Comments by Quetzalcoatl

Comment #156016 by Quetzalcoatl on April 6, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Sdbranum-

For some reason I doubt you have any feeling of "woe", but hey, it's a big word, and it makes you look intelligent. Right?

Actually, it's a fairly small word. Count the letters.

I truly don't believe you would really be interested, but here's a test. Have you sent off a request to Lord Dawkins to enlighten you why he no longer debates such matters in a controlled public forum where more than his faithful are in the audience? No? Didn't think so. That your words stating you'd be "very interested" constitute a poorly concealed lie - q.e.d.

What a neat way to try and turn the question back on me.

How could I respond to such effective debate. My! You are certainly world class! There now. Is that better? Is your ego properly massaged now?

Not yet. Please keep going.

It must be nearly unbearable to have no friends other than those you "meet" on the Internet.

Sob sob. My secrets are revealed! I'm so desperately lonely.

1602. A Letter From Hell

Comment #155981 by Quetzalcoatl on April 6, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Steve-

where is this "hellmouth"?

If Buffy the Vampire Slayer has taught me anything, it's that Hellmouths are always found beneath the local high school.

1603. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #155970 by Quetzalcoatl on April 6, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Sdbranum-

firstly- it would be easier when you quote people you mention who you are quoting. That way people know who you're talking to.

Now, onto your post:

You seem not to understand that atheism is merely an absence of belief, it has no creed, rules or tenets. But I'll play along for now.

a notion of the transcendent or numinous

Nope, nothing like that.

a cultural or behavioural aspect of ritual, liturgy and organized worship, often involving a priesthood, and societal norms of morality

Again, no. No organised worship involved, your sarcastic comments aside.

According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions.

And again no. I do not define myself by my atheism. It is not who I am, a filter through which I view the world. It does not dictate my actions.

You beleive that strongly, do you?

I'm afraid this doesn't make your point. I don't believe it. I think it. The difference, Sdbranum, makes all the difference. Atheism and religion are not comparable.

1604. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155943 by Quetzalcoatl on April 6, 2008 at 11:34 am

Enlightenme..-

Am I going to enjoy it overall? (I've been told it get's a bit bogged-down in parts)

I would definitely recommend it. Admittedly, a couple of the stories are dull, but the rest are very interesting. I particularly liked the one set in the near future (you'll know the one I mean when you get to it).

1605. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #155942 by Quetzalcoatl on April 6, 2008 at 11:30 am

I see Sdbranum has returned to the site. What dizzying heights of intellectual sophistication has he attained since I have been gone?

And yet you needed eight. Plus a quote. Baaaaa

Sir, I doff my cap to you. Truly you are a modern-day Shakespeare.

I notice in addition that you have not responded to my comment 595, but I'm not surprised. I'm sure your time has been occupied with flicking through your copy of "Old MacDonald had a Farm" in search of your next witty retort.

1606. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155854 by Quetzalcoatl on April 6, 2008 at 4:54 am

Steve-

Peacebeuponme said that, not me.

EDIT- no probs.

1607. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #155852 by Quetzalcoatl on April 6, 2008 at 4:52 am

I've got to defend Brian here. His sock puppetry was harmless. The first one just took my avatar image, and was called Calcanei Puppa, which is roughly the Latin for sock-puppet. He pretended to be me, but only for a little bit, and not in an offensive way. The second was "Clairpenser" (Clearthinker)- a parody.

No harm, no foul as far as I'm concerned with Brian.

1608. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155850 by Quetzalcoatl on April 6, 2008 at 4:44 am

Steve-

Great minds think alike :) I was also thinking of a novel by Stephen Baxter: Evolution. In one of the stories within that book, he wrote about a race of small, intelligent dinosaurs with culture but wooden technology that would not be preserved.

1609. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #155849 by Quetzalcoatl on April 6, 2008 at 4:41 am

I noticed Steve's post, and I found one of Vulcan's points interesting:

My understanding of Logic is that you can not, for in order to KNOW that something doesn't exist anywhere or anywhen you would have to be everywhere and everywhen simultaniously which is one of the attributes of YHWH

I would respond by saying that according to Logic, for you to KNOW that YHWH exists everywhere and everywhen simultaneously, you would have to be everywhere and everywhen simultaneously AND be able to detect YHWH.

Vulcan, perhaps you can explain how you can prove that YHWH is everywhere and everywhen, taking into account what I have said above. I look forward to your response.

1610. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155846 by Quetzalcoatl on April 6, 2008 at 4:30 am

Steve-

There really has been nothing like us on this planet before

I agree with everything else you said, but I would qualify the last statement by saying "that we know of". It is possible, though unlikely, that in the distant past other intelligent species with primitive technology may have arisen, only to be wiped out. The fossil record gives us a lot, but in all likelihood entire species existed that never had a single corpse fossilised.

1611. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #155845 by Quetzalcoatl on April 6, 2008 at 4:26 am

Sdbranum-

Your comments demonstrate woeful misunderstanding which I must assume means that either you have not bothered to take the time to read around this site, or you have and you are choosing to misrepresent what you have seen here.

I must congratulate you on your originality, however. We've certainly never had a believer come onto this site before, accusing us of being sheep, followers of Dawkins, believers in a religion. This is something that I have never heard before. Oh, wait. I'm being sarcastic.

Accusations that we are followers of a religion fall down when you take two seconds to examine them. You are essentially claiming that we are fundamentalist believers in "No-God". All praise No-God. The idea is absurd. Atheism is an absence of belief.

These accusations that you make are more telling about your own mindset. You are so used to associating people who agree with each other with religion that you are unable to see anything else. This is why I think that you have not looked around the site. If you had, you would have encountered vehement debates on many threads. But why let the truth get in the way of your comforting presuppositions?

Oh, and I'd be very interested if you'd provide some links for these debates where "The Professor" debated people who "waxed his butt". Whatever that means.

1612. Beware the Believers

Comment #155671 by Quetzalcoatl on April 5, 2008 at 7:30 am

Karda-

and while I think of it, you never did clarify who you were referring to when you used the phrase "four and a half opponents".

1613. Beware the Believers

Comment #155669 by Quetzalcoatl on April 5, 2008 at 7:20 am

Karda-

I have moderated my feeling about abortion. Fertilization is not enough; the fetus must gain purchase in the womb

What about ectopic pregnancies?

1614. Beware the Believers

Comment #155646 by Quetzalcoatl on April 5, 2008 at 6:25 am

Kardashovel said-

I don't claim knowledge of when a human individual develops from an embryo

Yet he has also said that it immoral to have an abortion from the moment of conception, which implies that he thinks the human individual is there from the beginning.

1615. Beware the Believers

Comment #155474 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Karda-

but our morals are intertwined with our ethics, so there isn't a significant divergence.

1616. Beware the Believers

Comment #155472 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Teapot-

I don't agree with it, but you're entitled to your view.

Karda-

If that's what she said about men, what did she say about women?

1617. Beware the Believers

Comment #155467 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 2:18 pm

Kardashovel-

There is no form of birth control that is 100% effective, assuming vaginal intercourse. So, people need to consider what they will do if they roll snake eyes.

It still doesn't make it immoral for couples to decide that they are not ready to have children. And the risk of pregnancy should not have to be a barrier to a couple having sex.

What if neither of the couple want kids at all?

1618. Beware the Believers

Comment #155466 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 2:15 pm

Kardashovel-

If they are married, they have that much less reason to consider abortion, since they are in a committed relationship that would hopefully provide the baby with the resources and capabilities of two loving parents...

Nice idea in theory, doesn't always work that way in practice.

1619. Beware the Believers

Comment #155461 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Teapot-

by definition taking the morning after pill is intended to prevent pregnancy. If the woman knew that conception had not happened, why would she take it? This means that you must be uncomfortable with the idea of the Pill being taken at all.

1620. Beware the Believers

Comment #155448 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Anna-

On the other hand, if you tell your wife that she should abort a particular fetus because a kid would screw up some career plans, then... yes, I would say that would be immoral behavior

This comment suggests that he thinks it is immoral to TELL your wife to have an abortion.

1621. Beware the Believers

Comment #155446 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Karda-

But in most circumstances that I can imagine, I would say that it was then immoral for the couple to have sexual intercourse and put themselves in the situation of having to make such an unpleasant choice

And if they use protection, to prevent such a possibility? What if the couple are married?

1622. Beware the Believers

Comment #155444 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 1:51 pm

Steve-

I read your blog post about it.

Teapot-

if the pill is not okay if you are aware of a conception, is it okay if you do not know or think that it is possible that there is a conception?

1623. Beware the Believers

Comment #155436 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Steve-

comment by Karda 155364-

My opinion is that it is immoral from the day of conception, but that the degree of immorality increases as the fetus develops. By the time that there is a functioning nervous system, it reaches the point of drastic cruelty and should only be undertaken if the alternative of carrying on with the pregnancy is even more dire.

Doesn't say precisely when. Straight away? The assessment of immorality seems to be based solely on what the cell might one day become.

1624. Beware the Believers

Comment #155429 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Karda-

lets clear this up. Who did you mean by "half an opponent?"

1625. Beware the Believers

Comment #155427 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Karda-

I thought we were just talking situational ethics about human rights and when they are endowed

Then let's talk.

1626. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155418 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 1:06 pm

SG-

I'd be far happier if all Christians didn't REALLY believe in the Devil and Hell. People who really believe in the Devil, who see him at work every day, they're the ones who worry me.

1627. Beware the Believers

Comment #155410 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 12:51 pm

Karda-

On the other hand, if you tell your wife that she should abort a particular fetus because a kid would screw up some career plans, then... yes, I would say that would be immoral behavior

Why? Because you find the reason to be immoral? Many people make the decision to not have children because its not the right time in their lives. There's nothing wrong with that.

The second part of your comment contradicts the first. On the one hand you say that it is not unethical to want your wife to have an abortion. On the other, you then say that it is IMMORAL to want your wife to have an abortion because a child would ruin career plans.

So which is it? Are there certain reasons for abortion that are immoral, while others are not? How can you differentiate?

1628. Beware the Believers

Comment #155403 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Karda-

Are you and annabanana the moderators here?

Well, I'm sure we could be persuaded if there were a decent salary involved.

I mentioned it because by saying "four and a half" opponents, it is obvious that you are belittling one of the posters. I don't like that.

1629. Beware the Believers

Comment #155396 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Karda-

Men who would insist on their partner getting an abortion would be as ethically culpable as their partner, and more-so if they argue against her wishes to keep the baby. What now?

Are you saying that men are immoral if they believe that a woman should not keep their baby? Ultimately it's the woman's choice, nobody disputes that. But surely you cannot be claiming that it is immoral for the man to want the woman to abort the baby, in other words to have an opinion? That is what you seem to be suggesting in the second part of the quote.

MaxD-

perhaps he is intimidated by boxers :)

1630. Beware the Believers

Comment #155390 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Kardashovel-

Indeed. Nice trick to secure your place in the queue

I can't tell whether you think I was being underhanded in some way. I posted the comment, and almost immediately thought that one sentence was insufficient. So I clarified it. The revised post was done within a few minutes. There was no deception intended.

And what's this about "four and a half" opponents? There are either four, or five. Nobody on this forum is worth less than anyone else.

1631. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155341 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 10:57 am

al-rawandi-

you might well be right. But I'm still going to try, at least until I get too frustrated.

Scottish Geologist-

But seriously, I remember when Quetz reported on seeing David Robertson in Bedford, that apparently Robertson would not be drawn on whether Dawkins was "of the Devil" or whatever.
Quetz, can you fill in here some detail?

Okay, I've found my notes.

The Devil came up in a question from one of the audience, who asked whether RD's book was Satan's propaganda (he said this in all seriousness, which was the most unnerving thing about it).

DR shot this down. He said that it was a mistake to equate Dawkins with the Devil, or to think that TGD was directly influenced by the Devil.

However. It's clear that Robertson believes the Devil exists. He referenced Adam and Eve in Eden, then stated that anything not of Christ is of sin, so presumably, by extension, is of the Devil. The Devil was directly behind the crucifixion of Jesus. He may not have been directly influenced by the Devil, but RD made a big mistake in writing TGD.

So, in summary, he thinks the Devil is real and is at work in the world. It could be argued that he thinks the Devil had an influence on Dawkins, but only in the sense that he has an influence on everyone.

I sure DR will clarify if I've gone wrong somewhere, but I think that's accurate.

1632. Beware the Believers

Comment #155332 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 10:41 am

Steve-

if it's of any consolation, I'm sure you're just as immoral as Cartomancer and myself.

1633. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155326 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 10:29 am

Dr Benway-

I'm going to try bold text.

Artful_Dodger-

Jesus, as reflected in the gospels, could not have been invented

This seems a remarkably unimaginative comment. What specifically, about Jesus could not have been invented? The Golden Rule, ascension to heaven, virgin birth, performance of miracles and family relationships with God are hardly concepts original to Christianity. Please provide more detail.

Scottish Geologist-

I'll dig out my notes, and get back to you.

1634. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155219 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 8:40 am

Re Pascal's Wager-

I think it was in one of the Discworld books that there was a character who used a variant of Pascal's wager during his life. When he died, he woke up in the afterlife surrounded by a circle of various gods all armed with weapons. Then one of them (Blind Io, I think) said: "We'll show you what we think of Mr Clever Dick around these parts..."

EDIT- It was Hogfather.

1635. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155213 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 8:36 am

Artful_Dodger-

But not all knowledge, like it or not, is in fact contained within the realm that is scientifically observable

Ah, excellent. So how can we know anything about it? And how about some examples?

1636. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155208 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 8:29 am

Artful-

grew out of (but did not outgrow)

Don't they mean the same as each other? By definition if you outGROW something then you grow OUT of it.

This is just wordplay that says nothing.

1637. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155188 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 8:18 am

Artful-

Pascal's Wager. What an excellent argument. Certainly not one that could be described as terrible. Nor one that raises questions like "which God would that be, exactly?"

So, all finished on the Pastor thread, are you?

1638. Beware the Believers

Comment #155172 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 8:06 am

Kardashovel-

LOL. You seem to really believe you are a god.

Try qualifying your statement with an explanation of why it is not relevant

I edited my original comment almost straight after I posted it. You probably missed that.

You yourself are a collection of cells. Just because something is a collection of cells is not the issue.

No, it's not the issue. The issue is the classifications we apply, and what we base these on.

1639. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155144 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 7:45 am

Artful_Dodger-

don't rant, it's unbecoming. If Lennox's lecture ends up on this site, I might well listen to it. I don't know, since it's six months away and I'll probably forget otherwise.

There are unanswered questions on the Pastor thread.

1640. Beware the Believers

Comment #155134 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 7:37 am

Kardashovel-

Yes... do you also think that a 35 week fetus is just a collection of alien cells, Cartomancer?

That point is irrelevant to the specifics of what is being discussed.

By which I mean that Cartomancer said-

The only difference is what it may one day become

And the discussion is currently on the point at which it could be said that an individual has been created.

1641. Whale 'missing link' discovered

Comment #155076 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 6:18 am

Aragorn, son of Arathorn-

Why would you feel so happy if the
theory of abiogenesis and evolution is proved to be correct?

Just to nit-pick. Abiogenesis and evolution are two separate theories. You shouldn't group them together.

It means that humanity and all we see around us have no special meaning.You,myself, are only well organized molecules and atoms."We are not a beautiful snowflake".We are a byproduct of
chance and natural selection.

There's nothing wrong with that. I will say what I always say: just because we are not the creations of a God, doesn't mean our lives are devoid of meaning. It's just that the meaning comes from ourselves, and from each other.

I may very well kill you,
or treat you unjust.It's no big deal.We are not
much different than garbage.

Of course it's a big deal, don't be daft. Is it then your opinion that humans are garbage without God?

This is a fairly common response from anti-evolutionists. Why should our lives be worth anything if we are just accretions of cells, without any purpose or plan to our existence?

Why should our lives NOT be worth anything?

What do you worry so much about your life,your
career,your girlfriend,your family,your income?
You just try to make the best out of life?

Exactly. I worry about these things because they matter to me. I am trying, as are we all, to make the best out of the time I have. The fact that I am an evolved being does not diminish that in any way. In fact, I would say that it enhances it.

Without a God to intervene, it is up to us to make things happen for ourselves. God does not write my books for me. I do. And they matter more because of that.

All we can do is live our lives as best we can. No God required.

1642. Protests no concern for outspoken atheist

Comment #155034 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 4:59 am

Paula-

glad you enjoyed it. I'll definitely watch the video when it's available.

1643. Whale 'missing link' discovered

Comment #155028 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 4:54 am

Steve-

On reading this I had an image of tiny sperm whales flopping around in forests attempting to catch rabbits

Just imagine taking a walk in the woods, being able to hear the sperm whales calling to each other from their burrows. It would be beautiful.

1644. Whale 'missing link' discovered

Comment #155008 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 4:21 am

Aragorn2007-

I just find that you are ready
to accept anything science will tell you.

No I'm not. What do you base that on? It's rare that you'll find someone on this site who blindly accepts things without questioning.

You have so
much faith in evolution but at the same moment
you still try to come up with an abiogenesis
explanation

What's your point? Abiogenesis is the theory of how life got started. Evolution is the theory of what happened ONCE life got started. The one does not invalidate the other.

And I don't have "faith" in evolution. I think it is correct based on the overwhelming mountain of evidence in favour of it.

Scientists can hardly predict next
week's weather.But they feel so confident when
they talk about what happened 35,000,000 years
ago.

Different things entirely.

Should scientists be a little more cautious
and humble or is it just me?

It's just you. Science is cautious by default. Extensive testing and retesting is undertaken continuously before something can become a new theory.

1645. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154976 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 3:22 am

Artful_Dodger-

You don't read poetry literally

Of course not, but that still raises the question of how you decide what is and isn't poetry. In addition, something that is not intended to be literal does not have to be phrased in the form of poetry. How, therefore, do you assess those?

and Biblical history is as verifiable/falsifiable as any other history.

Indeed, so we can immediately write off a lot of it. Exodus, for example.

The presence of the supernatural in a historical account is only a problem if you proceed from an a priori assumption that the supernatural does not exist, and that there is nothing that transcends the physical universe

No, it's a problem if there is no evidence for it. If there is something that transcends the physical universe, for us to even know about it would mean that there would have to be some point of testable contact. If a transcendent deity is claimed to interact, then those interactions are also testable. The problem for the believer is when claimed interactions are found not to be so.

Once you admit the possibility that there exists that which is not susceptible to empirical, scientific investigation then in principle you cannot rule out the possibility of this Transcendent Entity, supposing her/him/it to be intelligent, intervening in the natural world when (s)he/it so chooses

In principle, God cannot be ruled out. But the basis for claims about God can be tested. And as I said, if God interacts in the physical world, then those physical interactions can be investigated.

I have argued elsewhere that the cardinal difficulty for materialists is that "the idea", concepts, thoughts, memories etc. can be shown to exist independently of "the matter" (the brain) that supports them

Thoughts and memories exist independently of the brain? What is your evidence for this? We can map the areas of the brain that activate under certain stimuli, including thoughts. Damage to the brain can rob someone of their memory permanently. If there was some independent existence for thought and memory, you would not expect brain damage to have such an effect.

1646. Protests no concern for outspoken atheist

Comment #154963 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 3:10 am

Steve-

I'll qualify my statement. He made it clear that he's not a YEC. He could believe that humanity was specially created. He did mention Adam & Eve in his talk, but never elaborated. I think he was honest about not being a YEC.

1647. Protests no concern for outspoken atheist

Comment #154955 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 3:04 am

I hope there is going to be a fuller summary of the event than this.

Anyway-

Derick Gillies, of the Free Church of Scotland, said there was an unbalanced debate between those believing in creationism and those believing in evolution

Yes there is. It's due to the overwhelming mountain of evidence against creationism. All we need is some creationist evidence to make the debate more balanced.

EDIT- Robertson isn't a creationist, his Bedford talk made that clear. Some in FCOS are, however.

1648. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #154941 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 2:52 am

On a separate note, has it been mentioned anywhere why this guy didn't go into the caves with his followers? I've looked, but I can't find an explanation.

1649. Whale 'missing link' discovered

Comment #154937 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 2:30 am

Aragorn2007-

Where is your common sense?
Does THIS really look like a WHALE to you?!

Forgive me if I've misunderstood, but is that the extent of your argument? It doesn't LOOK like a whale, so therefore they cannot be related?

1650. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154922 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 1:30 am

Peter_on_Sax-

that and the extreme differences in both quality of argument and writing ability. But mainly the 10p, I'm sure.

Scottishgeologist-

started listening to that last night. Got bored about 4 minutes in and gave up.