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


101. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194217 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Receivedthegift-

What do all atheists scream in the time of danger?


Depending on the danger, I'd probably yell "Oh shit", or something similar. Why?

102. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194199 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Receivedthegift-

any POSITIVE evidence to offer for the existence of the supernatural?

103. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194194 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 2:14 pm

Receivedthegift-

Deceivement is a made-up word. Possibly you mean "deception". You'd still be wrong, but at least your vocabulary would have improved.

104. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194012 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 9:30 am

Steve-

we're getting into sci-fi territory now! You raise a good point- many sci-fi novels don't cover the idea that different oxygen levels make it unlikely that very many earth-size planets will be sufficiently earth-like for humans to live on without either domed colonies or genetic modification. Even I didn't think about it in my books :(

105. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194000 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 9:16 am

Steve-

well, yes, but by "supporting us" I meant Earth-like worlds that we can actually walk around on with maybe a pressure suit or something for the atmosphere. In practical terms they would be easier to settle than a gas giant moon.

106. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #193987 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 9:07 am

Passutoba-

not necessarily. Venus, for instance, has a very long day compared to ours. Depending on the type of star, it's also possible that the planets are tide-locked so that one side permanently faces the star.

107. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #193980 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 9:01 am

Steve-

well, let's face it, when we have the ability to, everyone will be looking in the Goldilocks zones anyway. And they are at least the best place to look to find planets capable of supporting us, ie with liquid water and reasonable temperatures.

I'll check out that book- I enjoyed The Science of Discworld books they wrote.

108. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193974 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 8:58 am

Steve-

perhaps each pentagram-shaped ice crystal was actually in geosynchronous orbit? No need for support structures then. Of course, that raises the problem of how the ice made it to the surface as water without vapourising into steam...

109. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #193972 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 8:55 am

Steve-

oh, definitely. We'll be finding Earth-size planets in Goldilocks zones within the next decade or so, probably. A few years ago, we couldn't even detect large gas giants. Science moves on!

110. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193966 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 8:51 am

Each ice crystal was actually shaped like a pentagram.

111. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #193947 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 8:30 am

Bugaboo-

as to the reason why the planets actually have such a short orbit, they could have formed that close in to the star, but it's more likely that they formed further out and their orbits were disturbed, perhaps by a rogue gas giant, sending them spiralling in towards the sun.

112. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193944 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 8:27 am

irate_atheist-

Quetz - You're getting confused with his pork sword


Different story entirely.

113. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193939 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 8:24 am

Podaar-

Please forgive my blasphemy by wasting my hot beverage (coffee) by spitting it on my keyboard.

I beg your forgiveness.


Forgiveness granted.

114. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193933 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 8:17 am

Podaar-

there are actually two versions of the ice sword, the planet-sized one, and the regular-sized one. It's a little-known fact that God actually wanted to give his son a fighting chance on Earth, so every morning he would send Jesus a brand-new ice sword. Problem was, this being the Middle East, it's pretty hot there, and the sword melted very quickly. That's why Jesus would always wake up to find his bedding was damp.

That's what he told the disciples, anyway.

115. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193913 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 8:02 am

Podaar-

wait until they start telling you about Jesus's ice sword.

116. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193843 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 6:02 am

Phil-

then that contradicts a lot of what believers are taught anyway, so they've got big problems. At any time, someone somewhere in the world is bound to be looking for him!

117. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193823 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 5:00 am

Hungarianelephant-

What I am getting at is whether there is a logical or scientific demolition of this.


Well, if God is completely outside of our universe, then he shouldn't be able to interact with it (the whole immaterial manipulating the material issue). But the religious claim that he does interact and intervene, so those actions should be testable. The fact that no interactions have been found that even hint at supernatural origin is as near to a scientific demolition as there is at the moment, I think.

Of course, if God is not outside the Universe, but in one of the higher dimensions, then the same applies- the interactions should be testable still. But being within the Universe contradicts the idea that God is everywhere at all times and knows everything.

118. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193811 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 4:28 am

Hungarianelephant-

look at it this way. If God is hiding in one of the higher dimensions, then he is still within our Universe, and therefore his interactions should be testable.

119. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193799 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 3:57 am

Corylus-

thanks for the link to the Grayling speech, it's a very good essay.

120. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193784 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 3:35 am

Billy, Steve-

your comments are much appreciated. At the risk of this sounding like an Oscars speech, I've learned a lot from you guys, from many posters as a matter of fact.

121. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193778 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 3:19 am

Epeeist-

his response is incredible. How can you have a creed that says that there is no creed? It's a massive contradiction. An absence of something cannot be something by definition!

He may have read the post but he sure as hell didn't get it.

122. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193772 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 3:13 am

Clearthinker-

Yes - I read it. Inherently self contradictory. So what if an atheist can be a scientist, masseuse etc. So can a Christian. So what if atheism is based on reason, evidence etc. So is Christianity. The irony is that you state there is no atheist creed in order defend part of that creed (aka a fundamentalist atheist is a contradiction in terms). Not all atheists are closed minded - but many are and therefore using the term fundamentalist atheist is quite accurate.


You seem to have missed the point entirely. The whole purpose of the post was to highlight the fact that nothing is "needed" to be an atheist, save for a lack of belief in God.

One cannot be a fundamentalist about an absence of belief. Indeed, as I said in the post, in so far as an atheist could be said to be a fundamentalist, it would be about the views that led them to non-belief, rather than the non-belief itself. That is the critical difference.

The way you use the phrase "fundamentalist atheist" is clearly intended to imply fundamentalism about atheism, rather than the views that may have lead that person to atheism. Therefore the term is inappropriate.

The irony is that you state there is no atheist creed in order defend part of that creed


But there is no atheist creed! That was the whole point. How can I be defending a creed by saying that there is no creed? That is ridiculous.

123. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193767 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 3:01 am

Clearthinker-

Unlike the fundamentalist atheist position which works on the basis that the only rational position is the atheist one, and the only reason for being an atheist is rationality


You didn't read the link, did you?

Fundamentalist Atheist: A Contradiction In Terms.

EDIT- whoops, I see you did.

YOu might pick up a few pointers


And what is wrong with how I debate?

124. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193746 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 1:56 am

Billy-

I would press him about it on FCOS, but I doubt the post would get through, and he's unlikely to be willing to start a new thread for it!

125. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193740 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 1:37 am

Philip1978-

Surely I have damned myself beyond redemption?


Not quite yet- let me help you with that. Repeat after me: I deny the existence of the Holy Ghost.

That should do the trick.

126. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193727 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 12:48 am

I love it when a prophecy comes true (7254).

127. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193726 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 12:42 am

It was probably complaining that the dirt doesn't taste very good, and asking for a cup of tea.

128. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #193347 by Quetzalcoatl on June 15, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Lil_Xunzian-

If you say that it exists at the level of emotion, then you're committed to saying it's something we just feel, not something we think. You remove anything rational or intellectual from ethics.


I don't see why it is an either/or situation. It seems reasonable to me that ethics should have both an intellectual and emotional component, the latter part hard-wired into us during the course of our evolution.

I think we fall right into the hands of the religionists by saying that ethics is just something I feel (and is, therefore, subjective).


The value that any one person attaches to morals and ethics does have a subjective element. Some believe that white lies are acceptable, some do not. This is essentially a matter of personal preference.

129. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193234 by Quetzalcoatl on June 15, 2008 at 3:22 am

David Robertson-

I'm sure this won't make much difference, but I'll try anyway:

Fundamentalist Atheist: A Contradiction In Terms.

130. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193233 by Quetzalcoatl on June 15, 2008 at 3:20 am

Epeeist-

From reading RTG's posts he seems to be an evasion specialist. I don't think there will be any straight answers coming from him.

131. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #193085 by Quetzalcoatl on June 14, 2008 at 2:43 pm

MPhil-

In the sense that others can ascribe moral value to that action - yes. But not in the sense of the action itself actually being moral outside of intersubjective evaluation. Actions don't have intrinsic values. That would require metaphysically object moral values - it would, in short, it would require the supernatural


We're on the same page. The first sense is what I was attempting poorly to refer to. I'm certainly not suggesting the existence of metaphysically object moral values; I've argued against such notions in the past.

132. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #193082 by Quetzalcoatl on June 14, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Damn. Must voice my thoughts better.

MPhil, Teapot-

when I said "instinctive", I wasn't talking in terms of animals, I don't think I used the word animal. What I meant that if a person were to act instincitvely, without weighing the consequences, then that action could still be seen as moral even if there are no ethical or societal formalities on what is and isn't moral.

I'm not saying that animals can be moral, nor, Teapot, earthquakes!

EDIT- this was all in regard to Lil_Xunzian's comments regarding the distinction between moral sentiments and moral virtues, the latter of which he suggested required a framework to define it.

133. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #193076 by Quetzalcoatl on June 14, 2008 at 2:30 pm

the great teapot-

what I meant is that acting morally is still possible without an ethical framework and linguistic concepts sufficient to "formalise" what is and isn't moral informing the person's actions. Perhaps "instinctively" was a bad choice of word.

134. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #193060 by Quetzalcoatl on June 14, 2008 at 2:09 pm

MPhil-

Guys - I think you need to make a distinction between unreflected action that corresponds to what we would call moral actions and morality as in being consciously aware of moral demands etc.

If we want to reserve the term "morality" for the latter, then it probably appeared very recently, with language complex enough to communicate and operate on these concepts, to have them explicitly.


I don't think the term "morality" can be ascribed purely to the latter. An instinctive action can still be moral.

135. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193058 by Quetzalcoatl on June 14, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Philip-

Yisrayl Hawkins, the leader of a Texan sect, actually predicted the end of the world for two days ago. We're living on borrowed time. Now might be a good time for a cup of tea!

136. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #193052 by Quetzalcoatl on June 14, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Lil_Xunzian-

Human may have had moral sentiments for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, but have probably only had moral virtues for a few thousand


Again, this depends on your definitions, doesn't it. The existence of altruistic and therefore moral behaviour within family and tribal groupings seems to contradict this idea.

PS- can you please put the name of who you are responding to? It's hard to keep track.

137. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #193039 by Quetzalcoatl on June 14, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Lil_Xunzian-

Morality is only possible after a prosthesis, that lovely thing we call "civilization," has been installed. There may have existed a proto-morality that served as the nascent basis for a genuine ethics, but it's not the same thing.


That depends very much on your definition of "civilisation", doesn't it? And it seems a little presumptuous to claim that humans prior to the advent of "civilisation" wouldn't behave or be able to behave in a manner that we regard as moral.

138. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #193020 by Quetzalcoatl on June 14, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Lil_Xunzian-

I don't agree with the notion that altruism is hard-wired into us


I disagree. A propensity for altruism within family and/or small tribal groups is something that is probably hard-wired within us.

139. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192952 by Quetzalcoatl on June 14, 2008 at 10:28 am

Steve-

Do you realise that if this thread keeps going, it will exceed the "Fleabytes" thread in length, and so push David Robertson into further insignificance? He claims "biggest thread on this site" as some kind of victory


He actually claims that? That's rather sad. And amusing, considering if all the off-topic posts on that thread were removed, it would probably drop to about a tenth of its former length and not be nearly so impressive.

140. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192946 by Quetzalcoatl on June 14, 2008 at 10:18 am

Steve Zara-

But you are a God, so how does praying for someone work? Are there other Gods? Can't you just phone them up or something?


When praying for someone, I am of course praying to myself. Think of it as the equivalent of assembling a mental "to do" list".

141. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192908 by Quetzalcoatl on June 14, 2008 at 7:54 am

I think everybody should now start praying for Philip. I know I will be.

142. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192814 by Quetzalcoatl on June 14, 2008 at 2:21 am

Received the gift-

I was going to make a joke abour receipts and refunds, but I see that I've been beaten to it.

Unfortunately, there is and there will never be any proof presented to you in which you would or could accept. You can't.


This is a common response. "I have the evidence, but I won't tell you, because you won't believe it". Convenient is the word that comes to mind. I say to you what I say to anyone else who uses that line (including you, TXPiper)- show us the evidence anyway, even if you don't think we'll be convinced. If you're genuine in wanting a discussion, then that will help us understand your viewpoint. If you're just trolling, of course, then you won't bother.

Your science theory does not allow for anything other than natural laws. That is how science theory is defined


WRONG. Science is open to the possibility of the supernatural. But for it to be considered as evidence, it would come under the same scrutiny as the natural. Extraordinary claims, and all that. So far, it hasn't held up.

The damage that the Atheist Evolution proponents are doing is the biggest deceivement in human history.


Deceivement is a made-up word.

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

Comment #192108 by Quetzalcoatl on June 12, 2008 at 1:02 pm

Shmeezers-

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)


First you have to demonstrate that moral absolutes exist, perhaps including an example of one. Then would you mind telling me on what evidence you assign characteristics to God? (I'm skipping "demonstrate God exists" since I think Steve's already asked that).

144. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #192071 by Quetzalcoatl on June 12, 2008 at 12:24 pm

I don't know about this. It does seem rather simplistic to suggest that greater intelligence means that you are less likely to believe in God. If you're caught early enough, then surely your faith will be just as strong?

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

Comment #192052 by Quetzalcoatl on June 12, 2008 at 11:53 am

thewhitepearl-

don't obsess about it. There are at least a hundred other mistakes in the article. Try and keep that in mind, and you'll feel better.

146. Richard Dawkins lecture at ASU's Tempe Campus

Comment #192027 by Quetzalcoatl on June 12, 2008 at 10:49 am

Richard Dawkins (the real one)-

Unfortunately, it's entirely likely that the imposter genuinely believes that he is being funny.

147. Fleabytes

Comment #191714 by Quetzalcoatl on June 11, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Steve-

E ain't worf it.


Worf from Star Trek? What's he got to do with anything?

(Sorry).

148. Fleabytes

Comment #191711 by Quetzalcoatl on June 11, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Artful-

seriously, is our dualism discussion all finished?

"richard_dawkins"-

marked as troll.

149. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #191596 by Quetzalcoatl on June 11, 2008 at 9:21 am

D'Arcy-

didn't notice you had commented.

638.

150. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191540 by Quetzalcoatl on June 11, 2008 at 6:50 am

TXPiper-

you may not be aware of this, but you have a tremendous opportunity available to you. Many creationists have joined the site proclaiming that their position is true, but then proceeded only to pick holes in existing theories rather than proffering their own. Their arguments have been torn apart for this, and rightly so.

But you are apparently different. You say that your theological and doctrinal views are well developed. You say that you have evidence for the Flood, evidence that is not merely a litany of so-called faults with existing methods, but fresh evidence.

Let's hear it.

Since many posters have gone to great lengths to refute what you have posted in the past, I am sure it is obvious that attention is paid to what you write. If the evidence is as strong as you think, why not put it out there, and let everyone evaluate it? Even if it is rejected, at least you will have had the courage of your convictions, and perhaps your evidence will resonate with those who read the threads but do not post.

So go ahead, TXPiper, give us the evidence for the Flood. Now is your chance.

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