Comments by epeeist

Comment #134527 by epeeist on February 28, 2008 at 12:05 am

Comment #134522 by irate_atheist

As opposed to "savage breast people", one presumes...

I suspect a lot of Italian blokes are feeling a bit savage at the moment - http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/simon_hattenstone/2008/02/nether_let_it_be_said.html

1602. Fleabytes

Comment #134518 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 11:45 pm

Comment #134330 by ianmkz

Thomas Aquinas felt "The blessed in the kingdom of heaven will see the punishments of the damned, in order that their bliss be more delightful for them.

While MPhil and Cartomancer are about - didn't Aquinas also believe it would be impossible for god to make a triangle whose internal angles didn't add up to 180^o?

This would presumably make Gauss, Riemann, Lobachevsky and Bolyai greater than god.

1603. Evolving Mistakes

Comment #134260 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Just fixing your underline problem

1604. My Argument With God

Comment #134192 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 11:32 am

Comment #134165 by Blue_Manue

Does anybody know more about these statistics? How trustworthy are these polls?

They are from a Federal Bureau of Prison survey. More details on http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

You have to be somewhat careful - just because someone registers an affiliation does not mean they are necessarily practicing. There are also arguments by theists on this front. Having said that of course, you can apply the same argument to any other type of survey or census. You can't have it both ways.

1605. Fleabytes

Comment #134175 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 11:04 am

Comment #134159 by Brian English

Do they actually believe that the host is the transubstantiated body of Christ though?

It's required that to be a catholic, you believe this dogma.

But if you are a member of the Free Church...

1606. Fleabytes

Comment #134141 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 10:13 am

Comment #134129 by PMurdock

Just throwing this out, because, as was mentioned earlier, I'm new to this site. Why not have a debate in which Prof. Dawkins dresses down McGrath or Robertson and has it done?

Cui bono?

1607. Fleabytes

Comment #134096 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 8:36 am

Comment #134090 by NMcC

Blimey, is that not a wee tadge paranoid? I think that tendency has to be guarded against.

Did you participate in the "Irrational Atheist" thread? When Vox Day was urging his minions to come over and tell us what a wonderful book it was and how none of us would be able to defend against its irrefutable logic?

OK, I may have it wrong but it smells very much the same.

1608. Fleabytes

Comment #134086 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 8:22 am

Comment #134084 by PMurdock

You should just debate this guy ultra-publicly and put him in his place.

Welcome PMurdock - I see you just joined today. Did you join to make that particular comment? All by yourself, or did someone ask you to do it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing

1609. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #134079 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 7:59 am

Comment #134046 by Dr Benway

So the breast wranglers say, anyway.

Well if anyone should know it is somebody from the University of Cambridge.

I didn't realise this particular topic was part of the tripos though.

1610. Fleabytes

Comment #134064 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 7:29 am

Comment #134050 by Tyler Durden

That's the only post from "mlearnedfriend" on this site. Coincidence? I think not! How stupid does he think we are?

Clearthinker registered on Nov. 8th last year, last visit to the forums on Feb 21st at 9:42

mlearnedfriend, registered on the 21st February at 17:15. One post on the forum on the 26th and a couple of posts here.

I think we ought to take another possibility into account - namely we are being "vox day'd". Not sure whether we can expect a FCoS blowjob though.

1611. Fleabytes

Comment #134061 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 7:24 am

Comment #134052 by Quetzalcoatl

I don't know. My aunt's Moravian church has Communion, and so does the Pentecostal church I used to got to. Not sure if that's the same thing as the Catholics or not.

Do they actually believe that the host is the transubstantiated body of Christ though?

1612. Fleabytes

Comment #134048 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 7:04 am

Comment #134045 by Quetzalcoatl

Of course, we could just go to mass and steal one of the communion wafers from a priest's hand. They're the Body Of Christ, after all.

Isn't that a bit, you know, Catholic? That isn't really Christianity is it...

1613. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #134034 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 6:47 am

Comment #134011 by wooter

I am not even going to quote any of the dross you have posted. I will just refer you to my post above.

There is a difference between ignorant, stupid and delusional. Ignorance means you are unaware of certain information. Stupid is when you are incapable of assimilating information. Delusional is when you are aware of information but refuse to acknowledge it.

You have been given lots of information here, your points have been answered (politely in the majority of cases). Yet you come back and post exactly the same material (almost word for word in many cases) as though you had never read the answers, or have read the answers and chosen to ignore them.

Now when you first came to this site people struggled to help because English was obviously not your first language. We even asked you what your first language was so that we might be able to find or post information in that language. You refused to tell us what that language was, just as you have refused to answer any other questions that have been put to you.

So here is a final question to you. I hope you are able to answer it.

Why should we respond to someone who acts in the way I have detailed above??

1614. Fleabytes

Comment #134012 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 6:26 am

Comment #133992 by Steve Zara

The entire universe. 90 billion light years wide (at least). Hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with typically hundreds of billions of stars. Close to 14 billion years old. Someone can believe that all of that, was for one man. In the Middle East. Two thousand or so years go. Why? Because it is written in a book. A book full of mistakes. A book that we supposedly have to keep re-interpreting to avoid the bits that have become wrong.

Pale Blue Dot Steve

In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed"? Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way."

1615. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #133968 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 5:14 am

Comment #133966 by Peacebeuponme

Shmeezers

No proof. No proof in the lab

Err...have you read anything about DNA?

Read? Read? Are we now expecting people to have actually gone away and read something about a topic before commenting upon it?

Oh, we are. As you were then...

1616. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #133967 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 5:11 am

Comment #133910 by The Reverend Dark

Cretin, as I recall, derives from Christian. I stand by my usage.

The etymology of the word is not agreed on, and there are several possible explanations; including yours.

Surely we can agree a compromise. The word obviously derives from the French writer Chretien de Troyes, thereby combining both possibilities.

1617. Fleabytes

Comment #133945 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 3:41 am

Comment #133925 by BillySands

I dont see what is good about the christian message on condoms in Africa, or threatening folk with hell - like has happened to someone I know in Robertson's Church.

Billy - Robertson has done the usual "not my god" bit on the Phelps, which is commendable.

Where would you put the FCoS in terms of its beliefs in comparison to say Pat Robertson, the Paisleys, Alistair McGrath and Bishop Spong?

1618. Fleabytes

Comment #133938 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 3:28 am

Comment #133935 by Paula Kirby

What I laugh at is the futility of it, the transparency of it, the ignorance of it.

I find his comments a bit like Lewis Carroll's description of the different branches of arithmetic - "Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision."

1619. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #133927 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 3:14 am

Comment #133913 by Steve Zara

Steve - may I pick a small nit with you.

Is there any chance of you making a back reference to the OP when you make a quote. Otherwise it can be a little difficult to follow the context.

1620. Fleabytes

Comment #133918 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 3:03 am

Comment #133914 by Quetzalcoatl

Now, who would like to join me in a game of "Spot the Glaring Differences?"

I should have done what you did, namely cut and paste Lorien's actual post.

Got to agree with both Steve and RD. Robertson only comes here to provoke. Glad to see that fewer people are rising to the bait.

You will note that even though he has responded to one of my comments he has yet to define what our tenets and creeds are.

1621. Fleabytes

Comment #133897 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 2:26 am

Comment #133893 by clearthinker

Eppeist (1050) - I was responding to the claim that " all of the scienctific and philosophical pursuits of the greatest minds in history" were on the side of atheism." (Lorien 936). Something that is demonstrably false.

Well if he had actually said this then it would be false. I will leave it to other readers to go back and look at the comment and see what he actually said.

1622. Fleabytes

Comment #133881 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 2:08 am

Comment #133860 by clearthinker

Are you suggesting that Newton, Augustine, Calvin, Edwards, Galileo, Plato, Jesus, Paul, Aquinas, Milton, etc were all atheists?

No, but just because the majority of people in times past believed in something doesn't make it true. How many believers in Tir na nOg now exists, or phlostigon?

1623. Fleabytes

Comment #133874 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 1:57 am

Comment #133860 by clearthinker

But in the surreal world of atheist fundamentalism that is apparently not how it works.

In the real world of discourse one doesn't use the mechanisms of quarrel dialogue.

So, since we are atheist fundamentalists on this site - what are our dogmas, tenets and creeds. You have still to answer this.

1624. Fleabytes

Comment #133681 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Comment #133579 by Paula Kirby

Wasn't the Second Coming due by now? Are you thinking what I'm thinking ...?

I thought that was 2012, the end of the Mayan calendar?

1625. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133679 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Comment #133648 by Goldy

My martial arts instructor is a fairly short guy, probably only a few inches above Anna's height. He could without question beat the crap out of the biggest and heaviest guy in our class

Ok, two more things then I'm off to bed.

There was one guy I used to hate when I was fencing competitively, he was 7' 2" tall. Which meant that everything was target, since he could see above your guard. The only way to beat him was to flèche at his knees (a move I have been teaching a lot tonight, which is why I am going to bed early).

The second is the motto of the European veterans association "Age and treachery will always defeat youth and skill".

Oh, and sabreurs are faster than sprinters over a short distance.

1626. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133672 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Comment #133559 by The Reverend Dark

Whoever said size does not matter in a fight was a big guy. And he was lying.

There is a wonderful coach called Zbigniew Czajkowski. He divides fencers into two extreme classes, warriors and technicians. The warriors win by speed and strength but tend not to be particularly skilful. However, they don't last particularly well. The technicians tend to see through them fairly quickly and like McCavity they are never there when the warriors make an attack. Technicians go on for ever.

Czajkowski was in the UK last year. Came to the podium to start his talk using a Zimmerframe. He also has a heart pacemaker. He is 86. He gave a demonstration on the use of timing just standing still. Nobody could hit him and when he turned the action around nobody could stop his attacks.

1627. Fleabytes

Comment #133531 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 9:58 am

Comment #133520 by Frankus1122

I was at a conference yesterday talking about what is crucial for students to learn in school.
Information is ubiquitous and it is increasingly easy to access it.
Critical thinking skills are most important. Detecting bias, authenticating sources, looking for internal consistency - these are skills that need to be taught and fostered.
Students need to question the validity of the information they access.

Hmm, you might like these lines from another poem then:

"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"

1628. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #133527 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 9:48 am

Comment #133521 by Epinephrine

Isn't that just Russell's paradox?

I like Hofstadter too. However most people only seem to have read "Godel, Escher, Bach". I enjoyed "Le Ton beau de Marot: In Praise of the Music of Language".

1629. Pakistan blocks YouTube over blasphemous video

Comment #133491 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 8:37 am

It seems as though it isn't just the Pakistanis that are keen on shutting down technology - http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080225-taliban-wants-cell-phone-networks-shut-down-at-night.html

1630. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #133471 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 8:14 am

OK smartarses - but I want to know whether the set of all sets which do not contain themselves contains itself.

1631. Pakistan blocks YouTube over blasphemous video

Comment #133462 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 8:05 am

Comment #133459 by al-rawandi

How did England even acquire those territories? It wasn't exactly a hop skip and a jump from the home Isle.

Make that Britain rather than England.

Probably the same way the Spaniards and Portuguese acquired most of South America.

The fight really wasn't about some rather small islands though.

1632. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #133440 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 7:34 am

Comment #132783 by wooter

If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn't God need a cause? And if God doesn't need a cause, why should the universe need a cause? In reply, Christians should use the following reasoning:
1.Everything which has a beginning has a cause.1
2.The universe has a beginning.
3.Therefore the universe has a cause.

You really ought to try this one wooter:

The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one who created everything while not existing.
Therefore, God does not exist.

A master logician like yourself should be able to spot the flaws in it.

Please submit your answer in the format of first order predicate calculus.

1633. Pakistan blocks YouTube over blasphemous video

Comment #133435 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 7:27 am

Comment #133434 by AshtonBlack

You forgot the Velcro(tm) gloves!!

Nah, the lanolin is good for your hands.

1634. Pakistan blocks YouTube over blasphemous video

Comment #133432 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 7:24 am

Comment #133406 by hungarianelephant

The right to speak a language with no vowels (although no one was preventing you from doing so in the first place), invent place names, have an expensive talking shop in Cardiff paid for by the English taxpayer, and be able to discriminate against anyone who can hold a conversation without spitting.

Many years ago I did my Ph.D in North Wales. I had difficulty finding accommodation because certain halls were only open to Welsh speakers. The fact that these were only one third full, while the "mixed" halls were overflowing made no difference.

While I was there the Welsh Nationalists managed to get the university to agree to make all labels bilingual. When they came round to where I was working and asked what it was called I told them it was the microwave spectroscopy laboratory. My lab and most other research labs remained with their monolingual labels.

I had a couple of good fights while I was there. The first happened when I pointed out to a nationalist that there was little difference in size between Yorkshire and Wales, and since the former had as much water, coal and steel as the latter then his economic plan might be a little lacking.

The second happened when I was sitting in a pub on the Island (Anglesey) with a friend of mine. At one point he got up, wandered across to the bar and decked a guy. Came back and sat down again. Nothing was said. His accent might have been Surrey, but his surname was Llewellyn.

I left when I finished my degree. The only time I have been back was to catch the ferry to Ireland from Holyhead. The only improvement that I could see was that you can now go into a pub for a drink on Sunday.

1635. Pakistan blocks YouTube over blasphemous video

Comment #133401 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 6:52 am

Comment #133394 by al-rawandi

I am a Welsh Nationalist.

What do I win?

A sheep and a pair of oversized wellington boots.

1636. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133397 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 6:50 am

Comment #133373 by Quetzalcoatl

if they're from Arkansas, why not ask them their opinion on the Clintons?

Boyfriend was at the same university as Bill and has worked as an intern for the Democrats.

I think the parents are a mixture, father is liberal mother is religious and conservative.

1637. Pakistan blocks YouTube over blasphemous video

Comment #133392 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 6:45 am

Comment #133361 by AshtonBlack

Dude, we Brits ARE Europeans. I mean, there is a small minority of peeps who would like to "up anchor" and float the HMS "Great Britain" to the other side of the pond, but alas we are still part of the continent of Europe.

There are some people whose mindset is set in home counties of the 1950's who would like that small part of England to be divorced from the rest of the UK, never mind Europe. This would generate a paradise with warm beer, village cricket, the church clock standing at half past three with honey sandwiches for tea.

1638. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133353 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 5:43 am

Comment #133352 by annabanana

Of course, I live in the Bible Belt of the US right now

Hi Anna, the parents of my daughter's boyfriend are coming to visit us shortly. They hail from Arkansas. Could you suggest some good topics of conversation ;-)

Nice picture by the way.

1639. Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning

Comment #133335 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 4:52 am

Just listening to Melvyn Bragg's "In Our Time" from last week (Podcast available from the http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/ website). The topic is the Multiverse. Good introductory piece.

Also came across Celestia - http://www.shatters.net/celestia/ Quite impressive.

1640. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #133316 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 4:01 am

Comment #133312 by Quetzalcoatl

Pah, karate. What about Tae Kwon Do?

Nothing in the paper about it. Though watching a couple of videos, I think against a sabreur with a sharp blade they would probably lose feet.

1641. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #133307 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 3:48 am

Comment #133277 by LuisGarcia

If so, read this.

clickety click

Which falls flat on its face. The author(s) can't tell the difference betwee a valid and a sound argument.

1642. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #133305 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 3:43 am

Comment #133302 by The Reverend Dark

(And no, I am not going to get into 'The Ultimate Battle of Ultimate Destiny' with Epeeist.)

Agreed, too much difference in both styles and aims.

You might care to have a look at this though - http://www.esgrima.cat/barcelona2008/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40&Itemid=46

These are the abstracts from the 1st conference on science and technology in fencing which took place in Barcelona recently. I was one of the participants. It is mostly about sports fencing, but there are one or two papers on the history of fencing and duelling as well as knife fighting that might interest you. The physiological aspects should be applicable as well.

For the martial artists - there is an interesting paper showing that fencers have better reaction times and can identify situations significantly better than karate practitioners.

1643. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #133301 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 3:33 am

Comment #133295 by The Reverend Dark

The link to the theobald paper that epeeist posted is another great place to start.

But if you come back in the next day and tell us you have read it then, in the inimitable words of irate_atheist, we will know you are a lying fucktard.

1644. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #133293 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 3:16 am

Comment #133287 by wooter

1. How does E.T explain luck and coincidence or chances that have no consciousness is able to design and create intelligible, conscious creation, human being who can hear, see, feel. Sad or happy?

Wooter - once and for all

Mutations are random; Selection is non-random. This means that overall evolution is not random.

Just because things look designed doesn't prove they are

Even if they were designed you have yet to prove that:
- They were designed by a god
- That this god is still interfering in the world
- That this god is the one you believe in

Incidentally - we have answered all of your questions. How about answering one of mine, what do you think of the scientific credentials of the people who wrote this paper - http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/article.asp?doi=f29757101091

1645. Pakistan blocks YouTube over blasphemous video

Comment #133242 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 1:04 am

Comment #133218 by sent2nullThe funny thing about site "blocking" to IT geeks like myself is that it is rarely ever done properly.
So the truism holds - the Internet sees any attempt to block it as damage and routes around it.

1646. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #133236 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 12:31 am

Comment #133166 by Shmeezers

How so? Please tell me. Has anyone ever been able to witness new material being added to the genome - i.e., the process of macro-evolution?

And you get the obligatory link to the Theobald paper - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

1647. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #132873 by epeeist on February 25, 2008 at 10:53 am

Comment #132869 by Shmeezers

The fact that these essays are not published in popular science reviews says nothing. I wouldn't expect evolutionists to publish something that puts their theory into question. This observation is rather elementary. Please understand that Darwinism is a religion, and it does not tolerate any dissent. (This blog demonstrates that quite clearly.)

They aren't published in anything that has any thing to do with science, never mind popular science reviews. Why? Because they aren't science.

As for your conspiracy theory - it is a nonsense. Think of all the scientists you know, all the famous ones. Why are they famous? Because they disproved the then accepted theories. Come up with a new theory (and I mean theory, not some off hand conjecture) that disproves the theory of evolution and you are looking at a Nobel prize. The journal that publishes your work will bask in the reflected glory.

And I would change your sentence "This observation is rather elementary." to "This assertion is simplistic and has no backing".

1648. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #132835 by epeeist on February 25, 2008 at 9:09 am

Comment #132831 by The Reverend Dark

Where is your scientific proof of your claim that Beelzebuffo Ampinga is the same as modern frogs?

A frog he would a wootering go, hey ho said Rowley...

Sorry, couldn't resist it. One that I used to sing to my kids when they were about five. Of course they could tell the difference between the frogs we got in our pond and the ones in Chester zoo by that age.

1649. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132712 by epeeist on February 25, 2008 at 6:43 am

Comment #132704 by Geoff

Rather than constantly asking them for evidence for their deity, which the above seems to show is futile, (and which we've seen so often just leads to "la, la, la, I can't hear you") would it be more effective, say, to put more emphasis on first pointing out the fallacies and inconsistencies of their "truth"?

I don't think so - as I have said before if the evidence shows a scientific theory is wrong then we discard the theory. If the evidence shows that faith is wrong then the evidence is discarded.

I think the way to do it is to only work on their beliefs, we are aiming to show theism is false not that atheism is true.

This being so then we ought to be looking at the consequences of faith and showing that these are not fulfilled.

1650. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #132705 by epeeist on February 25, 2008 at 6:34 am

Comment #132548 by The Reverend Dark

Here you go, kicking Milton in the nards concerning his fabricated claims on uranium 238
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

You beat me to it.

The thing that these people don't seem to have a clue about is consilience. If there was a single way of dating things then they might have a point, but there are multiple methods of dating all of which agree with each other.

Similarly for shorter range dating using Carbon dating, dendrochronology, ice cores, varves etc.