Comments by decius

Comment #232109 by decius on August 17, 2008 at 3:45 pm

I would like to discuss Robertson's fucktardness, if that's OK with you, AP.

Comment #232083 by decius on August 17, 2008 at 3:10 pm

Comment #232036 by Jesus86

Did I give you the impression that I wasted my youth with religious studies?
Well, not in the least. Although I am from a catholic country, I smelled bs very early in life and never went to Sunday school - luckily, it wasn't compulsory. The last time that I set foot in a church I was still a child. I literally hated the pomp and the boredom associated with the ceremonies, even prior to my rejection of religion.

However, I have a rather prodigious memory and I can still remember most of the history that I studied in high school. Later I kept on reading Roman history and Latin literature out of personal interest, although I undertook scientific studies.

Cartomancer is the real historian, one of the finest.

1103. A flea we missed?

Comment #231880 by decius on August 17, 2008 at 9:02 am

Either would be perfectly reasonable to maintain given how little evidence we have.

I agree, but I am not a great fan of the 50-50 hypotheses. What tilts the balance, here, are Paul's own words. In his account he never met the prophet, except in a vision, and after the alleged crucifixion. How convenient.

1104. A flea we missed?

Comment #231861 by decius on August 17, 2008 at 8:14 am

Comment #231856 by Cartomancer

Thanks for the clarification.

I would otherwise more or less agree, but here is the weak point:

there is usually a grain of historical truth behind all the mumbo-jumbo, something to get it started. It strikes me as odd that a cult would go to the trouble of completely manufacturing a leader figure

You can find that kernel of "truth" in the old testament. The prophecy had to be fulfilled, the figure had already been manufactured before his times, based in turn on pre-existing myths.
Besides, there is nothing to proof that the proselytism was started by a group of people. The documents are more consistent with Saul alone (almost certainly an epileptic) convincing first a small group of followers, and then importing the myth into Rome, strong of the ancient prophecies and his acolytes.

I agree that we will never know for sure.

Yet, let me ask you directly: do yo admit to the existence of a certain amount of double standards when it comes to this very topic?

1105. A flea we missed?

Comment #231842 by decius on August 17, 2008 at 7:23 am

Comment #231808 by Cartomancer

There is a small body of evidence for the existence of an itinerant jewish preacher called Jesus around the turn of the first millennium

I already mentioned this in another thread, which, unfortunately, you didn't pick up. I apologise to the others for the repetition.

My impression is that historians who concede that there is "a small body of evidence" are indulging in shameless double standards, and I would like to know what draws you into their ranks.

At the time of the purported facts, there were approximately forty prolific historians in the Greco-Roman world, who closely monitored the activity of all foreign leaders, cult-leaders, rubble-rousers, bandits and rebels - devoting great attention to the most volatile areas of the late-republic and early empire. Giudea would be one of such areas, given the local hostility to Roman occupation.

None of them mentions in his works any figure even remotely resembling Jesus. Philip, in the other thread, astutely added that detailed accounts of contemporary travellers and merchants are equally lacking corroborating evidence.

The Gospels and early christian writings ought to be dismissed, considered that they don't stand up to scrutiny and cross-checking of the historical references therein described (no census, no Nazareth, wrong geographical descriptions, wrong names of Roman officials, inconsistencies with ascertained Roman and Jewish practises).

We are left with the blurry references in Tacitvs, Svetonivs, Pliny, and a bunch of apocryphal material in Josephus and others.
All the afore-mentioned authors wrote from seven decades to a century after the events, and they spoke of christians, as followers of one Christus (or Croesus).
This is compatible with similar descriptions of many a cult, and do not in the least testify to the existence of the cult-leader, whose myth, in the case in object, was imported into Rome by Saul.

It happens even in modern times. Yet, no historians in their right mind would write that "there is a small body of evidence for the existence of John Frum", nor would they accept similar second-hand references from ancient sources, with the same eagerness welcoming the flimsy evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

During the XIX century, the consensus had already almost entirely dismissed the idea of the historicity of Jesus, then - without new evidence coming to light, and purely on opinion - it reverted to the ancient wishy-washy position.
It isn't difficult to see the double standards at work. Unsurprisingly so, given how large part of the field has been hi-jacked by biblical studies scholars and other ideologically-motivated entities.

Let me clarify that I am not hinting at a conspiracy, here. Still, I would really like to see historians universally adopting the same scientific sceptical attitude, whatever the subject. Unless I can be proven wrong, and be shown what the heck is this wondrous evidence I am ignorant of.

1106. A flea we missed?

Comment #231554 by decius on August 16, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Oystein,

that gold medal of yours doesn't impress me as much as it used to, all considered.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gQtswIhRynLJETfc1SJbeEYkvrPwD92IS1VO0

1107. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231386 by decius on August 16, 2008 at 7:58 am

Comment #231381 by Hellene

3ds Max - Vray - various plug-ins.

Sure, I'll post a still rendering in a couple of days. For the complete animation, it will take me longer.

1108. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231373 by decius on August 16, 2008 at 7:39 am

Morning, Pearl.

Later, all.

I have to do something god-like myself - creating a virtual 3D sea from nothing. Ah, it must be photo-realistic, too. It's going to require at least two days of parameter-tweaking, plus rendering.

Further proof that the book of Genesis is nonsense.

1109. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231365 by decius on August 16, 2008 at 7:25 am

Quetz,

please forgive me for not having expressed my sympathy for Brian early and warmly enough. Where should I sacrifice this goat?

1110. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231358 by decius on August 16, 2008 at 7:08 am

Quetz,

do you listen to prayers and forgive sins?

1111. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231353 by decius on August 16, 2008 at 6:53 am

Comment #231351 by Brian English

1112. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231349 by decius on August 16, 2008 at 6:48 am

Comment #231346 by Brian English

Don't get jealous in public, our affair was meant to be secret.

1113. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231342 by decius on August 16, 2008 at 6:30 am

Comment #231338 by Laurie Fraser

I agree.

And you have all my sympathy and friendship, of course. :)

1114. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231341 by decius on August 16, 2008 at 6:28 am

Comment #231337 by Bonzai

Thank you.

1115. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231328 by decius on August 16, 2008 at 6:07 am

Comment #231277 by Laurie Fraser

it's arguable that it was Kant who was the genuine father of modern science.

I dispute that.

Philosophia Naturalis had neatly separated from philosophy back in the XVI century. The appointment of the by-now obscure Jacopo Zabarella as chair of Natural Philosophy in Padua demonstrates it.
Attempts at developing a scientific method, independent from the philosophical methods of enquiry, date back to antiquity and were revamped in the early Middle Ages.
The evolution of Philosophia Naturalis into modern science has been independently unfolding through a trial-and-error process, which took little notice of the abstractions and framing coming from other quarters.
While philosophy of science is a great tool for interpreting and understanding the foundations of science and its implications at large, it cannot honestly claim its paternity. Saying otherwise is a bit like claiming that Newton is the father of gravity, implying authorship of that very law of nature.

Ultimately, science cannot be any different from what it is, as there are no competing effective scientific methods to choose from. People who worked hardly in the field are the fathers, or - more precisely - the step-fathers of science, no one else.

1116. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231275 by decius on August 16, 2008 at 4:46 am

Comment #231271 by MPhil

I personally can't see why he is regarded as such. He found some important middle-ground between rationalism and empiricism, yet - at the height of the Enlightenment - he thought the argument from morality compelling.

A truly great mind would have recognised that argument as ludicrous.

Sorry to disagree.

1117. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #231246 by decius on August 16, 2008 at 3:48 am

Comment #231238 by Laurie Fraser

He has already been banned under several identities and keeps on returning, undeterred.

What an obnoxious, ignorant twat.

1118. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #231187 by decius on August 15, 2008 at 11:30 pm

Sarmatae,

I have a question. Would you call a social democracy a form of collectivism?

1119. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #231039 by decius on August 15, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Comment #230415 by Durant

Durant, I am glad that I didn't reply early, because your later comments made it abundantly clear that you haven't read Dawkins - not just TGD, but none of his books. This is surprising, given the strength of your opinions. You will agree that second-hand knowledge of a given subject is an insufficient bastion against the scrutiny of more informed interlocutors.

It isn't too late to set yourself straight, though. What about reading a thing or two and then report back? Watching a debate or a lecture isn't enough, I am afraid.

Before I address parts of your original Gish Gallop, I need to point out a first inconsistency of yours. Namely, none of your charges apply to the material contained in the DVD in object, nor would they begin to discredit it, even if you were right on all accounts.
In this DVD, RD demolishes new-age beliefs, medical quackery, and ancient superstitions such as astrology.

Does your agnosticism extend to such tripe as homoeopathy and astral projection?

To make things easier, I'd prefer if we debated your points one at a time, if you have no objections.

Dawkins ignores the historical complexities involved in the relationship between science and religion, invoking the oft-discredited notion that they're "at war";

Science and religion make mutually-incompatible claims about the nature and origin of the universe and of mankind. One accumulates empirical evidence out of which theories are formulated and constantly corrected, the other binds by immutable dogma.
Claiming that there is no conflict between them is disingenuous at best.

Invoking "historical complexities" is of no consequence, here. This war is fought on the turf of epistemology. Either the underlying mechanisms of objective reality (e.g. laws of nature) are to be unlocked through the scientific method, either revelation will suffice. If no conflict existed, then revelation and empirical investigation should yield identical results.

Incidentally, history portrays a very different picture from what is implied by you. Da Vinci, Galilei, and Bruno would certainly agree with me.

1120. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #230868 by decius on August 15, 2008 at 11:19 am

Comment #230852 by Durant

Durant, I know that I haven't replied, yet. It doesn't mean that I won't.

Be patient, I am in the middle of other things.

1121. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230728 by decius on August 15, 2008 at 4:41 am

Comment #230722 by princezephyr

You are a quote-miner and a liar.

Eldrege ACCEPTS evolution, he is in the camp of punctuated equilibrium. A different interpretation of evolution.

But of course, to a lying creationist this wouldn't matter, would it?

Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould proposed punctuated equilibrium in 1972. Punctuated equilibrium is a refinement to evolutionary theory which describes patterns of descent taking place in "fits and starts" separated by long periods of stability.

Eldredge went on to develop a hierarchical vision of evolutionary and ecological systems. Around this time, he became focused on the rapid destruction of many of the world's habitats and species. Throughout his career, he has used repeated patterns in the history of life to refine ideas on how the evolutionary process actually works.

Eldredge is a critic of the gene-centric view of evolution and the notion that evolutionary theory can be held accountable to patterns of historical data. His most recent venture is the development of an alternative account to the gene-based notions of evolutionary psychology to explain why human beings behave as they do.

1122. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230721 by decius on August 15, 2008 at 4:34 am

Comment #230661 by Steve Zara

I'm a little sceptical of this. I think one could just as easily argue that long leg size or large wing size could increase the rate of evolution, as they allow animals get to explore new niches.

Exactly. Wasn't it called evolvability?

1123. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #230431 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Actually, for once there is a theist who can at least write.
This is a rare event, and should be cause for celebration.

I am about to go to sleep, but if Durant is so kind to return tomorrow, I will gladly contribute to dismantle some of his unfounded accusations, half-truths, outright lies, and uninformed misconceptions. However, I am sure that others will precede me.

Good night, all. Be kind to him, just answer his points.

1124. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #230423 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 4:43 pm

Comment #230421 by SilentMike

Download the torrent version.

http://www.mininova.org/tor/1686690

1125. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #230407 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 4:07 pm

Comment #230393 by Teratornis

If I wrote that I had, or had not, would you just believe it?

I tend to assume good faith in this forum, so I would believe you. I am a sceptic by nature, and I rarely believe anything with absolute certitude, unless empirically proven. On such trivial matters discussed for the sake of conversation, I would accept your word on it.

it looks to me like the latter option isn't very popular.

I agree and it doesn't surprise me, given that I don't find elderly women aesthetically attractive. Hence my curiosity if someone did.

Edit- I sit in Finland, at the moment. I am Italian.

1126. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #230384 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 3:41 pm

Comment #230379 by Sciros

1127. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #230361 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 3:15 pm

Interesting to note that Teratornis was lamenting the ad-homs in this thread, earlier.
Then the mere admission by someone of driving a car elicits from him such an agitated and scathing reaction.

1128. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #230324 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Comment #230313 by Teratornis

Your earlier comment suggesting that men who download porn could hit on elderly women made me curious to know if you spoke from personal experience.
And if so, how was it?

1129. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #230314 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Comment #230300 by Quetzalcoatl

I feel only your antipathy only partially on my skin.

I have always been a cyclist, I used a car for some ten years until I moved to the civilised world (where public transportation works).
Ah, and I love good wine.

1130. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #230295 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 2:18 pm

Comment #230293 by Steve Zara

Only teetotally cycling counts, and then, you have to have sex with your bike.

1131. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #230291 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Comment #230287 by Steve Zara

Your are not going to need a sex-bot any time soon, I am afraid.

1132. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #230274 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 1:51 pm

Comment #230240 by Teratornis

I agree, but I probably define "socially inept" quite a bit more broadly than you do.

For example, I'd include every divorced person.

Since you asked for it, I shall logically correct this hasty generalisation.

It is true that many people do rush into relationships with unsuitable partners, or that they can't live up to their long-term commitments, but you omit to consider the mitigating circumstances that exculpate some of them.

Commitments are often undertaken under the hype of falling in love, which in itself causes a biochemical unbalance and some confusion.

There is such thing as growing apart. Your young, desirable, and sweet partner can gradually turn into a bitter hag, sometimes within a very short time. Sometimes life itself alters people, and the same circumstance can affect two partners in completely different ways, pulling them apart.

Finally, some people find the right partner after one or more failed marriages.

1133. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #230238 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 1:10 pm

Teratornis,

do you actually hit on crones?

1134. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #230154 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 11:25 am

Comment #230120 by Teratornis

If you are a man, you only have to spend a few minutes talking to a woman to realize she doesn't know the first thing about men. Women have told me they draw the corresponding conclusion about men not knowing the first thing about women

This description applies to teenagers, reclusive persons, and the socially inept.

It is true that man and women think and operate in different ways, but the differences are not as big as you let transpire. A modicum of social interaction is sufficient to accumulate enough clues to allow for mutual empathy, and to be able to interpret and fulfil the needs of a member of the opposite sex.

And of course anyone who knows the least bit about evolutionary psychology speaks in ways that are alien to most of the pre-scientific majority.

I don't see what EP has to do with this, social skills aren't to be learnt in books. However, if you need to know, only recently have I read a couple of books on the subject, including the Blank Slate.

1135. The God Delusion

Comment #230097 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 9:00 am

Comment #230088 by Peacebeuponme

Very perceptive of you, given that that was his first day here.

I am fine with the idea of granting a certain amount of time for acclimation, if someone is really impatient to join in. A month after, all flexibility has been exhausted.

1136. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #230086 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 8:41 am

Comment #230067 by Scep

So what? No one here subscribes to the view that christianity is morally superior to islam in its fundamental tenets.
Yet, the enlightenment has emasculated christendom by means of reason and criticism, while the islamic world still lags behind in the Dark Ages.
Failing to recognise this, while reciting mea culpa, is myopic and uninformed, to say the least.

1137. The God Delusion

Comment #230084 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 8:35 am

Comment #230065 by Steve Zara

Thank you.

1138. The God Delusion

Comment #230050 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 7:44 am

Comment #230048 by irate_atheist

Well, it really is not about the language. It's about negativity, unwarranted aggressiveness, nihilism, misogyny, and bad taste.
I wouldn't object for a second to anything you ever said. You are a great comedian, sir.

1139. The God Delusion

Comment #230039 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 7:27 am

Dr Doctor,

I think Steve has a point, even though he has probably expressed it poorly, this time.

I disagree with Steve as to Kkelly representing in any way gay people, here - he only represents himself. I also don't give a toss about how a D'Souza could succeed in tarnishing our image by cherry-picking nasty comments. People like him will always find a dishonest way to discredit opponents.

There is something more at stake, here. Over the years, this site has succeeded in setting new standards of web civility, in spite of being largely unmoderated. This is something we should be rightly proud of. Just visit other fora and compare - the difference is striking.

In my opinion, a new-comer, anywhere, is welcome as long as he or she doesn't presume to subvert all established etiquette at his or her whim. This is universally accepted as basic rule of thumb in all social contexts. In kkelly's case this has never happened. He started from day one to vomit all the worst (and trite, he isn't even original) internet sleaze and to attack people at random with venomous remarks that he calls "humour", without ever being provoked.
It is a pity, because he doesn't lack intellect and knowledge to impress favourably, when he so chooses.

Kkelly has the whole internet at his disposal to find like-minded people who would appreciate his antics. What he doesn't have, instead, is the right to undermine the social experiment represented by this site by steam-rolling over its foundations.

1140. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #229981 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 6:00 am

Comment #229975 by BFKate

That happened to me once.

To be arrested on a beach for lewd acts?

1141. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #229968 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 5:48 am

Comment #229959 by BFKate

What's NOT insulting about calling someone Blow Job?

That depends on the person, someone might take it as a recognition.

http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSN1441724120080714

Night, Laurie.

1142. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #229918 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 5:19 am

BFKate,

even if it wasn't a typo - a circumstance that I doubt, knowing a bit Fanusi - I think you have already reciprocated in kind. Perhaps we could move on from there.
Assuming good faith is a good rule of thumb in public fora, btw.
Please, don't take this as a personal criticism or as an attack.

Back to topic - I find this article too good to be Hari's brainchild, quite frankly. Too well thought out and eerily similar to what has been said in this forum many times. In fact, almost verbatim reminiscent of older posts.
Still commendable, but perhaps we should sue him for plagiarism.

Hari, are you listening? Confess, ya bloody cunt.

1143. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229424 by decius on August 13, 2008 at 2:58 pm

Comment #229419 by Brian English

Argentine, as it was found in Argentina, which is proving to be one of the best place to discover new species.

Incidentally, a pivotal discovery was made there. There were carnivorous predators capable of taking on those giants. Prior to this, it was believed that the largest predators such as T.Rex appeared only in the Cretaceous (after the diplodicidae's disappearance).

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060418174738.htm

1144. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229417 by decius on August 13, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Goldy,

excellent stuff. :)

BTW, if you like those beasties, I suggest that you check out the Titanosaurs (for instance Argentinosaurus), or Supersaurus among the Diplodocidae.
Prepare to be overwhelmed.

1145. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229403 by decius on August 13, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Comment #229401 by Goldy

Brontosaurus doesn't exist. It was a collage of fossils of 2 species, mistakenly lumped together.
One of those is now called Apatosaurus.

The family is Diplodocidae.

Edit- I checked and apparently it was the same species mistakenly classified twice. When the error was uncovered, only the name Apatosaurus was kept.

1146. The God Delusion

Comment #229394 by decius on August 13, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Comment #229392 by Steve Zara

Which is it?

Elementary, my dear Watson.

1147. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229391 by decius on August 13, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Comment #229388 by thewhitepearl

I'm not sure if that's an insult or not

Of course it is, to Isthatclear.
It was an elaborate way to call him a sordid wanker.

1148. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229383 by decius on August 13, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Comment #229381 by thewhitepearl

I casually scroll through this and I see my name popped up all over the place,

And you should see the walls of the men's room.

1149. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229348 by decius on August 13, 2008 at 11:56 am

Comment #229322 by Bonzai

You are, first of all, confusing "nature" with "selected".

Not at all.

The essay that you linked words the diatribe exactly as Pinker does, mentioning the blank slate metaphor at least four or five times.

So, either you reject in toto Pinker's phraseology, either you accept it.

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/papers/nature_nurture.pdf

The pan-selectionist characterisation is plainly ridiculous, as nowhere Pinker suggests that everything is explainable by the effects of natural selection.
You may want to actually read the Blank Slate.

1150. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #229295 by decius on August 13, 2008 at 10:29 am

Cranks are the funniest, really. They make creotards look like the paragon of sanity.