Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by epeeist


201. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192786 by epeeist on June 14, 2008 at 1:11 am

Comment #192778 by ReceivedTheGift

This discussion is going nowhere.
Can I be Al-Rawandi, can I, can I?

Well I am going to be anyway.

Time of death 08:10 UTC. Reason, "I can't answer your questions".

202. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192776 by epeeist on June 14, 2008 at 12:58 am

Comment #192765 by ReceivedTheGift

I did answer epeeists points. The origins of life does not matter in regards to Evolution? What then is your beginning point of Evolution?
Liar!

You were asked to show us your evidence for creation. You evaded this in an attempt to divert the thread into one on evolution.

Show me the answers to the five lemmas that I put forward in post http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins,page142#192734

203. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192764 by epeeist on June 14, 2008 at 12:42 am

Comment #192762 by ReceivedTheGift


There are plenty first hand accounts of Jesus and his miracles. Show me first hand accounts of any disputing of Jesus and his miracles.
You need to name some names and point us to some documents.

The gospels were written decades after the supposed Jesus lived by followers of his cult, none of whom had ever met him. Not first hand and hardly unbiased.

204. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192759 by epeeist on June 14, 2008 at 12:38 am

Comment #192743 by ReceivedTheGift


If you have any knowledge of history, there is quite a bit of secular historical accounts of Jesus. I assume you know this.
That would be a disputed claim in Josephus and...?
Can you prove the universe wasn't created? How then did it come about?
This isn't the way discourse works. You are claiming a specific deity. The burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate the basis of your claim. Evasion and the attempt to shift the burden simply shows how incredibly weak your case is.

205. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192734 by epeeist on June 14, 2008 at 12:18 am

Some little while back I put together a series of lemmas which have been used by others on the site. I repeat them here for RTG's benefit.

RTG - before we can accept Jesus (a figure who may or may not have existed any way) you have to show that:

  1. The universe was created
  2. It was created by a deity
  3. This deity is interventionist, omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent
  4. This deity is the one worshipped in one small area of one small planet circling an ordinary star in a galaxy of 400 billion stars in a universe of 150 billion galaxies
  5. That all of this is documented in the holy book of a tribe of cattle sacrificing primitives


Until you can at least make an attempt at this then there is no reason for us to take you seriously whatsoever.

206. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192722 by epeeist on June 13, 2008 at 11:56 pm

Comment #192663 by phasmagigas

RTG has done the unholy three in one post:

insists evolution is all rather silly
then throws scripture
then prays for us.

it usually takes several posts to get that far but at the very least this person has shown in one post what a busy body they are.
Yes, just waiting for the last one. Getting his god to damn us to eternal torture.

Why is it that as soon as you become religious your vocabulary and grammar go completely to pot. "Degredated", what does that mean?

207. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192711 by epeeist on June 13, 2008 at 11:45 pm

Comment #192631 by ReceivedTheGift

Their bitterness and frustration is so apparent, it's if they have some deep rooted issues going on, besides the lack of confidence in their beliefs.
To follow in the honourable steps of Shayne Dark and Diacanu.

I am fucking sick of stupid, sanctimonious cunts telling me that I am bitter (are you listening David Robertson) because I haven't found Jesus. You know fuck all about me, so take your unwanted cloying humility and obsequiousness elsewhere.

If you want to believe that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and
telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in all humans because a woman made from a rib was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree and thereby pissing off an invisible wizard who lives in the sky then fine.

Just don't bring such unsubstantiated shite here.

208. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192539 by epeeist on June 13, 2008 at 10:34 am

Comment #192534 by The Reverend Dark


So Txpiper, Laughing boy, you base and cowardly smudge of Thora Hird on the otherwise spotless loo pan of intellectual endeavors; when do you think the global flood of Genesis took place?
Strange to say the varves in Green River don't seem to have any evidence for a flood either. Mind you, that may be because it only took a few days (hours, minutes?) to create all that oil shale.

www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/varve.ev.pdf

209. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192416 by epeeist on June 13, 2008 at 3:01 am

Comment #192227 by al-rawandi

and figured the French army would actually fight back.
You need to look at the numbers killed in WWII. France lost 217,600 military personnel and 267,000 civilians, 1.35% of their population. Compare that to the figures that the States lost in WWII, some 130,000 in the European theatre and 1,700 civilians, some 0.32% of the population.

Nobody disregards the contribution of the States during WWII, but to be frank I get fairly pissed off when it is used to malign others who suffered much more both in terms of casualties and devastation.

210. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #192409 by epeeist on June 13, 2008 at 2:36 am

Comment #192402 by scottishgeologist

There is a problem AFAICS, with the whole "debate" business. Lets say that A and B decide to debate. A is in excellent form, B is poor. The debate is "won" by A.
It is actually worse than that. The whole premiss of this particular debate is flawed. As Steve has noted they seem to be conflating atheist and "Darwinist". Atheists may have many reasons for disbelief in gods, to try and tie it to one particular scientific theory is (as I suggested) either fatuous or an attempt to load the debate.

If there is to be a debate then atheism/theism (and not Christian religiosity) would be one possibility. If creationism is wanted as the subject of a debate then it has to be just that. No whining about the "problems" of evolution and why it can't explain the formation of life. It has to be the positives of creationism, how it explains the creation of the earth 6000 years ago, how life was created, what is the positive evidence for this.

211. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191689 by epeeist on June 11, 2008 at 1:02 pm

Comment #191663 by MBC Morgan

Can I ask why many of you constantly persist in attempting to convince those who most likely cannot be convinced to consider the world rationally?
It does get trying at times. However, you have to consider who is reading the posts on the site. There are obviously a long list of people who are firmly in the rationalist, methodological naturalist camp. There are also theists like txpiper and clearthinker and lunatics like clearmind/wooter.

However, I suspect the majority of visitors are lurkers and browsers, these are the people my posts are mainly meant for. They are, if you like, the gallery in the debate. We may not convert the likes of txpiper but we have a better chance with the gallery.

Should there be a FAQ? There are debate points on this site and the ever valuable Talk Origins site which supply this sort of information. It is unlikely to be visited by creationists or to be a first port of call by the waverers. A debate, especially where they can raise their virtual hands, is a useful format.

But it is somewhat tiring to point out for the umpty-third time that the question has already been raised, that the questioner is simply begging the question or arguing from personal incredulity.

212. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191542 by epeeist on June 11, 2008 at 6:53 am

Comment #191524 by phasmagigas

you are really not getting it are you, you say scientists would adjust the theory to fit the findsings (if verified), well of course they would, thats what science has been doing for teh last 500 years!!
A small quibble here.

The way that this is phrased makes it sound as though ad hoc explanations are being added to already existent theories. This isn't so, what tends to happen is that theories are replaced by new versions that explain both the observations that the old theory explained and new observations that the old theory was unable to explain.

Adding ad hoc explanations reduces the empirical strength of a theory. For example, one might theorise that there was a global flood. To the question as to where the water came from one might get the vapour canopy scenario. If we then start asking why the atmosphere didn't become toxic, how did the water to become superheated, why didn't the molecules disassociate above the ozone layer then we would get additional explanations. Once we start adding in questions as to how the ark was built, how did the larger animals and hundreds of thousands of beetle species get aboard, why no coral die off, why the continuous record of ice cores and varves etc. then we end up with a hypothesis that is all ad hoc explanations. As a result its explanatory power is non-existent.

213. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191520 by epeeist on June 11, 2008 at 5:50 am

Comment #191503 by Steve Zara

Unless I am being dense (which is possible), I can only get to amazon.com, which is not much use to me as I want amazon.co.uk
Given RD's primary location you would have thought that there might have been a Blackwell's link ;-)

214. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191480 by epeeist on June 11, 2008 at 3:29 am

Comment #191478 by Steve Zara

That was an interesting report. I am increasingly encountering postmodernism in discussions with theists.
Can I add to your Amazon bill? I have recently come across "Why Truth Matters" by Jeremy Stangroom and Ophelia Benson - http://www.amazon.com/Why-Truth-Matters-Jeremy-Stangroom/dp/0826495281/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213180080&sr=1-1

215. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191420 by epeeist on June 10, 2008 at 11:29 pm

Comment #191380 by fizhburn

I suspect that txpiper's focus on the T. rex tissue finding is important. For if it is correct, it is a confirmation of the idea that you need, you know, physical processes to be unusual (but not unimaginable) for proteins to (partially) stick around 68 million years. But if it is incorrect, it confirms Flood geology.
Only in the eyes of creationists. Disproof of theory A does not validate theory B. Theory B must be crucially tested and have all the properties of any scientific theory.
Flood geology is correct, then RM dating procedures, which are employed to give the age of the rock strata where the fossils are found, are incorrect. But if those dating procedures are incorrect, then nuclear physics is incorrect. And if nuclear physics is incorrect, then our understanding of atomic physics is incorrect... and so forth. Moreover, all of geology is incorrect. But geology relies on chemistry, so that's incorrect as well. In short, if Flood geology is correct, the hard sciences are fucked.
Bingo!

Except it isn't just the hard sciences. It is history and anthropology as well. And if creationism is correct and god is in is heaven then we would want to live by his rules. Let's get rid of democracy and live in a theocracy. You know it is the only way.

216. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #190950 by epeeist on June 10, 2008 at 1:39 am

Comment #190941 by clearthinker

Poor Epeeist. You live in such a conspiratorial hate filled world.
I ask a question about your motives and that makes me a conspiracy theorist and one who lives in a hate filled world at that? And then you claim that I engage in ad hominem attacks?

Epeeis - I see you object to me citing this quote. Despite the fact that it was part of the thread. I notice that you do not state your disagreement with this point - despite its illogicality and intolerance. Instead you cry 'wolf'. 'Look how unfair and nasty Robertson is - taking what atheists say at face value and citing it. This is quote mining....boo hoo..".
Could you point out where I object to you citing this quote?

Could I also point you to this post of mine - http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2682,A-word-for-nonbelievers,David-OReilly-Philadelpha-Inquirer,page2#189776

You will note that I object to the premiss of the original post.

217. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190716 by epeeist on June 9, 2008 at 12:44 pm

Comment #190707 by Cartomancer

Have to disagree on that one I'm afraid, at least as far as historians are concerned. Empiricism and evidence are pretty much the core of historical analysis - what we generally lack are precision and mathematical modelling.
Accepted, and apologies for my poor wording. I had hoped that my follow up sentences about historians and anthropologists would carry the intimation that I considered them empiricists.

As I piece of anecdotal evidence - what is the theists/non-theist balance in historians that you know?

EDIT: just to follow up on Al's post. I was trying (badly) to distinguish between the humanities that do not require a significant element of empiricism and evidence (soft humanities) and those that do.

I seem to be neck deep in shit. Perhaps I had better stop digging.

218. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190703 by epeeist on June 9, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Comment #190692 by al-rawandi

I am just searching my memory, and I notice that every theist we have had here has done roughly the same thing. He/she has dodged pointed questions, used fuzzy anti-logic, used tired and discredited arguments, and has been what I would call, disengenuous.
I wouldn't go as far as saying all, but certainly a large majority.

There seem to be a number of reasons. One that springs to mind is my "one book in the library" scenario, a piece of hyperbole on my part but not so far from the truth for some visitors. They simply do not seem to be aware of, or perhaps avoid material that is not about their belief system.

In the case of the more educated I wonder whether it is because many have a background in the soft humanities where empiricism and evidence form little or no part in the subject. How many theists do we see who are scientists or analytical philosophers? It would be interesting to find out what proportion of historians and anthropologists and theists.

Thanks for the article link by the way. It will take me a time to read it, so I will drop you a PM once I have digested it. A post on the board will be too far out of date.

219. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190686 by epeeist on June 9, 2008 at 11:33 am

Comment #190680 by Steve Zara

One thing is for sure; I would never debate him publically. As we have seen on this site, he would always be responding to things never said, to his own ideas of what he wants people to believe "atheists" think.
Agreed, especially in the type of event that Christians Together seem to be organising.

I can't decide whether it is loaded or fatuous.

220. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #190461 by epeeist on June 9, 2008 at 6:37 am

Comment #190453 by al-rawandi

I am afraid you will have to remove your head from the sand now.
In what way? I have always seen Islam as a threat. I see the establishment of theocracies by force or stealth as threats.
In the Journal of International Security Studies
Is this available online? If so, do you have a link?
You can be certain the radical Muslims have a far higher TFR than the more passive or secular Muslims.

I am still reading up on the situation in England, but my guess is you will have a similar problem on your hands.

I presume the "Potential Support Ratio" is a measure of those who would support those beliefs and actions shown in your table.

I would have some questions on this
  1. Does he discuss why these beliefs have the prevalence they do?
  2. How has this ratio changed over time?
  3. Can he justify why it will not change in the future?

221. Prayer to feed the hungry

Comment #190160 by epeeist on June 8, 2008 at 1:18 pm

Comment #190153 by FightingFalcon

To both of you - I honestly haven't heard of the court case you're referring to so I can't comment. I had assumed (I suppose wrongly) that opposition to GMOs came from sentiments earlier about that food being "creepy" and therefore inedible for humans.
There are the usual set who are worried about "Frankenfoods", but there is also some more studied opposition which is concerned about monocultures in both the agricultural and financial senses. And as I said, you really have to look to see who is the principle beneficiary of GMO.

222. Prayer to feed the hungry

Comment #190119 by epeeist on June 8, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Comment #190106 by FightingFalcon

I'm sure the person dying of starvation really doesn't care how "creepy" the food is.
He may not this year. But next year when the seed he kept aside doesn't grow or the man from Monsanto turns up demanding large amounts cash he might.

It is always worth asking cui bono?

223. Couple charged in Norway over genital mutilation of daughters

Comment #190113 by epeeist on June 8, 2008 at 12:03 pm

Comment #190109 by Barry Pearson

Islam in full is not compatible with a modern liberal Western democracy. For example, Islam is technically incompatible with Universal Human Rights. (See later).
In addition the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the introduction of Sharia and a theocratic regime were incompatible with the requirements of a democratic society.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2003/feb/RefahPartisiGCjudgmenteng.htm

224. Couple charged in Norway over genital mutilation of daughters

Comment #190072 by epeeist on June 8, 2008 at 10:19 am

Comment #190059 by Dax

True, however, chances are big that they are not Christian. FGM mostly takes place in Islamic and animalistic african cultures. According to the CIA world factbook the religious makeup of Gambia is:
Muslim 90%, Christian 9%, indigenous beliefs 1%
Note that the man had two other wives, so almost certainly not Christian.

Not sure what the position is of animistic religions is to polygamy.

225. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #190063 by epeeist on June 8, 2008 at 10:00 am

Comment #190021 by Steve Zara

I actually don't think any "organising" is generally necessary. Just persistent but polite questioning when someone puts forward a position based on religious authority.
Agreed if it is a matter of talking directly to believers.

It may require some more coordinated effort if it is the religious organisations that are being challenged.

226. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #190007 by epeeist on June 8, 2008 at 6:22 am

Comment #189972 by clearthinker

It's time for atheists to "come out of the closet" in the way that gays did in the 70s. That's all we are doing by getting together; we are just recognising that our numbers are far larger than any one of us as individuals had ever imagined. That's not religion - that's ENLIGHTENMENT

Dr Jonesz " Yes of course you are more than many people think. You have basically been controlling the Western and Chinese world in the name of Enlightenment for the past 100 years. Anyway perhaps it is time you came "out of the closet" and let your light shine. After all up until now atheists have been quiet, hiding and afraid. Perhaps you could write a book " lets call it "The God Delusion" Perhaps you should get yourselves a name. I don't know", how about The Brights? That should be self effacing enough and doubtless will catch on.


"The religious are fully entitled to their beliefs". I get a lot of the old "Well, you can disagree with me, but I'm entitled to my opinion." This is, frankly, tosh. You are only entitled to an opinion if it is reasonable. The religious are, ipso facto, unentitled, because their reasoning is faulty. What they ARE entitled to is the opportunity to be educated - to BECOME reasonable.
Laurie " is this what Steve means by reasonable? We are only entitled to an opinion if it is reasonable " and anyone religious is by definition not reasonable. Way to go! Reeducate the believers. Make them "reasonable". Don't let them vote until they become reasonable. Is this the "decency" Steve is speaking about?


Just to emphasise what AllanW said. I picked a couple of random sections from clearthinker's post.

Ask yourself - is this person here to take part in a critical debate, or is he here to generate angry responses from people on the site. Did he cherry pick pieces out of your post, did he actually make a constructive response?

Take into account that he has previously cut such responses and pasted them into his own web site. Also take into account that he has recently declared his creationist views and the fact that he is due to debate with an atheist at some juncture (chairing which was a task which Paula refused).

Given his longish absence from the site, one has to ask why he is returning now (and why he has time to post on the Sabbath)?

However, the basic acceptance of "God" was always a given.

Epeeist - And now the basic non acceptance of God is a "given" in many areas of society. Such unthinking atheism is based upon a series of myths which are swalloed wholesale by atheists.
Actually, I think there is as much non-acceptance of god as you suppose. Much more indifference and the irrelevance of god to most people.

Is this "series of myths" anything like the "tenets" of atheism that you keep on not describing to us?

227. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #190000 by epeeist on June 8, 2008 at 5:57 am

Comment #189997 by ape-woman

I have been studying postmodernism for some weeks now and find that it is entirely maddening my brain. And I think I have a pretty good understanding of the overall concept!
Can I recommend a small book as a purgative - "Why Truth Matters" by Jeremy Stangroom and Ophelia Benson.

228. Faith no more as World Youth Day fans flames of disbelief

Comment #189905 by epeeist on June 7, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Comment #189872 by moderndaythomas


I'm an able hand, though somewhat lacking in the skipper department. One day though.
I've seen many pictures of Baltic sailing, is the weather good out there for it?
Its a very short season, but can be incredibly hot an dry. That trip we kept sailing north to find somewhere cooler. Ended up just above 62 degrees north. The best bit was using a public sauna on one of the islands, coming out and jumping straight into the sea.

Comment #189873 by SharonMcT

You have to be good to be lucky. Judging from the photos, you are a lucky man. :)
The benefits of having a wife who teaches at an all girls school ;-)

229. Faith no more as World Youth Day fans flames of disbelief

Comment #189869 by epeeist on June 7, 2008 at 11:54 am

Comment #189834 by moderndaythomas

f evolutionists could only organise like this. I'm willing to claim that I need a nice 45 foot Halberg-Rassy to circumnavigate the globe spreading the word of Darwin.
I might give you a ride on my Swan-Nautor when my acolytes grace me with one.

In the mean while, here is a picture with me on a smaller Halberg-Rassy in the Baltic. Plus some others with me having to work hard to compensate for the crews I had - http://www.flickr.com/photos/10983076@N08/sets/72157605487930517/ ;-)

230. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189820 by epeeist on June 7, 2008 at 10:28 am

Comment #189814 by Quetzalcoatl

he may have heard of the Atheist Handbook, but he doesn't know where to get a copy. NOBODY TELL HIM!
I left my copy on the train with a http://www.bookcrossing.com/ sticker on it. I hope it doesn't end up in Dundee.

231. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189804 by epeeist on June 7, 2008 at 9:59 am

Comment #189798 by The Reverend Dark

And soccer fans - with their dogmatic adherence to the hooligan, the Beckham and the holy chav.
I think a cease and desist order is necessary.

Some of us are listening to Test Match Special and wondering whether New Zealand will last until stumps in the cricket match against England.

Others may follow one of the European sides in the pie-powder event that started today.

232. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189793 by epeeist on June 7, 2008 at 9:31 am

Comment #189789 by Steve Zara

That clearthinker feels the need to post here is a very hopeful sign. People him are now put in a defensive position.
Colour me cynical, but I wonder if he is looking for new material to quote mine.

It may be worthwhile having a look at your PMs Steve if you haven't done so for a while.

233. Reality wins in Texas!

Comment #189786 by epeeist on June 7, 2008 at 9:17 am

So WTF is "Creationism Science" and is anyone from the Dallas area going to complain about it to the paper?

234. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189776 by epeeist on June 7, 2008 at 8:46 am

Comment #189768 by Laurie Fraser


"The religious are fully entitled to their beliefs". I get a lot of the old "Well, you can disagree with me, but I'm entitled to my opinion." This is, frankly, tosh.
So if people are only entitled to an opinion if it is reasonable, then who decides what is reasonable and what isn't?

I wouldn't want to deny anyone the right to believe or practice those beliefs. What I would want is justification as to why those beliefs should get you, for example, 26 unelected members in the legislature or the right to indoctrinate children in schools.

As for italics - I use < em > italic text < /em > around the text I want to italicise or < strong > bold text < /text > around text I want emboldened. You will need to take out the spaces around the word inside the angle brackets to make it work.

235. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189740 by epeeist on June 7, 2008 at 5:59 am

Comment #189732 by Steve Zara

I don't think that is enough. One can say that people should have to justify claims, but one also, I feel, has to provide a foundation for how claims are justified. We need an equivalent of the Queensbury Rules for public disagreements and debates.
Justification is the critical element. It is something that the religious have not had to do at the foundations before, there may have been disputes over interpretation of scripture and arguments over whether the host is actually transubstantiated during mass. However, the basic acceptance of "God" was always a given.

What the religious have to realise is that when the tenets of their beliefs are challenged then the response that "because that is what it says in our holy book" or "because that is what I believe" will no longer gain the automatic deference that it used to.

Given that they no longer can rely on their base position or the automatic deference the religious are going to struggle to justify their position. As such the only things they can do are to give up many of the properties of their god and holy book or actively seek to undermine the position of reason and rationality.

236. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189730 by epeeist on June 7, 2008 at 5:10 am

Comment #189722 by Steve Zara

I don't promote "atheism". I promote "reason".
To invert that, the thing I promote is lack of deference. The religious are fully entitled to their beliefs, but as soon as they make claims as to the way the world and its people came into existence, to the historicity of its holy books or to the validity of it ethical position and tries to present these as true, justified belief which the rest of society should accept and conform to then they must show that these are valid.

The time for the automatic acceptance of the position of religion in society has gone. It should justify itself in exactly the same way as politicians, historians, scientists and philosophers have to.

237. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189710 by epeeist on June 7, 2008 at 3:12 am

Comment #189709 by Appleby

I'm obviously discussing ideas above everyone's head. It doesn't matter. I'm quite done here
Oh, you were done days ago. All you have managed to show is that you are a misogynistic, homophobic and racist bigot desperately struggling to justify your prejudices. And failing in the process.

238. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189708 by epeeist on June 7, 2008 at 3:01 am

Comment #189707 by Mitchell Gilks


Why must such a society also permit homosexuality? A completely heterosexual society is still quite capable of zoophilia? How does that follow? It appears to be a complete non sequitur to me.
Logically it is. There is an ethical entailment (whatever that means).

239. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189705 by epeeist on June 7, 2008 at 2:58 am

Comment #189704 by Appleby

Your claim of bestiality being paraphilia is also insufficiently proven.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=5IdO6wisyUUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA239&dq=paraphilia classification&ots=iVD2FuOTdF&sig=H8JAC_nhGReZMFHYItus0bvaBw8#PPA241,M1

240. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189703 by epeeist on June 7, 2008 at 2:48 am

Comment #189701 by Appleby

There isn't, but you must realize that it automatically entails the permission of homosexuality. A heterosexual society cannot permit bestiality yet prohibit homosexuality.
You have demonstrated no entailment between the two.

As has been noted before, both heterosexuality and homosexuality stem from biology. Zoosexuality is a paraphilia.

241. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189689 by epeeist on June 7, 2008 at 1:47 am

Comment #189686 by clearthinker

I must be missing something. Is it not the oft repeated mantra that atheists do not have a creed; that atheism is just simply the lack of belief in God; that atheists come from many different backgrounds and have many different beliefs so that the only thing that unites you is the lack of belief?
Ah, I see clearthinker has arrived to claim that atheism is, at heart, just another belief system. At least this time he doesn't appear to be claiming that we are fundamentalists.

What he has claimed in the past are that there are tenets to this atheist faith. However, despite much prompting he has never really been able to give a definitive list of these tenets.

242. Blogger spreads the gospel of science

Comment #189561 by epeeist on June 6, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Comment #189474 by Tom Coward


Some place names in Maine:
Millinocket (not to be confused with East Millinocket)
Macwahoc
Some places to be found in (the real) Yorkshire

Mytholmroyd
Pigbaner
Gomersal
Shitlingthorpe
Ugglebarnby
Cleckheaton
Goinislong
Giggleswick
Heckmondwike

243. Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

Comment #189541 by epeeist on June 6, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Comment #189531 by thewhitepearl

Quetzalcoatl- Yup! Exactly...Bubbles in space time continum.
I thought it was

"Eddies/Eddy's in the space time continuum"

244. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189526 by epeeist on June 6, 2008 at 12:15 pm

Comment #189462 by hungarianelephant


Comment #189403 by MaxD on June 6, 2008 at 7:52 am
This pretty much summarises what I was going to post this afternoon, so I can keep this relatively short (thanks, Max).
Good posts. As is not unusual here we get a useful idiot posting that enables a set of ideas to be put forward in counterpoint This informs others of course, rather than the original poster.

245. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #189455 by epeeist on June 6, 2008 at 10:05 am

Comment #189447 by al-rawandi


1) Can you post the link to the Bunglawala article if you could.

He writes in the "Comment is Free" section of the Guardian, his profile will take you to his articles.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/inayatbunglawala
2) Dependence on oil is a huge curse.
If it is one way, then absolutely agree. Mutual dependence can be beneficial.

246. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #189443 by epeeist on June 6, 2008 at 9:33 am

Comment #189394 by al-rawandi

So no deportation of terror and shariah supporters? That is what Fanusi suggests. Plus a ban on immigration of Muslims for several years.
There are problems with this, other than those Elephant raises.

We have this thing called the Commonwealth, a number of countries of which are Muslim. We can reduce immigration from them, but eliminating it completely would be nigh on impossible.

As to deportation, we would have difficulties deporting to states like Saudi Arabia. The thing that screws this the fact that, like you, we are dependent on them for oil and on top of that our politicians seem to like them for some reason. So we take their money and resources, but we also take their particularly virulent people and policies as well. And once we have them we can't get rid of them.

I am not complacent, but I do think things are changing. Have a glance at the responses to articles by Inayat Bunglawala in the Guardian, a paper that I am sure you would consider as "liberal".

247. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #189392 by epeeist on June 6, 2008 at 7:12 am

Comment #189387 by al-rawandi

Well done. With those citations.
Indeed, much better. The only point I was trying to make was that you don't do your case any good by using organs like the Mail as a primary source.
My question is, being a liberal guy, what is your solution for dealing with people that find your lifestyle, your country, your 'beliefs', your wife, your daughters, as worthy of the nastiest contempt.
No faith schools especially those funded from outside the UK, no religious instruction inside schools (comparative religion is okay), no imported imams, no deals with organisations like the MCB, no exemptions in laws because of religious beliefs (two cases near me, one being a child beaten in madrasah and the imam who did it getting away with an admonition and another being a Muslim pharmacist who refused to dispense the morning after pill), no restrictions on where police are allowed to stop and search, more ethical foreign and aid policies, much tighter oversight on arranged foreign marriages.

I am in an audio at the moment, so I am having to switch attention around. But that will do as a starter.

248. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #189370 by epeeist on June 6, 2008 at 6:22 am

Comment #189364 by Fanusi Khiyal


*gives epeeist a look*
I have had this conversation with Al before. If you are going to use the British press as collateral then you would be advised to stick to a small number of publications. For the daily and Sunday papers - the Independent, Guardian/Observer and the Telegraph. The second publication is left wing, the second is right wing. The Times has credibility, but is a Murdoch mouthpiece.

For weeklies, the Economist and Spectator.

Quite honestly, if you try to make a case based in material in the Mail or Express then people in the UK will either not take you seriously or consider you to be a right wing nutter or compatriot (depending on their political stance).

And just to add some additional links to those that irate has posted:

http://www.septicisle.info/labels/Press Complaints Commission.html

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23459186-details/PCC ruling on Heathrow protest by the Camp for Climate Action/article.do

http://www.critest.com/rkp.htm

http://eng.maidanua.org/node/866

249. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #189362 by epeeist on June 6, 2008 at 6:04 am

Comment #189357 by al-rawandi

Can you provide some instance of DM lying or distorting. Simply printing true reports about a despised minority does not make you a racist, it makes you an honest journalist.
Not too difficult to do. Simply do a search for "Daily Mail" and "Press Complaints Council"

Now, it may be that the report that Fanusi linked to is correct. However, it undermines his credibility to use such an organ to further his claims.

EDIT: Make that the "Press Complaints Commission" and add in the Evening Standard, which is part of the Mail group.

250. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189339 by epeeist on June 6, 2008 at 4:24 am

Comment #189336 by Tyler Durden

Reasons Why Appletart Finds Anal Sex Between Men Repulsive:
6. He is actually a 90lb weakling who plays a Barbarian in Dungeons and Dragons.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 | Next