Comments by Quetzalcoatl

Comment #156609 by Quetzalcoatl on April 8, 2008 at 3:27 am

Brother John-

nice to see you back on the site. Hope you'll be sticking around.

1652. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #156607 by Quetzalcoatl on April 8, 2008 at 2:59 am

One ball left.

Robertson is is up to bat. He faces the steely gaze of the bowler unperturbed. The bowler runs forward..... Robertson is out for a duck! He didn't even attempt to engage with the ball, just threw himself flat. The crowd goes wild.

1653. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156420 by Quetzalcoatl on April 7, 2008 at 2:00 pm

It's not often that I say nice things about the UK political parties, but you would never get MPs in our country standing up and saying crap like this in public. If they did, they would probably be forced out by their own party.

In America people seem to think that you have to respect religion, and people without it are subversive, that they lack something. It's very sad.

1654. Two More Fleas

Comment #156300 by Quetzalcoatl on April 7, 2008 at 9:26 am

The Reverend Dark-

I TOLD you not to speak his name, but you just wouldn't listen, would you? Now he has returned on the "Expelled Overview" thread.

I hope you're happy.

1655. Fleabytes

Comment #156297 by Quetzalcoatl on April 7, 2008 at 9:18 am

MaxD-

I think it changed. But I'm not inclined to search through his posts to find out, so it's just a guess!

1656. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156262 by Quetzalcoatl on April 7, 2008 at 7:51 am

Rod-the-farmer-

I noticed that as well, but I think it's just bad phrasing on the newspaper's part. You are right, though.

1657. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156256 by Quetzalcoatl on April 7, 2008 at 7:44 am

RobDinsmore-

depends what their age is. If they're young enough, they'll go home and ask their parents, then their parents will cry "Offense!"

1658. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156243 by Quetzalcoatl on April 7, 2008 at 7:10 am

Black Wolf-

but the first part of Vadjong's statement is still accurate. Telling believers that certain ideas are unchristian is an effective method of control. The problem is getting politicians to believe that opposing creationism and religious oppression (ie treatment of women in Islamic countries) is not a bad thing. Perhaps if it were made clear to them that a large number of moderates would probably support them, they might be prompted into doing something.

1659. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156236 by Quetzalcoatl on April 7, 2008 at 6:39 am

MedMonkey-

I think consciousness raising has a lot to do with it. We're far more aware of creationist influence now than we were before.

1660. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156225 by Quetzalcoatl on April 7, 2008 at 6:21 am

HoyaSaxa87-

apparently, Australia is supposed to be a Catholic country.

At the risk of sounding like a blind follower, I agree with what RD has said. There are a few creationists espousing their agenda in the UK, particularly a guy named Vardy, who made his money selling used cars(!) He's funded or is funding creationist "educational" ideas.

Emmanuel College is his handiwork:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/mar/17/schools.religion

1661. Two More Fleas

Comment #156219 by Quetzalcoatl on April 7, 2008 at 6:10 am

The Reverend Dark-

do not speak the creature's name, or it will return with new inanity.

1662. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #156205 by Quetzalcoatl on April 7, 2008 at 5:25 am

Bunnyboiler-

fortunately, no. Reportedly some guy named Julian Sands will be playing Davros.

1663. Fleabytes

Comment #156173 by Quetzalcoatl on April 7, 2008 at 2:37 am

Philip-

since when have you been one of the quiet ones?

:-)

1664. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #156161 by Quetzalcoatl on April 7, 2008 at 1:35 am

At the risk of butting in:

Perhaps Octopus did not intend to suggest that he was sad that the guy had failed to kill himself. Perhaps he simply phrased his post poorly.

1665. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #156151 by Quetzalcoatl on April 7, 2008 at 12:54 am

Clearthinker-

Quetz - no 154. Your summary is fair and accurate...

Excellent. I'm always very wary of misquoting people, especially since I was writing mainly from memory.

1666. Lying for Jesus?

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.

1667. 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.

1668. 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.

1669. 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).

1670. 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.

1671. 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.

1672. 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.

1673. 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.

1674. 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.

1675. 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.

1676. 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.

1677. 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".

1678. 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?

1679. 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.

1680. 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.

1681. 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?

1682. 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?

1683. 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.

1684. 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.

1685. 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.

1686. 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?

1687. 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?

1688. 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.

1689. 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?"

1690. 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.

1691. 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.

1692. 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?

1693. 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.

1694. 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 :)

1695. 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.

1696. 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.

1697. 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.

1698. 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.

1699. 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.

1700. Dawkins warns of human extinction

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

Artful_Dodger-