded of the classic lines from the Simpsons:

"Oh no, Willy didn't make it!"
"And he's crushed our boy!"

60. The Flea Delusion

Comment #198049 by Quetzalcoatl on June 23, 2008 at 5:35 am

Clearthinker-

Regarding the number of books written by the New Atheists, such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and all their spin offs, to refute the Bible, the general dearth of books refuting the Flat Earth hypothesis would seem consistent with your claim.


I've never heard of a book denying the existence of Ometeotl. Wait a second.....

However, in so doing they are encouraging people to actually think about why they believe, instead of just taking their faith claims as a given.


Presumably you must be talking about religious believers thinking, since we all know that atheism is not a faith, so therefore cannot make faith claims.

61. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197419 by Quetzalcoatl on June 22, 2008 at 2:32 am

TXpiper-

But that is if the dating is correct. I've also stated that the dating game is loaded with bias, assumptions and precedent dates, which could easily be erroneous


Yes, except that you happily cite dating when you think it supports your case:

A band of alluvial soil about 40 feet (12 meters) below the surface indicated that Kish had been flooded in about 3200 BC


Why assume that is correct and not what I said? Oh that's right, its because what I said contradicts your ideas. Good reason to deny its validity.

Well first, I don't think the depths nor the areas of coverage support the idea of alluvial plains being river delta fans.


Ur, Kish and Nineveh were all built near rivers. What's so hard to understand? The Sumerians had a flood season. I notice your main rebuttal is "I don't think"- argument from incredulity. Why am I not surprised.

I could be wrong, but since we are all looking down a prophetic gun barrel, I don't think so


Prophetic gun barrel, really? And when is that gun going to fire? Care to venture a guess, bearing in mind that so many apocalypses have come and gone and yet, somehow, the world persists?

62. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196787 by Quetzalcoatl on June 20, 2008 at 12:42 pm

TXpiper-

You mentioned Nineveh too.

Nineveh (Akkadian: Ninua; Aramaic: ܢܝܢܘܐ; Hebrew: נינו�quot;, Nīnew�quot;), an "exceeding great city", as it is called in the Book of Jonah, lay on the eastern bank of the Tigris in ancient Assyria, near the modern-day major city of Mosul, Iraq which lies across the river.


Well, what do you know? It's built on the bank of a river! What are the odds?

So, once again, where is the evidence that the flood traces found in Nineveh were the result of the Biblical Flood and not, say, a consequence of the nearby Tigris flooding?

63. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196776 by Quetzalcoatl on June 20, 2008 at 12:33 pm

TXpiper-

Kish is intriguing as well:


You're right about that. Kish was a Sumerian city.

This part of the article is interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerians#Population

The salient point:

The Sumerians were a non-Semitic people and were at one time believed to have been invaders, as a number of linguists believed they could detect a substrate language beneath Sumerian. However, the archaeological record shows clear uninterrupted cultural continuity from the time of the Early Ubaid period (5300-4700 BC C-14) settlements in southern Mesopotamia. The Sumerian people who settled here farmed the lands in this region that were made fertile by silt deposited by the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers.


And once again, we find that a city you cite is in fact built on a flood plain. The Sumerians even had a Flood Season. Fancy that.

Again, where is the evidence that the alluvial clay came form The Biblical Flood, and not just one of those pesky annual floods?

64. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196762 by Quetzalcoatl on June 20, 2008 at 12:18 pm

Txpiper-

Ur is very interesting. For instance, it is actually sited on an alluvial plain, so perhaps it's not surprising that alluvial clay would be found there.

I notice you provided the following quote:

Excavations from 1922 to 1934 were funded by the British Museum and the University of Pennsylvania and led by the archaeologist Sir Charles Leonard Woolley____Excavations were also made below the royal tombs layer: a 3.5m thick layer of alluvial clay covered the remains of earlier habitation


but stopped before the sentence was finished. This is the end of the sentence:

a 3.5m thick layer of alluvial clay covered the remains of earlier habitation, including pottery from the Ubaid period, the first stage of settlement in southern Mesopotamia


Clicking on the link to the Ubaid period displays a page with some interesting facts:

The tell (mound) of Ubaid (Arabic: عبيد‎) near Ur in southern Iraq has given its name to the prehistoric Pottery Neolithic to Chalcolithic culture, which represents the earliest settlement on the alluvial plain of southern Mesopotamia. The Ubaid culture had a long duration beginning before 5300 BC and lasting until the beginning of the Uruk period, c. 4100 BC.


So this "earlier habitation" you have told us about actually began prior to 5300BC, before the supposed age of the young Earth.

So according to your own evidence, the Earth is older than 6000 years. And all you have shown is that Ur suffered a flood, not the flood.

I'll have a look at the other links now.

EDIT- ha! Finally sorted it!

65. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196571 by Quetzalcoatl on June 20, 2008 at 7:10 am

al-rawandi-

your idea is cuckoo.

(:>

66. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196511 by Quetzalcoatl on June 20, 2008 at 4:37 am

Jethro-

I think a good religion would help with this. It wouldn't deny evolution or natural selection, or the right to follow where the evidence leads, but it would allow the existence of a perception horizon


You'll have to elaborate on what you mean by "perception horizon". Also, why are you so sure that any religion would be required at all? Do you not think that humanity is capable of achieving this without religion?

67. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #196441 by Quetzalcoatl on June 20, 2008 at 1:15 am

Shmeezers-

I'm a little confused by what you're actually asserting. Originally you said:

it is that morality emanates from God - who is absolute; God has no choice but to dictate the morality that he is made up of (so to speak). It is all based on necessity


In comment 204 you say:

Recall that my statement above was proclaiming the fact that to ground moral absolutes, one must insert God into the picture. Otherwise, they cannot be justified.


But then you say:

Assigning characteristics to God is based solely on faith. I do not purport to bring forth any arguments in this regard here.


So by your own admission, claiming God to be the source of moral absolutes is a faith-based argument which you do not intend to support. I therefore suggest that you stop making it.

68. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196066 by Quetzalcoatl on June 19, 2008 at 9:07 am

Irate-

that would be acceptable.

Sharon McT-

I've always thought you were a highly intelligent woman. :)

69. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #196053 by Quetzalcoatl on June 19, 2008 at 8:51 am

Shmeezers-

I asked you this before (comment 177), but you haven't replied so I'll ask again:

Can you demonstrate the existence of moral absolutes?
Can you give me an example of a moral absolute?
On what evidence do you assign characteristics to God?

70. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196036 by Quetzalcoatl on June 19, 2008 at 8:31 am

Irate_Atheist-

Ladies and Gentlemen - I wish to stand for election as your new God.


Perhaps your brain has been addled by lack of tea. Withdraw this blasphemous electoral bid, and we'll say no more about it.

Do not worry though, James Blunt's smiting will be merciless indeed.

71. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196023 by Quetzalcoatl on June 19, 2008 at 8:07 am

Philip-

I think they definitely need a good smiting. I'll put them on my list.

72. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196017 by Quetzalcoatl on June 19, 2008 at 8:00 am

Philip-

obviously he has just found a copy of the Gideons Bible in his hotel room!

73. The Mother, The Child, The School Board And The Psychic

Comment #195994 by Quetzalcoatl on June 19, 2008 at 6:52 am

The stupidity of this "educational assistant" beggars belief. She sounds like exactly the sort of bright spark that you would want teaching your children!

74. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195962 by Quetzalcoatl on June 19, 2008 at 6:04 am

Jethro-

put this at the beginning of the quote you wish to highlight {blockquote} and this at the end {/blockquote}

Just change { and } to < and > to make it work.

75. Is the Universe Actually Made of Math?

Comment #195942 by Quetzalcoatl on June 19, 2008 at 4:51 am

Yes, and the important thing to remember is that Einstein's theory taken as a whole represents the bird's perspective. In relativity all of time already exists. All events, including your entire life, already exist as the mathematical structure called space-time. In space-time, nothing happens or changes because it contains all time at once. From the frog's perspective it appears that time is flowing, but that is just an illusion. The frog looks out and sees the moon in space, orbiting around Earth. But from the bird's perspective, the moon's orbit is a static spiral in space-time.

The frog feels time pass, but from the bird's perspective it's all just one eternal, unalterable mathematical structure.
That is it. If the history of our universe were a movie, the mathematical structure would correspond not to a single frame but to the entire DVD. That explains how change can be an illusion.


This is an excellent way of explaining an idea that I had heard of but not really understood until now.

76. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195925 by Quetzalcoatl on June 19, 2008 at 3:41 am

Steve-

I find it a bit cheeky that he is insulting a God. That sounds a bit like anti-theism to me


It's bloody ingratitude, is what it is. I did create humanity after all:

http://www.atomfilms.com/film/quetzalcoatl.jsp

77. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195918 by Quetzalcoatl on June 19, 2008 at 3:19 am

Steve-

hahaha! That's probably not what it is!

78. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #195907 by Quetzalcoatl on June 19, 2008 at 3:02 am

hungarianelephant-

it has content. It's chock-full of arguments from incredulity and distortions of science.

I wouldn't waste your time on it.

79. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195900 by Quetzalcoatl on June 19, 2008 at 2:29 am

Styrer-

it's not like I'm losing sleep over it, don't get me wrong. The only reason it bothers me is that the criticisms he makes are never specific, they're just generalised assertions- "your debating skills could use improvement". Constructive criticism I can take, but vague statements like that aren't very helpful, and they nag at me.

But you're right- I'll try not to worry about it.

80. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #195881 by Quetzalcoatl on June 19, 2008 at 1:03 am

Squinky-

Do you really think we can overcome the limits of interstellar distance, radiation, zero-G, and ultrafast space travel to colonize nearby planets


I just said "colonies offworld", meaning the Moon, Mars, Europa, Titan, Earth orbit, the Trojans, the asteroid belt etc etc.

But yes, I do think that we would be able to overcome the hazards you mention and colonise other systems. Not at our current technological level, obviously, but it could be done.

81. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195879 by Quetzalcoatl on June 19, 2008 at 1:01 am

Clearthinker-

Q - Yes - here is one pointer. How about telling the truth? Because I do not immediately respond does not mean that I am hit and run. If you were not to post because it had already been posted on other threads then I suspect that most of this website would be silent!


The distinction is that you use the same arguments that have been refuted on other threads, whereas I only reuse the same arguments on different threads if they have NOT been refuted. I would have to be pretty arrogant to do otherwise, wouldn't I?

And I do hope you're not suggesting that I am a liar.

82. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #195574 by Quetzalcoatl on June 18, 2008 at 2:00 pm

Squinky-

This, as you say, is the real nonsense. Even though we are a unique species, it is anthropogenic arrogance to think that we will survive longer than the typical few million years of most species on Earth.


It's not entirely arrogance. Establishing colonies offworld would protect the species from the "eggs in one basket" type catastrophes. Then nothing short of a nearby supernova would wipe us all out in one go. So in that circumstance at least the potential for our survival would be there.

83. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195571 by Quetzalcoatl on June 18, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Paula-

Oh Quetz. Haven't I suffered enough? I thought it was only the loving Abrahamic god who inflicted eternal torment?


Unlike the Abrahamic god, this deity has a sense of humour. Do not fear, your trials are over.

84. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195437 by Quetzalcoatl on June 18, 2008 at 8:14 am

Steve-

Evolution, planetary history, original sin, morality, debating style and the tenets and creed of atheism. With all that to work with, he should easily be able to write a longer book than his last one.

Now who can we find to review it.....Paula?

85. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195429 by Quetzalcoatl on June 18, 2008 at 7:58 am

Steve-

are you suggesting that we should be encouraging David Robertson to write another masterpiece?

86. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195403 by Quetzalcoatl on June 18, 2008 at 7:07 am

Phil Rimmer-

enmechanize... (An American sort of term...like burglarize.) Not serious


Biomechanise? Naturomechanise? Ultramechanise?

87. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195395 by Quetzalcoatl on June 18, 2008 at 6:55 am

Steve-

I know, but that won't stop them saying otherwise.

88. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195392 by Quetzalcoatl on June 18, 2008 at 6:49 am

Steve-

I suspect "mind-boggling" might be a good phrase to use for describing this!

Spontaneous appearance is not a reasonable option


Agreed, but the danger here is that the creationist response will be- "what about the first cell, then? Didn't that spontaneously appear? If you can accept that, then why not this?"

89. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195264 by Quetzalcoatl on June 18, 2008 at 1:45 am

ctrkev-

welcome to the site, Kev. Perhaps you can do what other theist contributors have not- provide positive evidence for the existence of the supernatural, and God?

90. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195248 by Quetzalcoatl on June 18, 2008 at 1:17 am

Steve Zara-

it's possible Karda was being ironic.

Kardashovel-

if you aren't, I echo what Steve said. He did a few posts that refuted the time machine idea, I seem to remember. Even I had something to say, so you know that it must be incredibly improbable if I can spot the flaws! :)

91. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195247 by Quetzalcoatl on June 18, 2008 at 1:14 am

Clearthinker-

another hit-and-run post? Once again you post the same old arguments without considering the refutations that others have made on other threads. On the off-chance that you do post here again, it will likely be only to announce that you're tired of this thread and won't be posting again. Then a few days later, the cycle will begin all over again.

And you have the nerve to say that my debating style could use some pointers!

92. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194746 by Quetzalcoatl on June 17, 2008 at 8:25 am

Ketch22-

Try being consistent.

As for disease and death, this is a subject I am well versed at, being a Hospice RN. God did not bring these into the world, man did.


Compared to:

I believe there was death and disease long before man


So if there was death and disease prior to man, then he did not bring it into the world. The fact that man may have added to the number of diseases does not change that fact.

You have contradicted yourself.

93. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194722 by Quetzalcoatl on June 17, 2008 at 8:00 am

Ketch22-

So you believe a microbiologist brought disease into the world? Or can you fathom destroying our environment had some effect


Er, no. I was being sarcastic. Presumably you realised I was talking about THE Adam?

Destroying our environment brought disease into the world. It's a nice story, but that's all it is. Disease was around long before humanity came on the scene. So were natural disasters.

Perhaps you can show I am wrong. Please provide some positive evidence that disease did not enter the world until after humanity came along.

94. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194712 by Quetzalcoatl on June 17, 2008 at 7:52 am

As for disease and death, this is a subject I am well versed at, being a Hospice RN. God did not bring these into the world, man did.


Little known fact- Adam was a qualified microbiologist.

95. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #194670 by Quetzalcoatl on June 17, 2008 at 6:58 am

Shmeezers-

It is not so much that God' existence is not manifest (which it most certianly is)


Very well then, please provide us with some specific, positive evidence for God's existence and the existence of absolute morals.

96. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194667 by Quetzalcoatl on June 17, 2008 at 6:50 am

Mesomodel-

I was fairly excited about the TPF until the twits at NASA put it on hold. Still, Kepler should be very helpful.

97. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194662 by Quetzalcoatl on June 17, 2008 at 6:33 am

Terrestrial volcanic and geothermal pools would be a good starting place, you're right. It's possible as well, I think, that the earliest replicators might not even have had membranes/cell walls. That wouldn't work in an environment like the ocean, but in a restricted area a "soup" of replicators could theoretically survive.

As for the hydrothermal vent problem, the solution could be this: life could easily have got started within the mineral-laden rocks around the vents, and gradually worked its way to the surface. That would mean that by the time they reached the surface they probably would have evolved to the point where they were hardy enough to survive the dilution problem. This could work for Europa or Earth, but in the latter case I think your ideas are more likely.

Did you see the link Steve Zara put up about RNA replication within ice? That's another possibility.

98. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194647 by Quetzalcoatl on June 17, 2008 at 6:09 am

squinky-

I agree with what you're saying, but it is still a good possibility. If there is life on (for instance) Europa, then it would in all probability have started near the hydrothermal vents since there would be no other readily accessible source of energy to give life a toehold.

99. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194614 by Quetzalcoatl on June 17, 2008 at 4:29 am

Ketch22-

Can I also ask why you don't worship Tezcatlipoca, Xipe-Totec, Huitzilopochtli or any other gods in the Aztec pantheon? The Aztecs also had a creator deity, Ometeotl, if that helps?

100. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194590 by Quetzalcoatl on June 17, 2008 at 3:11 am

urn-

they're talking purely in terms of roughly comparable sizes. We can't detect planets the size of Earth yet.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 | Next