Comments by Peacebeuponme

Comment #134319 by Peacebeuponme on February 27, 2008 at 3:23 pm

A Sokal-style Flea parody.

It would just be too easy to do. All you have to do is take each of Dawkins arguments and say:

Dawkins said that for X to be true there must also be Y. But why does Y follow from X? [insert arcane theist here] says that actually X can be true independently of Y.

That and some very old science and philosophy and you are on your way.

1502. Fleabytes

Comment #134314 by Peacebeuponme on February 27, 2008 at 3:15 pm

Diacanu

Well, it occurs to me, that if I truly thought souls were at stake, I would have to try to maximize the good I thought I could do.

You've hit on a really interesting point there. Sometimes an atheist can act like a smug wanker, or enjoy ridiculing stupid theist claims. The total effect of this is (as the atheist sees it) nothing more than putting a theist nose out of joint. It may not be the most sophisticated or politically adept move, but does no significant harm.

However, for a theist to act in such a way, they are not only trying to wind the atheist up but (in their mind) actually saying "Fuck you, go to hell" and truly beliving that to be the consequence.

This seems somewhat less than charitable.

Its also an act of extreme malevolence that is more extreme than any atheist could manage.

1503. Fleabytes

Comment #133983 by Peacebeuponme on February 27, 2008 at 5:46 am

Clearthinker, a few things

(i) Richard Dawkins is a Professor.
(ii) Remind me where you saw that the article was commissioned by Richard Dawkins?
(iii) Interesting that you attempt to chastise Richard or not accepting your challenge when you have left perfectly reasonable questions uanswered on this and other threads.
(iv) I think Richard won't debate you because you are just not very sophisiticated. Many of your arguments are way out of date and have been dealt with by contributors to this site (check out the debate points section). I imagine McGrath and Francis Collins would cringe at the thought of having you put forward a theist case against someone of Richard's standing (as Richard would cringe if I stood up against Collins).

1504. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #133966 by Peacebeuponme on February 27, 2008 at 5:11 am

Shmeezers

No proof. No proof in the lab

Err...have you read anything about DNA?

1505. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #133960 by Peacebeuponme on February 27, 2008 at 4:13 am

Shmeezers

No proof. No proof in the lab; no proof with fossils. Nothing. Just an assumption based on a worldview.

Wheres Hinduism is irrefutable. I urge you to abandom your false prophet, Jesus, and start worhip of Brahman the great creator. By the arms of Vishnu I pray for your soul.

1506. Fleabytes

Comment #133926 by Peacebeuponme on February 27, 2008 at 3:13 am

Glad to see that fewer people are rising to the bait.

It is however, nice to let the record show that we have asked questions that have gone unanswered. When theists come here and claim that they are attacked and ridiculed rather than debated, at least we can say we tried.

Its also uncomfortable to leave really boring old theist questions unanswered lest another theist wander past and think we were stumped!

1507. Fleabytes

Comment #133922 by Peacebeuponme on February 27, 2008 at 3:08 am

Us theists see the Universe and life as being a little more complex!"

Even if that were true (which it isn't) its still a very poor argument. One could just dream up ever more complex theories about reality and claim them as superior on the basis of complexity.

What matters is truth, David, you talk about it a lot, but don't seem to understand what it is.

1508. Fleabytes

Comment #133902 by Peacebeuponme on February 27, 2008 at 2:32 am

Quetz - cheers. I usually check these things but couldn't be bothered then.

Clearthinker - do you see my point about evidence?

Also now that I know that Dachau was one the concentration camps, I could also open up the whole "objective morality" debate but not sure I want to. You meant to say you feel that genocide is wrong, not that it is wrong, right?

1509. Fleabytes

Comment #133887 by Peacebeuponme on February 27, 2008 at 2:13 am

Clearthinker

Yes. I accept that my wife and children love me. I accept that Dachau is wrong. I accept that Beethoven's music is beautiful.

I guess my wording did leave me open to you responding with the tired "can you prove you love your wife argument". I would say this:

- you have plenty of scientific evidence that your wife and children love you, I'm sure their interactions with you on a daily basis provide you with ample evidence of their strong feelings towards you. They probably also say "I love you" a lot. You certainly don't just accept this. Sadly a lot of marriages break down and when that starts to happen one party does question whether their other half really does love them. They analyse their interactions, wonder why they are spending so much time out of the house, wonder when the last time they said those 3 little words and many other things to weight up whether the love really is still there.

- You accept that Beethoven's is music is beautiful. Well, its not objectively, but you feel it is and thats great. That you have a feeling that Beethoven's music is beautiful requires no truth claim on your part and is thefore no comparison to the god question.

- when it comes to god though, we are not talking about personal feelings, we are talking about an actual entity that supposedly exists. Surely you can see that we should require some evidence for this?

(I missed one out becuase I need to find out who Dachau is: its amazing how well you can debate without name-dropping).

1510. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #133332 by Peacebeuponme on February 26, 2008 at 4:30 am

Irate_Atheist

Onion Terror 2-1 favourite
Massive Bereavement 7-4
Trust Me I'm A Stomach 100-30
All the rest, 3-1 bar

Continually impressed by your on-demand recall of Day Today and Brass Eye quotes. My favourite horses though were Zena Bedabi's 20 hotels and there was one that ended in ...Porn Dungeon?

1511. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132992 by Peacebeuponme on February 25, 2008 at 1:53 pm

but I have found it can be worth reading a "Flea" book.

I've read a few of them. When I read the contents page of "Dawkins God : Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life" by McGrath I was honestly a little scared at first: surely I would be christian when I put the book down? What would I say to my friends? Then I read the chapters and found they did not live up to their titles. There was just no substance behind any of the words.

1512. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #132861 by Peacebeuponme on February 25, 2008 at 10:10 am

Anyone care to join me in this pact?

I mentioned this a while back. Trouble is, its so tempting to post something.

I would like to see the site amended so that responses are linked to particular comments. That way interesting conversations do not get lost in the stupidity.

1513. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #132855 by Peacebeuponme on February 25, 2008 at 9:57 am

I don't usually like to blow my own trumpet...ah so what!

I'd still like to see (as some wit posted a while back) the tags expanded to read

Flag as: [troll][spam][offensive][wooter]

Others may be able to dazzle with string theory, planck lengths or modal logic, but at least I can come up with the odd crap gag every now and again!

1514. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #132841 by Peacebeuponme on February 25, 2008 at 9:19 am

Bad words belong to the mouth they pop out so thanks for your describing yourself to us.

I know you are so what am I?

1515. Fleabytes

Comment #132813 by Peacebeuponme on February 25, 2008 at 8:21 am

Another thread joining the 1,000 club, god willing.

1516. Fleabytes

Comment #132789 by Peacebeuponme on February 25, 2008 at 7:58 am

Ages ago from clearthinker

But then you will only allow the kind of evidence that can be proved in a lab

Assuming by "proved in the lab" means "can be corroborated scientifically", can any theist let me know of any other type of evidence that can be used to assess whether a claim about reality is truthful? In respect of this evidence, do you accept it in any other area of your life, outside of metaphysical claims?

1517. Fleabytes

Comment #132170 by Peacebeuponme on February 24, 2008 at 11:54 am

Asolutely. Furthermore, it's an utterly transparent attempt to invent evidence to support the belief, rather than to form the belief on the basis of the evidence.

The conversation only ever goes one way. After you arguing that their God must be complex, they respond by saying that God is supernatural, outside of the physical laws. You ask them to define what God is rather than what it isn't. Cue some sub-McGrath murkiness (this usually starts with "For me...").

Whenever a hint of a specific definition comes up, you ask them for supporting evidence. This is invariably met with silence.

1518. Fleabytes

Comment #132156 by Peacebeuponme on February 24, 2008 at 11:18 am

I'm picking up old stuff here.

Epeeist

If current cosmological theories are anywhere near the truth then the initial universe would have been simple, and hence could be the production of a simple designer. However, such a designer would not have been able to impose a specific direction on the development of the universe and certainly wouldn't be capable of generating each individual snowflake (sorry!). Unless the designer evolved of course, but that would undermine the omnipotence and omniscience properties of course.

That's just great isn't it? McGrath and other theists try to pick holes in Richard's "ultimate 747" argument by saying God could be simple. But if he was simple, then he wouldn't really be God would he?

I really want to know how McGrath can square in his mind the concept of a simple entity (as opposed to a simple process like evolution) that can somehow be responsible for the complexity of, and control, the universe.

(EDIT: Notwithstanding some semantic tricks regarding the definition of "simple" of course.)

1519. Fleabytes

Comment #132118 by Peacebeuponme on February 24, 2008 at 8:15 am

So bizarre i waded thru this whole thread!

Just click on "Other comments by...". A useful tool. There are other examples.

1520. Fleabytes

Comment #132113 by Peacebeuponme on February 24, 2008 at 7:46 am

peace,
where can i find krisskrings inflammatory remarks?
cheers, mike

Hi Mike. How about this (Comment #130825):

Amazing. Paula is clearly passionate about this. i wonder what drives her passion. Most non-believers I know just don't give any of a moment's thought.

The last sentence (generallising incorectly in the negative about atheists) is clearly there not because KK thinks its true but to try to get a reaction.

1521. Fleabytes

Comment #132104 by Peacebeuponme on February 24, 2008 at 7:25 am

Letters from McGrath's Angel: Godawful Delusions of a Former Atheist

Its quite difficult when the titles are all bastardised versions of the atheist books!

Maybe:

Muddled by McGrath : Unclarity, Obfuscation and the Meaninglessness of Theology.

1522. Fleabytes

Comment #132092 by Peacebeuponme on February 24, 2008 at 6:35 am

So much noise from clearthinker and KrisKing (actually becoming a major troll and posting deliberately inflammatory remarks) I haven't read through all, so apols if this he been said.

Just wanted to comment on the remarks about Paula being a "flea's flea" or "fleapowder". Paula has written a review of the fleabooks. She hasn't written a book rebutting them, and with the authors' names in the title, which is what Richard was referring to when he criticised McGrath.

1523. My Argument With God

Comment #132040 by Peacebeuponme on February 24, 2008 at 1:41 am

Not exactly Christian, but definitely religious...

Yes, he is Jewish. Disappointing that he is a believer. He is a funny guy.

1524. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #131250 by Peacebeuponme on February 22, 2008 at 5:47 am

And if RD smiled when he said "and that brings me to the point of the lava lizard's tale" I didn't hear it.
I think it was just an excuse to show off his holiday videos. "look how well, I'm doing, I can afford to visit the Galapagos Islands....

Yeah, sure it was.

1525. Fleabytes

Comment #130803 by Peacebeuponme on February 21, 2008 at 9:56 am

David Robertson

I haven't seen any of your "Wee Flea" posts, but there's plenty of theists on here who say things we disagree with. There's at least one atheist here who bugs the shit out of me, and plenty of theists who spout inanity and/or borderline bigotry. They manage not to get hit with the "Alernate Comment Thread" action.

One wonders what you must have said...

1526. Fleabytes

Comment #130663 by Peacebeuponme on February 21, 2008 at 6:07 am

The other is the fact that we are not totally controlled by our genetic inheritance, as shown, for example, every time we use contraception (thus overriding the "desire" of our genes).

Artful-Dodger says its "meaningless" to do things like this....

1527. Fleabytes

Comment #130656 by Peacebeuponme on February 21, 2008 at 5:43 am

What I am saying is that if evolution is indeed indifferent, if it neither knows nor cares, then it is meaningless to expend our energies in defense of the weak and vulnerable.

AAAARRRRGGHHHH!

How many times do we have to explain this!

1528. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130320 by Peacebeuponme on February 20, 2008 at 9:47 am

Sorry to have been away for a bit. Just had one of my parishioners knock at the door asking for some advice on how to deal with a couple of rather persistent atheists who seem to have take up going round door to door selling copies of the "God Delusion". I mean, can you believe it...trying to sell them. Surely, they should be giving them away.

Troll, surely?

1529. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130303 by Peacebeuponme on February 20, 2008 at 8:35 am

Ah well, this has been kind of fun. However, I think it is time I was more productive and put some time and effort, for a while at least, into some more substantial personal projects to help promote reason and rationality. The excellent results of others' efforts in this area have made me feel like I need to buckle down and actually do stuff!

Are you signing off from the site?

1530. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130302 by Peacebeuponme on February 20, 2008 at 8:31 am

Presumably the Duckworth-Lewis method.

Atheists 347-9 off 50 overs.
Theists are 74-5 off 21 overs before rain. Need 278 off remaining 24 overs to win (D-L).

A McGrath and F Collins at the crease.
To bat: R Williams, A S A H Khamenei, D Robertson.

Betting: Theists looking for divine intervention

1531. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130275 by Peacebeuponme on February 20, 2008 at 7:59 am

Well, of course it is! It was written by one person.

Your challenge of post #130180 is therefore totally unfounded.

Now where is that evidence?

1532. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130226 by Peacebeuponme on February 20, 2008 at 7:24 am

If you can't, then I consider myself equally justified to quote the wise words of Elrond - from Lord of the Rings - back at you with equal authority.
Please do. Let's see if they make any sense.

The Lord of the Rings is a much more coherent work of fiction than the Bible.

I'm going to have to ask for the third time. Are you going to provide evidence for your biblical claims mentioned earlier?

1533. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130167 by Peacebeuponme on February 20, 2008 at 6:43 am

You really are missing out on an awful lot.
Please elucidate.

For one thing you are missing out on proper understanding of evolution by putting your lot in with the bible. Read and understand The Blind Watchmaker, it really will broaden your horizons.

Will you provide evidence for the biblical statements you have made?

1534. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130157 by Peacebeuponme on February 20, 2008 at 6:35 am

They cannot see past what satisfies their bodies.

Inaccurate generalisation. I think it is more that you cannot see past the bible, which is such a shame. You really are missing out on an awful lot.

1535. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130152 by Peacebeuponme on February 20, 2008 at 6:29 am

The Bible is the foremost authority on evolution.

Every single evolutionary biologist working today may disagree with you there son.

Good-o for posting deliberately inflammatory rubbish. You are really moving the debate along.

1536. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130141 by Peacebeuponme on February 20, 2008 at 6:17 am

2 Corinthians 4:4

Fiction. Please provide evidence supporting your statement.

1537. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130135 by Peacebeuponme on February 20, 2008 at 6:13 am

Really? Shows what you know! I have been reading the bible since I was a child

I wonder if The Bishop is really as naive as to think all atheists here have not been anywhere near the bible?

1538. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130133 by Peacebeuponme on February 20, 2008 at 6:10 am

They will soar on wings like eagles;

Oh right. I've wondered why every single Christian in the world is having things just peachy, while the rest of us struggle to get by.

1539. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130131 by Peacebeuponme on February 20, 2008 at 6:08 am

I don't think you have the courage!

Please! You have an unusual definition of what it is to be courageous. Reading a fairly muddled work of fiction is does not seem courageous to me.

1540. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130062 by Peacebeuponme on February 20, 2008 at 2:07 am

Now try leaving them behind.

I don't get your point?

1541. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129817 by Peacebeuponme on February 19, 2008 at 3:45 pm

A non-hostile group of friends

I got those. Next.

1542. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #129810 by Peacebeuponme on February 19, 2008 at 3:38 pm

I seem to be unfamiliar with this game. Care to enlighten me?

Epeeist and Irate_Atheist seem to be well matched adversaries. Of course, under the revised special rules brought out since 2000, Epeeist has had the advantage of taking west London routes many moves earlier than classic players are comfortable with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mornington_Crescent_(game)

1543. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129804 by Peacebeuponme on February 19, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Programme about child preachers (under 10 as well) called "Baby Bible Bashers". Watching a small blond child preaching outside a bar as his father watches is actually pretty sad.

(Sorry, that was all off-topic.)

1544. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129799 by Peacebeuponme on February 19, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Steve - are you looking at Channel 4 right now?

1545. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129795 by Peacebeuponme on February 19, 2008 at 3:24 pm

KrisKing

I am mistrustful of cogent argument alone.

How else can we go about understanding the world and talking to each other? If its not cogent its unconvincing or irrelevant by definition?

1546. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129791 by Peacebeuponme on February 19, 2008 at 3:20 pm

If you ever feel like going through the Monty Hall problem with my by e-mail or PM,

Now that is something I'm going to have to do! But I'm now scared that you find it a problem when I don't! Too many glasses of wine tonight, but will have to take this up with you again.

1547. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129782 by Peacebeuponme on February 19, 2008 at 3:13 pm

when they are counter-intuitive (which most of them are
Interesting.

Yes, they certainly are. Even the well known mathematical problems such as the Monty Hall problem and the Boy Girl problem are truly interesting. I greatly enjoy taking an uninitiated person through those.

1548. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129775 by Peacebeuponme on February 19, 2008 at 3:04 pm

No offense to krisking, but I don't find his views that interesting,

What do you think he is here for though? For me, he will no more change his mind than Wooter. I agree that the views of, say, Pastor Phelps, are more interesting, because they are more unusual, but it is mildly interesting for me to consider Krisking's motive. Just posting smug rubbish (if he is doing the former as well as the latter) must get boring after a while.

At the very least the responses are being read by other theists, so its good that you provide cogent argrument even though it may not affect KK.

1549. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129769 by Peacebeuponme on February 19, 2008 at 2:58 pm

They will not attempt to solve the question of whether God exists

Dagnab it! Cos there's us thinking chucking £2m at the millennia old problem will solve it.

Though, for my money, the project couldn't proceed unless it assumed God did not exist?

1550. Fleabytes

Comment #129761 by Peacebeuponme on February 19, 2008 at 2:50 pm

I'll read the article soon. Paula's prose is something I enjoy reading. All I'll say for now (in the best of spirits) is that that's along way of writing "they're all full of shit".

I tried to read some theist apologist stuff a while back, but between McGrath, CS Lewis and Francis Collins, I'm not sure I can stomach any more obfuscation.