Comments by epeeist

Comment #160345 by epeeist on April 14, 2008 at 1:16 am

Comment #160118 by mmurray

At the risk of just repeating what others have said here is another example. As a fully committed Einsteinian should I believe I can behave in anyway I like because everything is relative?

I was never sure whether I was a Schrodingerist, Heisenbergian, Diracist or Feynmannist, it really depended on what notation I was using at the time.

Does that make me an indeterminist?

1302. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160334 by epeeist on April 14, 2008 at 1:00 am

Comment #159983 by Quetzalcoatl

And to extend it in the same way we did with Artful Dodger (can anyone recall the answers he gave). How do you decide what is metaphor and what is literal, and how did you gain the authority to make that decision?
His answer essentially boiled down to "you just know". Then he had to leave because he was busy.

A pity really, because there is more to be explored.

Go back to the time of the Swedish crusade against the Finns and Laplanders and their conversion to Christianity. Why does their religion, which presumably they thought to be true, become myth and not metaphor?

This is also roughly the time that the legend of the grail started appearing, drawn from pre-Christian Celtic mythology. Is this myth, metaphor or simply fiction?

I would hazard a guess that the Noachic flood was thought to be literally true at this time. When the Epic of Gilgamesh is rediscovered with the story of the flood then why isn't the biblical story relegated to being a myth along with Utnapishtim? Why does it gain the status of metaphor? Why does it still retain this status even after significant evidence against a global flood is discovered?

And if it is metaphor, then why is it a better metaphor than the stories of Aesoop?

1303. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159973 by epeeist on April 13, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Comment #159963 by MaxD

What issues are you prepared to let be consigned to metaphor, and what do you think must be true, literally for Christianity to matter more than say my copy of Lord of the Rings.

And to extend it in the same way we did with Artful Dodger (can anyone recall the answers he gave).

How do you decide what is metaphor and what is literal, and how did you gain the authority to make that decision?

1304. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159967 by epeeist on April 13, 2008 at 1:31 pm

Comment #159956 by Dr Benway

Robertson never sees how he provokes a negative reaction with his insults.

I wonder how he talks to his parishioners?

1305. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159905 by epeeist on April 13, 2008 at 11:34 am

Comment #159902 by Quetzalcoatl

"David A Robertson" is, I think, the real DR. Click on the "Other Comments By" if you don't believe me. They go back quite a way.

Now I am really baffled. Posts early in 2007 then a big gap until today. Was the id blocked, was it live and unused, being saved for a rainy day if other id's were blocked?

1306. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159894 by epeeist on April 13, 2008 at 11:06 am

Comment #159889 by kaiserkriss

The probability that this character is "our" David, weaflee, clearthinker etc, is surely quite low.

Shudder, you mean there are two David Robertson's who are ministers in Dundee?

1307. Fleabytes

Comment #159834 by epeeist on April 13, 2008 at 8:14 am

We seem to have someone posting as "David A Robertson" on the "Lying for Jesus" thread. Just as a matter of interest the registration details can be found at http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins,page22#159833

1308. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159833 by epeeist on April 13, 2008 at 8:11 am

Registration page for David A Robertson

Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:48 am
Last visited: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:16 pm

Registration page for clearthinker

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:49 am
Last visited: Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:07 am

So is the "David A Robertson" a new id or a replacement id for something else?

1309. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159810 by epeeist on April 13, 2008 at 7:31 am

Comment #159806 by David A Robertson

Sorry to butt in - I have no wish to intrude on the high standard of debate but I do feel that poor Styrer is getting himself worked up over nothing. I will reply and then leave you to continue your intellectual discussion..

So, given that this registration was made in December 2006, and assuming that clearthinker, the wee flea etc. are just synonyms then what are we to make of the claim made in the "Fleabytes" thread that the poster was banned from the site? Just an id that he had forgotten he had lying around?

It certainly looks the same kind of post that the likes of clearthinker would post. Designed not to inform, but to stir up a flamefest, suitable for quotemining at a later date.

Given that the poster claims to be a minister, you would have thought he would have had something better to do on the Sabbath.

1310. Expelled Overview

Comment #159716 by epeeist on April 13, 2008 at 12:50 am

Comment #159715 by Jon_Sociologist

Can I get a hallelujah! Can I get an Amen! Thank you Jesus.

Ningizzadin, the talking serpent, Lord of the tree of life salutes you.

And he also says that Ben Stein is a total shit, just like Yahweh. Neither of them can produce anything of their own, they both have to rip stuff off other sources.

1311. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159713 by epeeist on April 13, 2008 at 12:14 am

Comment #159579 by bigcanuck

Ben Stein is not trying to damage anything scientific. This is what I'm having a problem with. He quite distinctly states that since Darwinists have no answer for how life began, there is obviously large holes in their theory.

Comment #159620 by bigcanuck

I happen to have a BSc. in Zoology and doctorate.

You have qualifications in biology (where from?), you call evolutionary biologists "Darwinists" and you either don't know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution or are prepared to accept that Stein is dishonestly trying to conflate the two.

Something doesn't quite ring true I'm afraid.

1312. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159513 by epeeist on April 12, 2008 at 11:31 am

We seem to have a fair people who are keen for us to reserve our judgement until after the film is released.

Interestingly enough most of these appear to have either joined the site very recently or not to exist. I wonder why this is?

1313. The List: The World's Worst Religious Leaders

Comment #159369 by epeeist on April 12, 2008 at 3:22 am

Comment #159366 by Peacebeuponme

By "relgious leader" we mean people like the Pope or Rabbis, Bishops and Imams. They speak on behalf of their religous community and in accordance with whichever religious text they subscribe to. I can't see that there can be an atheist equivalent.

But they don't represent their religious community, they represent the particular deity they subscribe to. The religious community simply follows on.

We don't have this kind of split. If there was some kind of atheist organisation it would be more like a political party.

1314. The List: The World's Worst Religious Leaders

Comment #159365 by epeeist on April 12, 2008 at 3:02 am

Comment #159281 by Koreman

Fine examples of Pavlov's operant conditioning in reality.

I didn't think Pavlov used operant conditioning. Wasn't that brought in later by the likes of Watson and Skinner?

1315. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159349 by epeeist on April 12, 2008 at 2:18 am

Comment #159343 by tron22

Mr. Dawkins, if you're so smart

Strange isn't how the people who want to make an attack generally refuse to acknowledge RD's qualifications.

Because I am British and titles work slightly differently to the US I would call him Professor Dawkins. In the States I suspect it would be Dr. Dawkins.

"Mr. Dawkins" is simply rude and says more about you than it does about RD.

1316. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159319 by epeeist on April 12, 2008 at 12:15 am

Comment #159312 by whatrutalkingabout

I tried to read this but it was so caustic. It seems like it is written by a completely bitter, crazy man.

So would you believe reviews by, say, the movie critic of Fox News? Or people from Scientific American?

Have a glance at http://www.expelledexposed.com/ to see some of the other reviews that have been made.

1317. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158821 by epeeist on April 11, 2008 at 4:43 am

Comment #158818 by Logicel

D.ug I.n O.ffal wrote: You must ask yourself if you want a nerdy, hunched-shoulder, effminiate, squishy PhD male

Yeah, my brother-in-law, though he did all what what required to get his PhD, was denied the doctorate on the basis of his bulky, muscular, ripped 6' 2" bod.

Well I can't claim to be 6' 2", but they never said anything to me about puncturing people with 3' of steel when I took my Ph.D.

1318. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158809 by epeeist on April 11, 2008 at 4:07 am

Comment #158801 by Paula Kirby

Not only do very few of our visiting Christians make any attempt whatsoever to present a positive case for Christianity at all

The problem is that if you are trying to explain galaxies or bacteria then you haven't got a whole lot of positive information in your armoury. The only thing you can really do is shout, stamp your foot.

1319. Did pre-big bang universe leave its mark on the sky?

Comment #158767 by epeeist on April 11, 2008 at 3:03 am

Comment #158720 by Steve Zara

We shouldn't rush to any conclusions. This is a highly speculative article, making a lot of assumptions.

Agreed. However, there is a difference between this conjecture and some of the things being put forward by the crowd of loony creationists we seem to have been infected with at the moment.

They are offering predictions and some possibility of testing them. As opposed to the loonies who seem to think you can just make stuff up and a back reference to the bible makes it true by caveat.

1320. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158764 by epeeist on April 11, 2008 at 2:56 am

Comment #158759 by D.I. Ogenes

You dummies ought to log off from the Internet and start reading books from long ago.

For if you did, you would recognize how far fallen are the contemporary High Priests of the Church of Academia from the laws laid down by Francis Bacon as to the Scientific Method.

Bacon did well for his day, but of course David Hume showed that we are not justified in using induction to reason from repeated instances of which have experience to conclusions of which we have no experience.

That science uses hypothetico-deductive methods was largely accepted by the late 19th century and the view has been consolidated by philosophers of science in the 20th century.

Of course this is all rather new for you isn't it? I am surprised that you actually got beyond a single 2000 year old book.

1321. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158745 by epeeist on April 11, 2008 at 2:09 am

Comment #158742 by irate_atheist

834. Comment #158731 by epeeist -

*Splutters*.

How could you even suggest such a thing?

Oh, I thought leaving it open at a page containing a Melanie Phillips article for the cat to use might be your sort of thing ;-)

1322. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158731 by epeeist on April 11, 2008 at 1:43 am

Comment #158729 by Steve Zara

Comment #158724 by irate_atheist
But is it as hard to read?

Only if he uses the Daily Mail.

1323. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158728 by epeeist on April 11, 2008 at 1:41 am

Comment #158722 by D.I. Ogenes

Apples far near the tree. I would love to meet your moms and dads to see what pieces of work they must be.

Well my mother and father are both dead. But I am sure you will be able to meet them in the afterlife.

Assuming that is there is an afterlife. And assuming you have enough karma to end up in the Elysium fields.

1324. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158718 by epeeist on April 11, 2008 at 1:25 am

Come on guys - just ignore D.I.Ogenes. He isn't a real person. Someone has just hooked up a version of the post-modern generator to the posting mechanism.

I have seen more intelligent chatbots.

1325. Expelled Overview

Comment #158713 by epeeist on April 11, 2008 at 1:22 am

Comment #158702 by Jon_Sociologist

You need to back it up with some question about how evolution explains the function of a tortoise's rectum or something.

Just came across this one on http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=104906

Why do our maxillary sinuses drain at the top? As is pointed out there, it makes a fair amount of sense for a deer, but what designer in her right mind would use the same design in creatures walking upright.

I also like the quotation from Late_Cretaceous - 'Creationist " I did not even bother to read your post, becasue it is nothing more then a lot of evolutionist hand waving. I know for a fact that it is all a fallacy and that evolution is unscientific. If evolution really was valid science as you claim, then why can't your provide any proof to support it?"'

Says it all really.

1326. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158469 by epeeist on April 10, 2008 at 3:09 pm

Comment #158460 by Goldy

Especially the Eddas.

Absolutely

The fool who fancies he is full of wisdom
While he sits by his hearth at home
Quickly finds when questioned by others
That he knows nothing at all

The ignorant booby had best be silent
When he moves among other men,
No one will know what a nitwit he is
Until he begins to talk;
No one knows less what a nitwit he is
Than the man who talks too much

1327. German Church admits aiding Nazis

Comment #158292 by epeeist on April 10, 2008 at 9:45 am

Comment #158286 by FightingFalcon

We're dealing with Adolf Hitler here - the man said many things in public that he did not truly believe. Why would anyone take what Hitler and Goebbels said publicly at face value? The only thing that matters is what they said/wrote in private and their actions.

There is always debate on this topic and it never runs to a final, definitive conclusion.

I am quite happy to leave it to the historians to discuss the details, the main thing is to squash the canard of the equivalence between Hitler and atheism.

1328. Rep. Davis: The Worst Person in the World

Comment #158284 by epeeist on April 10, 2008 at 9:33 am

Comment #158241 by Quetzalcoatl

A quick search of Google has turned up the following:

http://blog.kjmastaw.com/

Which is open for comments. Enjoy!

1329. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #158282 by epeeist on April 10, 2008 at 9:31 am

Comment #158275 by Steve Zara

He does seem to be putting a lot of effort into this, doesn't he?

It could certainly give him a nasty case of carpal tunnel syndrome.

It all looks like cut and paste from a set of standard paragraphs to me.

1330. Rep. Davis: The Worst Person in the World

Comment #158249 by epeeist on April 10, 2008 at 8:55 am

Here's a thought.

Al-Rawandi has put together a list of the common "causes of death" of theists at this site (Pascals wager, I am busy and I have to go, argumentum ad hitlerum etc.).

You can also typify some of the posters, from the raving lunacies of wooter, through to the thoughtful YEC of Mark Taunton, the Vox Day sockpuppets, the post-and-run fundies and so on.

It must be possible to produce a correlation matrix providing we come to some sort of classification.

1331. Rep. Davis: The Worst Person in the World

Comment #158232 by epeeist on April 10, 2008 at 8:40 am

Comment #158225 by irate_atheist

Hmm...does my Masters in Engineering Sciences count as:

Either is honourable.

Too much bloody snobbery in the UK about a petty distinction. Both are necessary, both can be creative and innovative.

1332. Rep. Davis: The Worst Person in the World

Comment #158217 by epeeist on April 10, 2008 at 8:18 am

Comment #158182 by kjmastaw

I'd venture to guess that very few of you really understand what the scientific method is, could explain the difference between scientific fact vs. scientific theory

You might want to reconsider this after you have looked at some of the other posters, such as Steve Zara (Ph.D. and post doc biologist), Billy Sands (research biochemist), maxD (biologist), Annabanana (biologist) myself (Ph.D. physicist), MPhil (philosopher, with an emphasis on science), Quine (philosopher), Russell Blackford (philosopher), Bonzai (mathematician) and so on. These are just the ones I picked off the top of my head and whose backgrounds I am aware of.

1333. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #158163 by epeeist on April 10, 2008 at 6:52 am

Comment #158162 by Cartomancer

You see, I've had my consciousness raised by the creationist lobby. Thank you Richard Dawkins! I now know exactly what to look for in devious monomaniacal fruitcakes who feed in these waters.

I suspect RD would acknowledge Carl Sagan, in particular "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection" from "The Demon Haunted World".

1334. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #158160 by epeeist on April 10, 2008 at 6:48 am

Comment #158130 by Philip1978

Deborah Lipstadt, a proper historian, said:

Are you sure she is a proper historian? With a name like that don't you think she might be, you know, a little Jewish...

Which would obviously make her part of the world wide conspiracy of ~~Illuminati~~ Zionists who rule everything.

EDIT: Sorry, not the Illumaniti, it was the stonecutters - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer_the_Great

1335. Fleabytes

Comment #158132 by epeeist on April 10, 2008 at 5:42 am

Comment #158125 by irate_atheist

On the subject of starting a topic in a topic, more halfwittery from the self-deluded:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pressass/20080410/tuk-cathedral-puts-ban-on-jerusalem-6323e80.html

Well Blake was hardly your common or garden Church of England member was he? A mystic who was a follower of another mystic. And Jerusalem was written as part of a homage to Milton which has references to Joseph of Arimethea and the book of Revelation.

1336. Commentary: Democrats finally getting religion on religion

Comment #158111 by epeeist on April 10, 2008 at 4:41 am

Comment #158100 by scooternyc

NEWSFLASH TO CANDIDATES: Shut up about your religion, it's like your sex life - boring, useless and nobody cares!

How strange, something we can almost agree on.

Unfortunately I think you have to qualify it in one of two ways. Either change "nobody" to "nobody with any sense", or (unfortunately) add "unless we can make political capital out of it" to the end.

1337. German Church admits aiding Nazis

Comment #158072 by epeeist on April 10, 2008 at 3:43 am

Comment #158068 by Jon_Sociologist

So I am curious how this all squares with the allegations by high level church officials, that the Nazis were an "Atheist" organization.

This is one to put on the bookmark list.

The next time someone comes along with an argumentum ad hitlerum then there is an admission by the church, not just some debatable evidence from Hitler's writings.

1338. Fleabytes

Comment #158067 by epeeist on April 10, 2008 at 3:36 am

Comment #158062 by keith

Just don't forget to massage his ego from time to time, otherwise he could be defecting back again within the month.

A prophecy, a veritable prophecy. Praise the Lord!

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2292,The-Lava-Lizards-Tale,Richard-Dawkins,page3#158065

1339. Fleabytes

Comment #158066 by epeeist on April 10, 2008 at 3:33 am

Extracted from David Robertson's post noted by Quetz in comment #158030 (just so one can see the attribution).

I personally liked "Given the ethos of the site I thought they would say that you were a defector, a poor soul who needed the comfort of meaningless religion, a fraud, an idiot, someone not worth bothering about anyway and that the post here was really not from you at all, but another subtle trick by the evil Robertson. Guess what - all of the above is on the website - as well as the usual pseudo psychological analysis."

It sounds awfully like the questioner in the UHI trying to demonstrate the validity of biblical prophecy.

1340. Reviews of Expelled

Comment #158063 by epeeist on April 10, 2008 at 3:28 am

Comment #158058 by yussel123

If Hitler's version of Evolution was bad science, why did the scientists in Nazi Germany go along with it?

Is this a rhetorical question?

Scientists are human as well you know, so the answer is why did politicians, engineers, church goers, fisherman and any other group you can mention go along with it?

You might also ask why Lysenko was so successful in the Stalinist Soviet Union.

If you want answers to why individual scientists went along with it then you are going to have to look at the biographies and psychology of the individuals involved.

1341. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157745 by epeeist on April 9, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Comment #157740 by Cartomancer

I take it back - these guys are just like the moron creationists we normally get!

Just back from a small celebration with a fellow coach (one of his pupils took bronze at the world under-17 championships) so I missed most of this.

A pretty loathsome character but as you have noted not atypical of the creationist we get, even down to the usual cause of death. I am surprised Al-Rawandi didn't call it.

1342. Expelled Overview

Comment #157538 by epeeist on April 9, 2008 at 8:39 am

Comment #157529 by clearmind

I am busy

In the absence of Al-Rawandi.

Time of death: 16:40 UTC, reason "I am busy"

1343. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #157407 by epeeist on April 9, 2008 at 4:10 am

Comment #157401 by Steve Zara

I think the question is why does it have to continue in public? It is not just off-topic (not something I am too worried about), but positively abusive. Surely you can see that it would make sense to discuss who needs to apologise to whom and in what way off-line, and then if agreement is reached, appropriate things can then be said in public.

Agreed - this has become a classic example of personal quarrel dialogue - http://www.philosophy.ed.ac.uk/ug_study/documents/Informallogic1_001.pdf

It isn't adding to the general discussion and should be taken offline by its two protagonists.

1344. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156829 by epeeist on April 8, 2008 at 9:59 am

Comment #156824 by al-rawandi

Do you propose the one party solution of communism?

As opposed to the two pseudo-parties of corporatism you mean?

1345. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156826 by epeeist on April 8, 2008 at 9:57 am

Comment #156815 by al-rawandi

Then he had the nerve to describe me as a genocidal prone right wing fascist.

Nah, total teddy bear you.

1346. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156704 by epeeist on April 8, 2008 at 7:06 am

Comment #156683 by Philip1978

Here is a VERY odd question indeed, can you speed up or slow down the speed of light from stars?

Surely the light from stars moves at a constant speed, some are just further away than others?

A mere supposition. It is obvious to every YEC that the light moved very, very much more quickly 6000 years ago. Hence the reason we can see light from galaxies several billion light years from here (I told you it was very much faster).

I have to say that the one I really like is - http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/adam.htm

The one that seems to be engendering some doubts on a theist site that I have been posting on looks like:

Them: You can't disprove the existence of God (note the G).

You: I accept that, the best that I can show is that a personal god is highly improbable

Them: Jesus exists, praise the Lord

You: But that means neither your or I can disprove the existence of Zeus, Odin or Atum (Wikipedia the last, at least he sounds to have had some fun creating the universe).

At this point the conversation goes dead.

1347. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156675 by epeeist on April 8, 2008 at 6:14 am

Comment #156670 by Vaal

Phil, not to mention the scale of the Universe. Is the Universe also 6000 years old? What are Galaxies then? How far are the nearest stars? Is Astronomical measurements so far out? How do they address that? I would have said that that would be the biggest death knell to the Young Earth crowd.

It doesn't work I am afraid.

You: There are 40,000 varve layers in Lake Suigetsu, one for each year
Them: Well when volcanoes erupt in lays down hundreds of thousands of layers simultaneously

You: The light from some stars and galaxies comes from millions of light years away
Them: God started all the light from 6000 light years away, or, the speed was faster when the universe was created

You: Evolution is a fact, look at this paper - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Them (after not more than 15 minutes): Very interesting, but it is disproved by this random page from Answers in Genesis.

1348. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156272 by epeeist on April 7, 2008 at 8:14 am

SWMBO teaches at a girls' school in Manchester. Because it is girls only it does have a significant number of pupils who are there to limit their contact with the opposite sex. These are mostly Muslims.

In the mumble-mumble years she has taught there she has noticed a gradual increase in the number of these girls who have a creationist outlook. This correlates fairly closely with an increase in religiosity.

We both find it strange that the parents of these girls are sending them to a school whose founders were looking to give girls the same educational opportunities as boys and wanted an emphasis on the teaching of science - http://www.withington.manchester.sch.uk/Home/About WGS/Founders/

1349. Fleabytes

Comment #156209 by epeeist on April 7, 2008 at 5:39 am

Just as a matter of interest. If there is an absolute morality and it is defined by religion then why is Monsignor Girotti, regent of the Vatican Penitentiary looking to update the list of sins?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/opinion/07mon4.html?ref=opinion

1350. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #156158 by epeeist on April 7, 2008 at 1:19 am

Not sure whether it should go on this thread or the perpetual "Fleabytes" one, but I picked this up today. Not particularly new, but it does spell out a solution to the chirality issue.

http://www.physorg.com/news126694357.html