Comments by epeeist

Comment #112028 by epeeist on January 16, 2008 at 8:21 am

Comment #112020 by rod-the-farmer

I took BMC's suggestion about visiting the various theist web sites, and posting a few questions. I suggest you don't bother.

I posted a few things on the "Atheism Sucks" site. The process was exactly as you describe, though to be fair they only censored one of my posts. The thing that irritated me was the juvenile idea that they could "prove" everything using logic from the scholastic era without actually looking through the window to check their conclusions with the world outside.

The fact that they "moderate" things before hand means that you can never get into a decent conversation, a response to point might only appear 8 hours later.

We get a phenomenal mixture of people on this site with a huge range of interests and a variety of knowledge, experience and attitudes. I just haven't seen the same on theist sites.

1852. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #111924 by epeeist on January 16, 2008 at 2:52 am

Comment #111922 by Fanusi Khiyal

Just shoot me now

So the Dominionists aren't a problem are they Fanusi?

1853. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #111911 by epeeist on January 16, 2008 at 1:59 am

Michael Chertoff was on R4 this morning saying that Europe could be the source of the biggest threat to US security. He wants more checks on people traveling to the States (the implication was that they want European money, but would prefer not to have the people).

Given this and the possible election of a theocrat does any one actually want to travel to the States. The Mexicans and the Canadians might be advised to consider building big walls to stop immigration.

1854. The Group Delusion

Comment #111588 by epeeist on January 15, 2008 at 4:26 am

Comment #111581 by Steve Zara

Mind you, for all we know, there could be billions of Europans swimming happily around in the underground seas of their moon

What do you think the reaction of the god botherers is going to be when (if?) we discover life of any complexity somewhere else in the universe.

And you have to feel for this new life if it turns out we can communicate with it. They can expect a crowd of Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons trying to work out their ancestry, Catholics to ensure that they have no appendages on which to place a condom and Muslims trying to detect whether they have any females they can denigrate.

It isn't likely they would be Jewish.

1855. The Group Delusion

Comment #111566 by epeeist on January 15, 2008 at 2:43 am

Comment #111544 by wooter

To: epeeist
You got some issues about people's background just because you have nothing logical to argue against me so you are picking on. I would advise you to have got a bone to pick with ET. I dealt with you many times but you are still stirring in the pond of first language, insulting, spreading, and slandering. Way to go. You are proving something. That means you are saying 'I have no counter argument against Reason.'

Wooter - I was actually taught logic, which you obviously weren't. I also have publications in reputable scientific journals, so I know something about the way science works, especially physics. Again you obviously haven't a clue when it comes to even basic science.

You post random rubbish gleaned from creationist sites and you repeat the same things over and over again. You don't even have the good manners to read the responses that people give you. This is why your posts are rated as trolls, and in this particular case "offensive".

Where are the billy goats Gruff when you need them?

1856. Blind Faiths

Comment #111290 by epeeist on January 14, 2008 at 8:33 am

Comment #111282 by al-rawandi

Same here, with the scare tactics. I just write it off here.

But I got the distinct feeling that there was some grumbling in the UK over the assimilation issue of Muslims?

It isn't as significant as the press (especially the Daily Mail and Daily Express) would leave you to believe.

However, I think there could be a rather nasty feed forward effect.

1857. Blind Faiths

Comment #111256 by epeeist on January 14, 2008 at 6:58 am

Comment #111252 by al-rawandi

If we wanted to go around assigning states based on historical residence, we would have a massive shit storm.

I thought you were partly a "mick"?

We have a better claim to the whole of Britain than these Angles, Saxons, Romans, Vikings and especially the bloody Normans.

1858. The Group Delusion

Comment #111214 by epeeist on January 14, 2008 at 3:50 am

Comment #111210 by wooter

Hi Mr Dawkins

Firstly, don't be so rude, it isn't Mr. Dawkins, but Professor Dawkins.

The rest of your post is just a troll. You have asked these questions in another thread and been given answers. It was very obvious that you didn't even attempt to read those answers.

If you tell us what your native language is then we can provide you explanatory information or answers in that language.

However, I am going to assume that you will do what you did in the other thread, post illogical rubbish or plagiarise other peoples documents and then ignore the responses that you are given. I am also going to assume that you won't answer questions that are asked of you.

1859. The Moral Instinct

Comment #111207 by epeeist on January 14, 2008 at 3:27 am

Comment #111204 by Artful_Dodger

Numbers may be abstractions, and perhaps they are not substances. But they are, at least, non-physical properties. They may not have a tangible existence or "form" as you put it. But you cannot deny their existence independent of the physical medium via which they appear to our senses.

Are you confusing two things?

Take an empty basket. In the basket place two apples. Now place two more apples in the basket. One therefore has four apples. However this is not the same as performing the addition of 2 + 2 (what would you get if you placed two oranges in the basket rather than the second pair of apples)?

We had this with Dianelos, constantly trying to reify concepts

1860. The Moral Instinct

Comment #111021 by epeeist on January 13, 2008 at 10:51 am

Comment #111016 by Henri Bergson

So most of you have acceded to accept that there can be no scientific fact

Equivocation next eh. Theories may be contingently valid, facts are facts.

Evolution has been observed using a variety of different mechanisms. It happens, fact.

The theory of evolution is contingent, someone may come along next week and disprove it.

1861. The Moral Instinct

Comment #111014 by epeeist on January 13, 2008 at 10:48 am

Comment #111006 by Cartomancer

It seems that Henri Bergson repeatedly takes umbrage at use of the word "true" or "correct" to define a moral position and describes such truth or correctness as illusory and without basis in metaphysical fact.

We are back to theories of truth again. Given Henri refers to Russell and Wittgenstein you have to wonder whether he is using a correspondence theory of truth that both the above philosophers used in their 'logical atomist' periods.

Personally I prefer Tarski 'Snow is white' iff snow is white.

1862. The Moral Instinct

Comment #111008 by epeeist on January 13, 2008 at 10:44 am

Comment #111003 by Henri Bergson

Do you really believe that a scientific theory can't be proved correct?

It isn't a matter of belief.

But yes, you cannot prove a scientific theory to be correct.

1863. The Moral Instinct

Comment #111005 by epeeist on January 13, 2008 at 10:43 am

Comment #110992 by Henri Bergson

The point is simple: A moral cannot be proved correct, like a religion.

And your point is?

Sounds like ad ignoranitam to me.

1864. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110920 by epeeist on January 13, 2008 at 8:13 am

Comment #110916 by Radesq

Will to power sounds of megalomania to me.

An atheist version of jihad you mean ;-)

1865. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110863 by epeeist on January 13, 2008 at 4:56 am

Comment #110859 by Henri Bergson

There is no such thing as 'human morality'. 'Morality' constantly changes, like religion.

Hmmm, how about "There is no such thing as objective morality".

1866. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110846 by epeeist on January 13, 2008 at 2:03 am

Comment #110842 by donn

1. Whatever money is 'given' away has a purpose: to indoctrinate more young minds into using MS only software.

There is no doubt that the Gates foundation does some good, charitable work. But:

One doesn't know how much the impetus comes from Melinda Gates, rather than Bill

They do provide medical treatments to a significant number of people, but Gates owns significant shareholdings in pharmaceutical companies. It is reported that the medical charities have to use medicines from Gates companies.

Software is provided to a number of institutions, but the write-off costs against profits are for the full retail price of the software.

1867. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110766 by epeeist on January 12, 2008 at 10:47 am

Have to agree about the Atheist Sucks site. To use a domain specific metaphor, they talk a good fight. But they need to drop their balls (in a Galilean sense) to actually see which hits the ground first rather than using Zeno type arguments.

There philosophy, theology, logic and science seem to be step-locked to the scholastics. I am waiting for answers as to why they are using a particularly schoolboy level piece of logic in a complex discussion on morals and trying to get them to tell me what they mean by truth.

And while they claim to be polite and well-mannered there are some distinctly unpleasant individuals there.

1868. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110762 by epeeist on January 12, 2008 at 10:34 am

Comment #110730 by Steve Zara

If Bill Gates invented a religion, it would have horrendous licence fees, be based on way-out-of-date ideas, it would look vaguely attractive but would be full of inconsistencies and would fail people all the time.

And wouldn't reach beta quality until version 3.0

1869. The Group Delusion

Comment #110701 by epeeist on January 12, 2008 at 2:31 am

Comment #110697 by AllanW

Just a quick point about wooter though.

I have to agree with all that AllanW says about wooter on the "Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?" thread.

It is interesting to note that in every posting but the last his comments are in a garbled, broken English (apart from the obvious cut and paste jobs). His last is fairly lucid. And then you come to this thread and we are back to the broken English again.

So, be slightly careful. It may just be that his posts are actually a snow job.

1870. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #110688 by epeeist on January 12, 2008 at 12:45 am

Comment #110648 by wooter

Hello everyone. Since our arguments cannot evolve from being funny and offensive level (that is ironic, there is no evolution then) I quit.

Hmm, Interesting post. It was in reasonable English, relatively well presented. I wonder why the sudden change.

The content was crap mind you.

1871. Two Ex-Jehovah Witnesses to Tell Why They Became Atheists

Comment #110687 by epeeist on January 12, 2008 at 12:40 am

Comment #110449 by fireface

Much better that we can do it without worrying what the big invisible surveillance camera in the sky is thinking.

It is one of the reasons that we don't need god here in the UK. We have so many CCTV cameras, he is essentially redundant.

1872. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110480 by epeeist on January 11, 2008 at 10:02 am

Comment #110475 by al-rawandi

I just get sick of the Christ crowd and their "morality". It is morality until it fucks with my bottom line.

But if people do anything that isn't morally right then they aren't Christians. It's true a priori don'cha know?

1873. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110470 by epeeist on January 11, 2008 at 9:10 am

Comment #110402 by ADH

The RIGHT thing is informed by Jesus straightforward injunction: "Love God with your whole being and your neighbour as yourself".

So, what would you do? All you given us is a politicians answer? What is the timeless, unambiguous, right thing to do in this situation?

You raised the example in the first place. The burden is definitely on you to give an answer.

1874. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110439 by epeeist on January 11, 2008 at 6:55 am

Comment #110409 by ADH

Irate_atheist, my assertions are not wanton. I would say that the burden o proof lies on your shoulders. You have to prove to me that naturalism CAN provide sufficient grounding for right action.

Let's get this burden of proof thing nailed.

If Arthur and Theodore are trying to convince each other of contradictory points of view on a topic then both have a strong and symmetric burden of proof.

If Theodore is trying to convince Arthur of a particular position and Arthur does not have a position but doubts Theodore's proposition then the positive burden of proof is on Theodore. Arthur has only a negative burden of proof in that he is questioning Theodore's position but not advancing one of his own.

For the first an example might be Theodore advancing the proposition that god exists, while Arthur claims that gods do not exist.

For the second an example might be Theodore claiming that ID is science, but Arthur doubting that this is true.

1875. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110397 by epeeist on January 11, 2008 at 5:41 am

Comment #110393 by ADH

I mentioned the film Matchpoint some time ago....

But time passes and the case is closed. "Evidence" has been found which supposedly incriminates another person - with a criminal record. Chris settls into his life of luxury with his rich family. He acted in accordance with his subjective feeling that comfort was better than discomfort, whatever the price. Did Chris do the right thing? On a purely subjectivist criterion, is there such a thing as "justice" in the world?

So given that there is a completely objective morality in the world that you are privy to, then what would you do?

EDIT: your answer must be both timeless and unambiguous.

1876. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #110384 by epeeist on January 11, 2008 at 4:58 am

Comment #110377 by Steve Zara

I spent some time on it, but still, I am afraid, did not figure out the meaning....

Rabelais was essentially taking the piss out of scholastic logicians. It actually doesn't mean anything at all.

1877. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #110361 by epeeist on January 11, 2008 at 3:46 am

Err, isn't it getting to that time of day. You know, the wootering hour?

Just as a matter of interest, did anybody raise the effort to trace the origin of my quote. He may have been a monk, but anyone who could write the following okay by me:

"God keep from hurt, said he, the good fellow whose long codpiece or braguet hath saved his life! God keep from hurt him whose long braguet hath been worth to him in one day one hundred threescore thousand and nine crowns! God keep from hurt him who by his long braguet hath saved a whole city from dying by famine! And, by G-, I will make a book of the commodity of long braguets when I shall have more leisure. And indeed he composed a fair great book with figures, but it is
not printed as yet that I know of.

1878. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110340 by epeeist on January 11, 2008 at 2:38 am

Comment #110328 by AllanW

This idea that Christianity knows the ideal state for human beings to be in and it is equally applicable to all people seems implausible to me.

There is just too much variation/complexity in behaviours and minds to be coped with. Expanding complexity as we grow and develop as a species that an iron-age myth structure cannot hope to explain and control.

While I am in quotation mode, I usually only do the first clause of this, but here is the full sentence:

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

1879. Blind Faiths

Comment #110327 by epeeist on January 11, 2008 at 1:55 am

Comment #110311 by Fanusi Khiyal

Forgive me if I don't always quote everything you write, but no neutral observer can believe that I do not try and answer in full.

I wasn't complaining, just trying to point you to the context from where I was starting my questions.

Question: Where have immigrant Muslim populations assimilated?

Shall we just say that I remain to be convinced that all (in the logical sense) have not assimilated.

As I have said before, we need to end Muslim immigration, expel Shariah supporters, economically isolate the Muslim world, prosecute preachers of Shariah and Jihad, tear down Mosques in which this has happend, and, above all, conduct a relentless campaign to expose Islam for what it is.

As I said in a previous post, I don't think that in this forum you need to concentrate on trying to show that Islam is a loathsome, primitive and barbaric ideology. I think this is fairly well accepted.

I think you would do far better concentrating on the solutions rather than constantly iterating over the problems.

As for the Dominionists, I still think they are a major problem. They won't go for direct power, but will try to subvert the political system. In my view that is what the likes of Liberty and Regents Universities is all about.

1880. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110319 by epeeist on January 11, 2008 at 1:36 am

Comment #110309 by ADH

that is pretty close to what I would say.

To paraphrase Marianne Moore - A theory "which explains everything explains nothing, and we are still in doubt."

Every time you tag another bit of ad hoc flummery on to what you are putting forward your ideas become less plausible.

Now you want to claim Socrates and other pre-Christian figures as precursors to Christ. Fine, you can have them, unfortunately you have to accept the Green Man, Cernunnos, Cronos and all the rest. You can't just pick the ones you like.

1881. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110297 by epeeist on January 10, 2008 at 11:52 pm

Comment #110152 by Vinelectric

I posted a list of quotations, some from theist sources and some not, of where the Golden Rule was in place before Jesus was supposedly born.

Would you oblige us with the link? I can sift through your posts but that would take ages!

The quotations I gave were:

"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." - Confucian Annalects.

"We should not retaliate or render evil for evil to anyone, whatever evil we may have suffered from him." Socrates in Plato's Crito

"One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness hereafter." from the Buddhist Dhammapada

"That one I love who is incapable of ill will, And returns love for hatred." From the Bhagavad Gita.

1882. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110145 by epeeist on January 10, 2008 at 2:38 pm

Comment #110117 by AllanW

But if you mention that people need to be saved or healed one more time I for one will react very badly.

FX: Pulls up chair, opens popcorn. Waits for Steve to arrive too.

1883. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110142 by epeeist on January 10, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Comment #110127 by Steve Zara

It is certainly proven. This has been discussed before. Golden Rule behaviour has been shown in Great Apes, Cetaceans, Elephants. They show far more than herd instinct. There is plenty of hard science to show this if you are interested.

And if that isn't good enough then I posted a list of quotations, some from theist sources and some not, of where the Golden Rule was in place before Jesus was supposedly born.

1884. Blind Faiths

Comment #110016 by epeeist on January 10, 2008 at 9:52 am

Comment #110002 by Fanusi Khiyal

Newsflash: Supplying the weapons - which is contemptible, and one more instance where the West should have told the Muslim world to go screw itself - is not the moral equivalent of actually taking those weapons and aiming them at innocent civilians, and shooting women and children in the head.

It is if you knew that the weapons you supplied were going to be used for this purpose. And chemical and biological weapons were hardly going to be used on buildings were they?

In the bit of my post you haven't quoted I stated that we needed to do something about Islam, and the solutions were going to be complex.

Now you obviously think the first, but I am not sure about the second.

What do you suggest we actually do about Islam, firstly in the countries where it is the primary/only religion and secondly in countries where that has been substantial amounts of Muslim immigration. If you think there would be different solutions where the population have assimilated and where they haven't then this would be interesting to know.

1885. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109993 by epeeist on January 10, 2008 at 8:59 am

Comment #109990 by Roger Stanyard

"Can chimeras bombinating in a vacuum nourish second intentions?"

Now, now, Epeeist. You know perfectly well that he will use the question to prove your science wrong by downloading a load of Answers in Genesis crapola that he doesn't understand.

The only word he might be able to get is "chimeras". I have edited the above post to make it little more interesting.

1886. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109976 by epeeist on January 10, 2008 at 7:53 am

Wooter - you are a master of logic, why haven't you answered my question? If you can't find it then here it is again:

"Utrum chimera in vacuo bombinans possit comedere secundas intentiones?"

1887. Blind Faiths

Comment #109974 by epeeist on January 10, 2008 at 7:51 am

Comment #109963 by al-rawandi

And yes, I don't think the Brits cared too much about the locals.

Absolutely right, they were only wogs after all.

We seem to have a whole stack of words for disparaging others, one of my grandparents was a "mick".

1888. Blind Faiths

Comment #109958 by epeeist on January 10, 2008 at 7:06 am

Comment #109957 by al-rawandi

avatar

Oooh, an avatar.

The Brits were either too stupid or too arrogant to understand that they were heaping people together from different ethinc, religious, and linguistic groups.

You missed one out, we didn't give a toss.

1889. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109940 by epeeist on January 10, 2008 at 5:39 am

Comment #109939 by Roger Stanyard

It's all dimwitted standard fundie boilerplate based on their belief that there are only two types of people in this world...

And the word of the day is "sophomoric"

1890. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109931 by epeeist on January 10, 2008 at 4:41 am

I was just making my self a cup of tea when I thought to myself "Isn't about the time that wooter usually deluges the site", and low and behold there he is.

But have a look at http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/2007/12/common-objections-to-intelligent-design.html
and tell me what the difference is between wooter and these guys. It would appear to be one thing, better grammar.

1891. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109910 by epeeist on January 10, 2008 at 3:26 am

Comment #109906 by Roland_F

We should collect all her quotes like this and publish this into a small booklet: 'Insights of a creationist'.

See the link I posted - http://www.fstdt.com. A few of them even make wooter look credible.

1892. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109904 by epeeist on January 10, 2008 at 2:47 am

Comment #109898 by Steve Zara

I am finding myself drifting slowly towards Peter Atkin's position that philosophy is redundant and science is the only sensible approach to truth, although there is a long way to go yet.

Ok, smarmy bastard mode to start with. Peter Atkins was one of my tutors at the Charles Coulson school on theoretical chemistry.

There are a few topics left for philosophers but I think my borrowed two basket analogy works with the subject in the same way as it does for religion. I was going to mention things like ethics, but how much of this has disappeared into sociology or politics? How much of linguistic philosophy has been subsumed by cultural anthropology?

1893. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109899 by epeeist on January 10, 2008 at 2:37 am

Comment #109892 by wooter

Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics. This law of physics states that all systems, whether open or closed, have a tendency to disorder (or "the least energetic state"). There are some special cases where local order can increase, but this is at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. Raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in living things, or the information required to build them. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Yet, evolution is a building-up process, suggesting that things tend to become more complex and advanced over time. This is directly opposed to the law of entropy.

Well yes, you would need an large, external source of energy. I wonder where you could find that?

Wooter - I put this link out yesterday http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/top100.aspx?archive=1

Just look at the second one down.

1894. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109888 by epeeist on January 10, 2008 at 2:15 am

Comment #109734 by Cartomancer

When I finally finish my doctorate (if the world hasn't fallen into dangerous theocratic oblivion by then, and given how slowly the damned thing is going that is highly likely) I might try my hand at such a work, pointing out how ninety-nine per cent of theists' arguments rest on premises drawn straight from ancient or medieval world views that they themselves do not lend credence in any other sphere of life but religion.

I can go with this. In discussing things with theists their science seems to stop with Aristotle, their logic and philosophy with the scholastics.

One of the claims to fame for William Lane Craig on the "atheism sucks" site is for his seminal work on "The A-theory of Time". Given the role of time in relativity theory you would think a reference or two to Einstein might be in order. However if you look at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/ then there doesn't seem to be anything to do with any empirical data at all.

1895. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109886 by epeeist on January 10, 2008 at 2:06 am

Comment #109845 by prettygoodformonkeys

I love this also! But I think we overuse logic at the quantum level.

Or possibly use the wrong type of logic - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_logic

1896. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109852 by epeeist on January 9, 2008 at 11:41 pm

Comment #109840 by raptur

Both posts have been a little off. Do people mind if I take a break from lurking for a bit? ;)

Help yourself.

given a finite set of axioms

The other part of this that you don't make explicit is that you can't make the system complete by adding more axioms.

1897. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109724 by epeeist on January 9, 2008 at 2:59 pm

Addendum: If the theists come back and say that god causes virtual particles to be created then I think the counter argument is that if you have a god that controls the cosmos to this granular a level then human free will must go out of the window.

Dualism doesn't get you out of this, since god is micro-controlling the physical environment your mind will be incapable of making your body do anything that subverts this control.

1898. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109717 by epeeist on January 9, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Comment #109705 by BAEOZ

P1. Everything has a cause
P2. To avoid an infinite regress there must be a first cause.
C That first cause we call god.

We have been through this on another thread with the argument from complexity. Let's take them one at a time.

P1 - is false. We know that things like virtual particles are created and annihilated all the time. Thus the best you can say is that some things have a clause, so you change the quantifier. You can ignore the problem of existential import since we aren't too worried if nothing has a cause. You could also take modalities into account, do things necessarily have to have a cause or only possibly?

P2 - is, as you say ad hoc. The case of infinite regress is actually simpler than the case where you stop the series at a particular point since one doesn't need additional explanation as to why one should stop at there. In the interest of parsimony we should use this rather than the truncated series.

C - is equivocation. Just because there is a first cause to the universe does not mean to say that this cause is (as they seem to use the jargon on atheism sucks) a 3-O being.

And you are right, they haven't established why there should be an external cause to the universe. The net energy of the universe is extremely close to zero so there is no particular reason why it needs a cause.

And they haven't established why one shouldn't have more than one term. If there is a god then why not a meta-god, and a meta-meta-god?

1899. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109702 by epeeist on January 9, 2008 at 2:18 pm

Comment #109691 by Big City

I don't really understand how the author being a mathematician figures into the argument.

It shouldn't. However when people do bring it up then point out how many modern philosophers have been from the science/mathematics side of things. Russell, Frege, Brentano, Husserl, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Quine etc.

1900. The Mind of the Market

Comment #109633 by epeeist on January 9, 2008 at 10:24 am

Comment #109631 by Big City

Atheismsucks just ruined my day.

The "Dr Craig" thing - I posted a response about 8 hours ago, not appeared as yet.

I suspect their "hit counter" clocks up the numbers that it does because people keep going to the site to see if anything has changed. It is a bit like watching paint dry.

You don't think they started the hit counter at 22500 or so just to make the site look as though it was created a lot earlier than it actually was?