Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1701. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173022 by Quetzalcoatl on April 30, 2008 at 8:36 am

Seeker-

I'm off for the day and may be back tomorrow.

Not going to answer my request to explain your position then?

1702. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173009 by Quetzalcoatl on April 30, 2008 at 8:27 am

Seeker-

still waiting.

Tezcatlipoca-

was not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Suns#The_Five_Suns

Now be quiet or I'll set Tlaltecuhtli on you.

1703. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172984 by Quetzalcoatl on April 30, 2008 at 8:14 am

Seeker-

found it:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2488,Open-Letter-to-a-victim-of-Ben-Steins-lying-propaganda,Richard-Dawkins,page32#170976

Don't forget the saccades question, too.

Tezcatlipoca-

was not.

1704. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172975 by Quetzalcoatl on April 30, 2008 at 8:11 am

Seeker-

I recall that I asked you what precisely your position was a few days ago, but you never did answer.

I'll break it down:
Earth: Old or young?
Evolution: Happened/didn't?
Designer: Yes/no?
If yes: Christian God/Aliens/Huitzilopochtli/Other?

1705. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172904 by Quetzalcoatl on April 30, 2008 at 6:52 am

al-rawandi-

what does a "lounge singer" do? (Don't say sings in lounges).

1706. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172903 by Quetzalcoatl on April 30, 2008 at 6:51 am

Epeeist-

Did you mean this document?

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/04/richard_dawkins_misrepresents.html

No, I saw the link to it on the ERV blog a few months back. See below-

http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000006139.cfm

1707. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172879 by Quetzalcoatl on April 30, 2008 at 6:31 am

Seeker-

Can you or someone else here please explain the temptation to bring the concept of a divine being into this conversation?

Er, because the proponents of Intelligent Design think the Designer is God. Dembski admitted as much recently.

1708. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172856 by Quetzalcoatl on April 30, 2008 at 6:11 am

Riandouglas-

When does it not apply?

I suspect when anyone points out to Seeker that the principle of parsimony does not make it easier to explain a complex God.

1709. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172841 by Quetzalcoatl on April 30, 2008 at 6:03 am

Tezcatlipoca-

Good morning to you!

Thunderbolt and lightning, very very frightening me!

I reserve the right to use random Queen lyrics for the rest of the day.

1710. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172809 by Quetzalcoatl on April 30, 2008 at 5:40 am

I see some individuals that could benefit from reading some of the debate logs

I see a little silhouette of a man...

1711. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172800 by Quetzalcoatl on April 30, 2008 at 5:31 am

I see some individuals that could benefit from reading some of the debate logs

I see dead people...

1712. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172793 by Quetzalcoatl on April 30, 2008 at 5:25 am

If ID were junk science, then why do so many educated and professional naturalists find themselves stretched in debate with those who hold to intelligent design?

Because they're too busy trying to work out what rubbish the IDers are spouting?

Because it's hard to debate someone who thinks the answer to most questions is GODDIDIT!

1713. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #172732 by Quetzalcoatl on April 30, 2008 at 2:28 am

Not trying to be disparaging, but Pat Condell's videos have always struck me as being essentially well-articulated rants: entertaining to watch, but unlikely to convince many people on the "other side".

1714. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172404 by Quetzalcoatl on April 29, 2008 at 2:24 pm

SharonMcT=

Never mind that annoying Quetz and his silly questions :)

WHAT? Watch it, SharonMcT.....

Corylus-

your blasphemy was amusing at first, but do not forget that I am the one true god.....

1715. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172366 by Quetzalcoatl on April 29, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Corylus/God-

I have some questions.

Why do bad things happen to good people?

Are there puppies in heaven?

1716. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172348 by Quetzalcoatl on April 29, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Everyone picks the very very very best picture of themselves. It is almost a ruse

Indeed. Just look at my avatar.

MPhil-

the one with the hat.

1717. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172283 by Quetzalcoatl on April 29, 2008 at 12:34 pm

Anna-

it could depend on what the voices said, but I agree.

1718. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172243 by Quetzalcoatl on April 29, 2008 at 11:29 am

Kardashovel-

just butting in with a random point.

I'm sure you can appreciate that, since in a previous conversation on this topic you refused to disclose precisely what it was that the voices said to you, it is hard for us to assess what you say in anything other than very general terms.

1719. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171538 by Quetzalcoatl on April 28, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Al-Rawandi-

I hate 24

Heretic.

(Although I haven't seen season six, so it might be shit now).

1720. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171533 by Quetzalcoatl on April 28, 2008 at 2:38 pm

DickDawkins-

@quetzal: sure why not? >cough<>loser<

Well, perhaps I was harsh, and I apologise for that. But let's face it, you didn't make a good start on this thread.

1721. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171518 by Quetzalcoatl on April 28, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Someone said-

By and large the British don't do patriotism

Some of us do in our own way.

1722. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171501 by Quetzalcoatl on April 28, 2008 at 2:24 pm

DickDawkins-

but if you want to pick my brain, it might take you a while

To find it?

1723. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171016 by Quetzalcoatl on April 28, 2008 at 8:37 am

Blackhawk089-

what Dawkins was trying to do there was give the strongest case for Intelligent Design. But even that case is woeful.

All you do is resort to name calling and say how unscientific it is and yet refuse to even listen to any scientific evience for intelligence

Please, what is the scientific evidence for Intelligent Design?

1724. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170990 by Quetzalcoatl on April 28, 2008 at 8:10 am

MPhil-

my condolences on the loss of your grandmother.

DickDawkins-

did you have a question, or did you just come here to demonstrate your poor spelling skills and general idiocy? If so, mission accomplished.

1725. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170976 by Quetzalcoatl on April 28, 2008 at 7:51 am

Seeker_of_truth-

you didn't really answer my question. What kind of environmental changes would make saccades an advantageous trait?

First off let's get it straight that my position is neither ID or Neo-Darwinian evolution

Then what is your position?

1726. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170926 by Quetzalcoatl on April 28, 2008 at 6:31 am

I think I'm going to avoid mentioning the 3 strikes thing again. I'll leave it to wiser posters than I to decide on.

1727. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170912 by Quetzalcoatl on April 28, 2008 at 6:17 am

ElHeffe-

Where did the first cell come from?

We don't know, but there are plenty of theories. In any event it is likely that the first cell was quite dissimilar to cells as we know them.

1728. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170875 by Quetzalcoatl on April 28, 2008 at 5:44 am

el Heffe-

ARE you here to discuss anything?

Everyone else-

I call Strike One.

1729. Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

Comment #170872 by Quetzalcoatl on April 28, 2008 at 5:41 am

Shinewithjoy-

are you just going to hit and run on EVERY thread?

1730. Ancient serpent shows its leg

Comment #170870 by Quetzalcoatl on April 28, 2008 at 5:40 am

Shinewithjoy-

you've got it completely backwards. Snakes started out with legs, THEN gradually lost them over time.

1731. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170866 by Quetzalcoatl on April 28, 2008 at 5:38 am

Shinewithjoy-

are you here to discuss anything? Perhaps you could provide sources for those figures?

Everyone else-

I think this would be a good test of the Dr Benway system.

1732. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170856 by Quetzalcoatl on April 28, 2008 at 5:27 am

el Heffe-

who is RW?

1733. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170823 by Quetzalcoatl on April 28, 2008 at 4:14 am

Irate-

yes, but his was no good. When our Benevolent Leader returns, all the Corrupt will be dispatched to Hell immediately, where they will burn for eternity. Much quicker and more efficient.

Oh, there'll be something about whether their names are written in the Book of Life, but that's just a formality. Angels were the first bureaucrats.

Then the Benevolent Leader will alter the minds of all the Pure, so that they no longer remember that the Corrupt ever existed, so won't be upset by their eternal torment. Then everyone will be happy.

Except the Corrupt, obviously.

1734. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170815 by Quetzalcoatl on April 28, 2008 at 3:56 am

Riandouglas-

either is acceptable.

Irate-

You're right. It's so strange that so many people do not agree with this vision of "One World Order". Obviously they are corrupt, and should be purged from God's Kingdom.

1735. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170811 by Quetzalcoatl on April 28, 2008 at 3:44 am

Riandouglas-

this is the point I was getting at with my question to Bizarro. If God can commit atrocities and they are somehow still "good", then if he tells someone to commit similar atrocities, then they would also have to be "good", by virtue of the fact that an all-loving, perfect being is giving the orders.

Of course how an all-loving, perfect being can truly be called such if he allows things such as natural disasters to occur, is a different point, and may be stretching the definitions somewhat.

1736. Science leads to killing people

Comment #170797 by Quetzalcoatl on April 28, 2008 at 3:12 am

Riandouglas-

that's right, there are two sides: "Us" and "Them". Unfortunately they use the same terms but reversed. So as far as "Them" are concerned, they are "Us", whereas "Us" are seen as being "Them".

Does that clear it up?

1737. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170785 by Quetzalcoatl on April 28, 2008 at 2:06 am

Bizarro-

If God's nature is all-loving and He must be consistent with His nature to be defined as God, then any action perpetrated by God is a loving action.

The key word there is "if". Of course, the problem is that you are assuming that the many authors of the Bible weren't simply talking crap.

By your reasoning, the massacres God committed were in reality "loving" actions. And to think atheists are accused of being the ultimate moral relativists!

Consider this: you would not say it is okay for any of us to slaughter people, but it is acceptable for God to do it. So what if God told YOU to slaughter people, and said that it was okay?

1738. Science leads to killing people

Comment #170761 by Quetzalcoatl on April 28, 2008 at 12:58 am

Ben Stein epitomises stupidity. What's even worse is that he clearly believes this verbal effluent he is spewing.

1739. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170229 by Quetzalcoatl on April 27, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Kardashovel-

with the frantic pace and information overload enabled by modern technology

Are you saying that people know too much?

Besides, humans do not have the power to destroy this planet, even if we wipe ourselves out.

1740. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170098 by Quetzalcoatl on April 27, 2008 at 11:26 am

More from William Phillips' answer:

I believe in God because I can feel God's presence in my life, because I can see the evidence of God's goodness in the world, because I believe in Love and because I believe that God is Love.

Blech.

1741. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169954 by Quetzalcoatl on April 27, 2008 at 5:48 am

riandouglas-

that was "Origin", the third one in the sequence.

1742. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169950 by Quetzalcoatl on April 27, 2008 at 5:40 am

riandouglas-

If you're going to buy "Time", I also recommend "Space", the second book in that sequence.

1743. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169947 by Quetzalcoatl on April 27, 2008 at 5:37 am

riandouglas-

that might well be true. In case you were wondering, "Quetzology" equals "theology" with the difference that it is relevant, useful and true. For a given value of true.

1744. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169936 by Quetzalcoatl on April 27, 2008 at 5:23 am

riandouglas-

Perhaps we can ask Kardashel for his opinion on this

Just don't mention wormholes.

I'm currently working out an explanation as to why I'm nearly 10 years older than you.

The current Quetzology on this subject is that I am a divine being and have chosen to manifest myself upon Earth in the form of a mortal avatar, currently aged 24.

1745. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169933 by Quetzalcoatl on April 27, 2008 at 5:20 am

riandouglas-

if you're going to claim that you are my son, then you're going to have to tell everyone who the mother is. I don't "do" immaculate conceptions.

1746. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169927 by Quetzalcoatl on April 27, 2008 at 5:07 am

Geoff-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMOmB1q8W4Y

Yes, but I'm Chartered AND Certified, so that doesn't apply! Ha!

1747. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169926 by Quetzalcoatl on April 27, 2008 at 5:00 am

Steve-

If I understand you right, does this mean that we keep them talking about religion? But isn't our territory science and reason (well, for many of us)?

Perhaps the focus should be on the areas where their religious beliefs "inform" their opinions on science and reason, and the claims that they make as a consequence.

But we still should talk about religion, taking the fight to them, so to speak.

1748. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169921 by Quetzalcoatl on April 27, 2008 at 4:54 am

Epeeist-

Q: What's a guy who mocks a god?
A: Someone who is going to have a very unpleasant after-life.

:-)

1749. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169919 by Quetzalcoatl on April 27, 2008 at 4:50 am

Epeeist-

You're a FENCER? I thought you were a milkman!

1750. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169907 by Quetzalcoatl on April 27, 2008 at 4:28 am

Epeeist-

Have we learnt anything over the past few days about handling a variety of theists, from thisisme and seeker_of_truth to the likes of Remnant and TheTruthID?

Personally, I think that this thread has been quite useful. Witness how quickly Remnant and TheTruthID degenerated into insults and downright evasion when pressed on the questions that had been put to them.

This is the way to go with creationists, I think. If they come to talk, excellent. If they come to throw Scripture, ignore. But those that have come to talk shouldn't be allowed to side-step questions that they don't like. By the same token we shouldn't allow ourselves to get side-tracked by deliberately controversial statements they might introduce to try and shift the focus. Where they try this, we need to keep pressing them on the original question.

Tulum-

Side issue PS Quetzacoatl - South American mythology rules. My wife and I did a trip around (slightly different-I know) the Mayan sites of Chichen,Tulum, Uxmal and the Puuc route.

It absolutely rules. I want to visit Machu Picchu one day, as well as some Aztec sites.