Comments by Quetzalcoatl

Comment #162510 by Quetzalcoatl on April 17, 2008 at 3:23 am

Egomaniac-

still waiting for those examples. Or have you already fled, having done your "duty"?

Comment #162491 by Quetzalcoatl on April 17, 2008 at 3:03 am

Epeeist-

a crime of which it seems Egomaniac is guilty.

Ironically, Annabanana did a post on her blog yesterday in which she commented on the increase of hit-and-run theists on RD.net, and suggested that they be ignored unless they have something salient to contribute. Perhaps I should have taken her advice.....

1503. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162487 by Quetzalcoatl on April 17, 2008 at 2:56 am

Egomaniac-

You have a skewed interpretation of what is and is not obvious. It was mere hyperbole

Why start your first post with such hyperbole? Do you consider atheists' existence to be meaningless?

Do you think the notion that some people here seem to enjoy looking down on others is absurd?

I would first have to ask for examples of this "looking-down" on others.

1504. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162471 by Quetzalcoatl on April 17, 2008 at 2:34 am

Egomaniac-

It's pretty obvious when you use phrases like "meaningless existence" and "self-praising and the belittling of inferiors" that you are not interested in genuine discussion.

1505. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162459 by Quetzalcoatl on April 17, 2008 at 2:20 am

Egomaniac-

Bravo, my fellow poster! Give yourself a big pat on the back for making your first post such a wonderful and intellectually stimulating comment.

If you've got something to say that's worth discussing, say it. Otherwise, don't bother.

1506. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162309 by Quetzalcoatl on April 16, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Diacanu-

indeed.

1507. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162306 by Quetzalcoatl on April 16, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Diacanu-

the post appeared on FCOS only this morning.

1508. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162303 by Quetzalcoatl on April 16, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Clodhopper-

Maybe I'm not. Or maybe I'm just saying it to get the ball rolling. To help you mortals out. Hmm. Who knows?

1509. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162294 by Quetzalcoatl on April 16, 2008 at 2:14 pm

Clodhopper said-

But I had a general sense that many of his posts were looking for strokes & attention seeking without contributing overly much

While I do agree, I think we need to remember that we are all probably guilty of this to some degree. I freely admit that I am, with my attempts at humour and occasional promotion of personal projects. (I'm not criticising anyone, just saying).

1510. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162180 by Quetzalcoatl on April 16, 2008 at 9:27 am

thisisme-

But when we criticise the logic or morality of others we are a priori assuming the existance of an ultimate standard by which we can judge them.

Not so. There are no ultimate, unchangeable, unbreakable standards of morality. If you believe that there are, could you name some?

I believe that God is abolute, thus the values which are part of his character are also absolute. I believe that the laws of God's nature, the laws of logic, the laws of morality, are *defined* by his nature. They don't make his nature necessary, they are necessary because they are his unchanging nature. That is where I believe the laws of morality come from - they merely reflect the nature of God.

This is merely assertion without evidence.

This was my original point - *if* there is no moral objectivity, why does RD criticise someone for lying? How can we say that anything is wrong for anyone else? How can we say that anything was wrong in the past, or will be in the future, or is wrong in a different society?

Because while there are no absolute standards, we by contrast do not live in a society of complete moral relativity.

Thisisme: you raise some good points, and I apologise if you think my answers are too short, but time is against me. I'll be back later.

1511. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162106 by Quetzalcoatl on April 16, 2008 at 6:56 am

I linked to this earlier on; I especially "like" this section of it:

David - thank you for having had the persistence and determination to show up on RDNet.
RDNet - thank you for having shown me the limits of materialism and "rational thinking". I will happily continue to use these for driving to work, preparing a cassoulet and being operated on for my hernia.
But for the essential, for that which gives freedom, I shall henceforth be looking elsewhere.

I think the words speak for themselves.

1512. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162009 by Quetzalcoatl on April 16, 2008 at 2:03 am

Irate-

you big meanie. Although in his FCOS post RM did offer to e-mail detailed thoughts on his conversion to anyone who was interested. Perhaps one of us could sign up for that?

1513. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162000 by Quetzalcoatl on April 16, 2008 at 1:52 am

thisisme-

it might be easier if you summarise them in a single comment, then that comment can be linked to at a later date if people lose track again.

Phil Rimmer-

I get that impression as well, but I think all of us crave notice to a certain extent, otherwise we wouldn't bother posting here. I'm not saying it's the primary reason, but there is an element of it.

1514. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161987 by Quetzalcoatl on April 16, 2008 at 1:13 am

Peacebeuponme-

We await the inevitable gloating comment on this site from David Robertson

I agree. It will come.

1515. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161984 by Quetzalcoatl on April 16, 2008 at 1:07 am

MPhil-

Well thank you Quetz... reading that post of RM's just ruined my day.

It's what I do.

1516. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161982 by Quetzalcoatl on April 16, 2008 at 12:44 am

Looks like the thread has turned interesting.

Off topic-

one of RM's posts on FCOS made me think that he was gearing up for the leap into Christianity. I was right:

http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?PHPSESSID=79bce46b434b28dc7336ebb5c9952d17&topic=25.msg261#msg261

1517. School bars same-sex partners at formals

Comment #161643 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 1:18 pm

Tezcatlipoca-

p.s. I challenge Quetzalcoatl to an obsidian vine cage match

Bring it, jaguar-boy. I'll cut your remaining foot off and feed it to a python!

1518. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161488 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 10:45 am

Strength-

I'm sure MaxD is trembling with fear right now. Ha!

1519. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161423 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 9:28 am

European arrogance

So "Strength" is most likely American.

1520. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161396 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 8:46 am

Kardashovel-

But as it is, you just sound like someone that thinks every conversation should revolve around your wishes. Good luck with that

In fact I think that everything should revolve around my wishes. The rest of the world, sadly, does not agree. :-)

1521. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161392 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 8:38 am

Kardashovel-

Not really. I'm sure that will be a disappointment to those that think I'm here to make converts.

No, it will be a disappointment to those who thought that you were here to back up your assertions. And it makes cynical people like me suspicious.

1522. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161376 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 8:21 am

Kardashovel-

He steered me away from those types of questions, essentially by insisting that He was there to talk about me, and the future. I was distracted by the rest of the discussion, and I felt that, given the situation, He wasn't gonna stick around to be interrogated

Or perhaps part of you did not want to speculate too closely about where that voice might be coming from.

To answer your earlier question, He never explicitly said that He was not me. But it was pretty clear to me that He was not me, even though he spoke in my inner voice

Hmm. Never said he was God either.

1523. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161363 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 8:03 am

Kardashovel-

Again. What did the voice tell you about itself?

1524. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161344 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 7:33 am

Kardashovel-

you didn't answer my question. Did the voice TELL you that it was from an external entity, or is that just the conclusion that you came to?

1525. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161322 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 6:59 am

Karda-

the answers about those people and situations were definitely not part of my psyche. Nor were the issues that He wanted to discuss

So from that you go to the conclusion that the voice is from an external entity. Interesting logic. Did the voice tell you this?

1526. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161315 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 6:48 am

Kardashovel-

but this conversation followed my interests too, and there was no question that did not have an immediate answer

Closely followed your interests, eh? Wow, it's almost as if this voice was an aspect of your own psyche. Crazy.

1527. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161265 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 4:47 am

Artful_Dodger-

Well, no. Because Shakespeare's intervention, though all embracing and all-pervasive, was actually invisible. Nevertheless, there would not have been a play without it.

Strange, then, that you claim such knowledge, Hamlet.

Insofar as there is evidence for the reliability of the 4 gospel accounts of Jesus' life, death and resurrection, there can be said to be evidence of God's interaction with the world

The Gospels are unreliable, contradict each other, and do not tally well with history. Hardly revelatory.

And are you making the assertion that the Gospels are the ONLY evidence of God's interaction with the world? If so, why? If not, what other sources of evidence do you have?

1528. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161254 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 4:30 am

On my blog I've just posted the first of several on believers' inner feelings and relationships with God.

But there are few who claim that God is purely external to the Universe. For him to have inspired the Bible or to interact at all, he must be linked in some way. The fact that therefore such an intrusion into the physical Universe should be scientifically testable is an awkward one, and often ignored.

1529. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #161231 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 3:50 am

Wooter-

that equals 102%. Check your sums.

Steve-

it's ClearMIND not ClearTHINKER posting. You've gotten them muddled.

1530. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161228 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 3:47 am

Epeeist-

I didn't meant to nitpick, but it always jars a little, and I don't want any of the less honourable theists to use such phrases against us.

1531. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161224 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 3:40 am

Epeeist-

the other option was "I ignore the bits I don't like".

I agree with you for the most part, but some of the theist posters we get are honest and try to explain their positions properly without resorting to hit-and-run tactics. Brother John and Mark Taunton are excellent examples of this.

1532. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161217 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 3:29 am

Epeeist-

I'd be surprised if he returns. He seems to be doing hit and run attacks on any thread with "Richard Dawkins" in the title at the moment.

And you have already had the answer for the metaphor question. YOU JUST KNOW.

1533. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #161195 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 2:48 am

Steve-

Do you have a similiar concern for particle physics? If not, why not?

Personally, I'm very concerned about the possibilities surrounding the Higgs Boson, the supposed "God-Particle" :-)

1534. A New Flea

Comment #161154 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 12:56 am

thewhitepearl-

if there's a list of which books are most thrown away, one of them might top that.

1535. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161152 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 12:51 am

Geoff-

Out by 2 hours, Quetz? You're slipping!

Not at all. My TOD prediction related to Artful Dodger, so it was correct. Do not question your god.

1536. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160937 by Quetzalcoatl on April 14, 2008 at 3:01 pm

How are we to know Henri is different to AsMarques with his holocaust denial gibberish on one of the other threads?

Indeed. It is not unreasonable to assume that someone is sincere in what they write, if it is not clearly obvious that they are not serious.

1537. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160931 by Quetzalcoatl on April 14, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Henri Bergsen-

Evolutionary psychology is very fruitful and interesting, and it can explain *why* we behave in certain manners; but it cannot explain how we *should* behave.

This is what cultural consensus and debate is all about. That is how we make things better. And if we have made things better, moved on from our more primitive days, I see nothing wrong in judging those who have not, like those in Yemen who think sex with small children is okay. Atheism does not equal absolute moral relativism and nihilism. At least not in my case.

1538. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160920 by Quetzalcoatl on April 14, 2008 at 2:45 pm

Al-

I'm predicting TOD within 30 minutes.

1539. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160910 by Quetzalcoatl on April 14, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Henri-

I don't recall saying that there was any objective morality. And you know full well I meant that whales and lions do not possess intelligence to the same extent as humans do.

The fact is that humans, by and large have a set of values that largely agree. This is a product of our evolutionary heritage. Culture is the means by which we harmonise that morality and create laws to govern our behaviour. But that does not mean we cannot judge those who rape children.

----

And I see Artful Dodger has materialised on another thread. How long will it be before you have to leave, with a host of unanswered questions trailing behind you?

1540. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160887 by Quetzalcoatl on April 14, 2008 at 2:16 pm

Henri Bergson-

We are only animals. Do you judge a lion when it kills prey? Do you judge a killer whale when it tortures seals for its amusement?

Fallacious reasoning. Lions and killer whales do not possess what humans do: intelligence and culture.

1541. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160865 by Quetzalcoatl on April 14, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Henri Bergson-

You commentators here are being very naive: you cannot judge another culture from your own culture's perspective.

'Human rights' is just a western notion that, like 'God', cannot be proven.

In other words, you're all acting like frenzied religious nutcases pushing your unjustified perspective on others.

If you were saying that on TV I'd be yelling at the screen right now.

So, what's your position on Al's example in comment 2? Is that just another example of different cultures that we can't possibly judge?

1542. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160651 by Quetzalcoatl on April 14, 2008 at 8:57 am

Karda-

so you would go against what your voice tells you if you think it is wrong. Interesting. You would DISOBEY the Holy Spirit. Very Interesting indeed. So on that basis, you must think Abraham was wrong when he went to sacrifice his son.

1543. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160636 by Quetzalcoatl on April 14, 2008 at 8:48 am

Hungarian Elephant-

OK, let's agree for a moment that our still, small, inner voices have something important to tell us.

What happens when they contradict what someone else's still, small, inner voice says?

A better question might be what happens when our still, small, inner voices tell us to kill someone.

1544. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160614 by Quetzalcoatl on April 14, 2008 at 8:29 am

Has anyone noticed that we've been getting a lot of trolls on the site recently? I wonder what the cause is.

1545. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160610 by Quetzalcoatl on April 14, 2008 at 8:26 am

Pintoman-

I should say, Dawkins does believe in God, he just calls God "evolution." Evolution belongs in the same category as God. He can't prove evolution and he can't hand me evolution. Evolution does not exist in the material world. It exists only in Dawkins mind. If you would all quit believing in evolution it would cease to exist

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that Dawkins is the only one in the world who thinks evolution is correct. This is obviously wrong.

1546. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160587 by Quetzalcoatl on April 14, 2008 at 8:04 am

Al-

Epeeist meant that you spell the name BRENWAY, not BENWAY. Extra R.

1547. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160576 by Quetzalcoatl on April 14, 2008 at 7:58 am

Back on topic.

Kardashovel-

you're forgetting the fact that God wouldn't need to test Abraham's faith- he would already know how strong it was, what with the being omniscient and all.

Unless, that is, you consider that the concept of God being omniscient was not invented until later on. Then it makes sense.

1548. A New Flea

Comment #160550 by Quetzalcoatl on April 14, 2008 at 7:36 am

I'm going to go horribly off-topic for a moment. I've recently published my second book. On the off-chance that anyone is interested, more detail on it can be found here:

http://www.lulu.com/content/2317231

Thanks. And apologies for the flagrant self-promotion.

1549. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160541 by Quetzalcoatl on April 14, 2008 at 7:31 am

1550. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160538 by Quetzalcoatl on April 14, 2008 at 7:30 am