Comments by epeeist

Comment #85550 by epeeist on November 6, 2007 at 6:22 am

Comment #85541 by SpeakerToAnimals2

I met John Polkinghorne many years ago at a summer school for particle theorists. He got right up my left nostril then by referring to particle physics as a young mans game -- and I was one of the admittedly few young women graduate students at that meeting.

Ah, but if you were a female version of Speaker to Animals you wouldn't be sentient anyway, would you ;-)

2702. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85520 by epeeist on November 6, 2007 at 3:55 am

Comment #85501 by Dianelos Georgoudis

But the point is that atheism's implications render it a much less attractive and indeed a much more dangerous worldview.

But the point is that QM's implications render it a much less attractive and indeed a much more dangerous world view than Newtonian mechanics.

But the point is that naturalistic ontology's implications render it a much less attractive and indeed a much more dangerous world view than that of idealistic theism.

2703. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85517 by epeeist on November 6, 2007 at 3:50 am

Comment #85513 by steve99

By all possible standards of decency, the first approach is the more honest, and the more moral one. The last one is just plain nuts - loopiness wrapped up in pseudo-philosophy.

Sorry steve99 - I think a slight modification is necessary.

2704. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85509 by epeeist on November 6, 2007 at 3:27 am

Comment #85504 by Diacanu

DG-

You are not a philosopher. You are just some guy with diarrhea of the mouth.

Diacanu - we get the occasional theist on the site such as Mark Taunton and Paul Emercz (sp?) and possibly ADH. While we may think they are mistaken they nevertheless can argue their position cogently.

We get others such as devolved, Bizarro Dawkins and revcort who, to be blunt about it, are nutjobs.

DG crosses two camps, he is obviously reasonably educated but is as closed minded as the second set. He uses different tactics though, while the likes of devolved drop a post then cut and run DG just keeps on posting. And as steve99 has said, he has a reset button which just starts him at the same point over and over again.

2705. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85505 by epeeist on November 6, 2007 at 3:20 am

Comment #85501 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Any way you look at it atheism renders morality arbitrary, and indeed renders all evaluative or normative thought incoherent.

So tell us whether allowing the mother of a pair of new born twins to die because she refuses blood is coherent, tell us whether valuing a woman as only of the worth of half a man is coherent. Tell us why slavery was proclaimed as god given by the Christians of the antebellum south and is now regarded as beyond the pale is coherent.

Tell us why making assertions time after time after time without any observational evidence is coherent.

Give us some evidence for your "objective morality" and how we would recognise it. Give us some evidence that your idealistic theism provides better (whatever that means) morality than that put forward by the likes of Aristotle or Spinoza.

2706. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #85474 by epeeist on November 6, 2007 at 1:37 am

Comment #85459 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Well, it seems that even though it sounds very good in theory it does not work in the practice of real world science, because in many cases whether a particular objective observation does or does not falsify a particular theory depends on a series of assumptions which themselves are not experimentally verifiable.

Can you not see the glaring hole in this?

Also, valid scientific statements such as "black holes exist" or "all metals melt at some temperature" cannot be falsified.

These are two different types of statement. Back to logic 101

The issue is that scientific methodology as it in fact takes place cannot really be neatly nailed down.

I don't think anyone actually working in science would have any problems with this, the sequence that Popper put together (problem, hypothesis, critical experiment) is too limited. When it comes to predicition, parsimony, testability and falsifiability though you will find a general acceptance of these.

Finally - on objective morality. Given the changing ethos of individual societies (we no longer consider slavery or ritual murder and cannibalism acceptable) and the differences between societies (in the UK women are accepted as the equals of men, in other societies they are only worth half a man) then we are justified in contingently assuming that there is no such thing as objective morality.

The burden of proof is therefore upon you to show that such a thing exists, and how an objective moral imperative would be recognised.

OK, like steve99 I am done, I leave it to anyone else who wants to carry on.

2707. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #85469 by epeeist on November 6, 2007 at 1:22 am

Comment #85153 by Dr Benway

Do narcissists require hitting upside the head, or do I merely feel the need to hit them? In other words, does God instantiate "please hit me" as an objective ethical fact concerning the narcissist, or does God instatiate "go slap him" as an objective fact about me?

I thought your mantra was a good idea, sadly mine ("The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.") didn't seem to work as well, possibly because it was too long.

One bit on the forum is apposite - http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=28004, it is specifically meant for dealing with YEC. I particularly liked the entry on "quote mining". Perhaps we can get them to add entries for "ontology" and "objective morality"

2708. Response to Theodore Dalrymple

Comment #85303 by epeeist on November 5, 2007 at 1:09 pm

Comment #85299 by steve99

Squinky: I strongly agree. Developments in physics in the past century or so have made many theological arguments redundant.

Philosophical ones too. The development of anthropology, sociology, psychology and linguistics as well as neuroscience have reduced its scope enormously.

Perhaps one of the few things that remains to them both is ethics, but of course you don't need god to behave ethically.

2709. Rome playing politics

Comment #85284 by epeeist on November 5, 2007 at 12:13 pm

Comment #85276 by annabanana

I think there was an article on here about the Golden Compass, but I don't have time to link it. I live in the "Bible Belt" in the U.S. and there is actually an e-mail going around the office of the state agency I work for. The e-mail tells everyone to boycott the books and the movies because they are "anti-Christian".

It would vary from company to company here in the UK, but for most I suspect it would be grounds for disciplinary action.

2710. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85267 by epeeist on November 5, 2007 at 11:41 am

Comment #85253 by phil rimmer

The banning is too bad. You cannot do this. I have stuff I want to say to the man.

I agree with your first and second sentences. You might want to say things, however whether he listens is another matter.

Please reconsider. Fleas are ultimately harmless.

Now this I will probably have to disagree with.

I think he can play it both ways. If he is banned he is going to report it in the worst possible light anywhere that will publish it. If he isn't banned then he will carry on attempting to provoke a backlash, which again he can report in the same way.

I have to agree with comment #85259 by Corylus, I think he lurks here waiting his opportunity to stir up trouble. This is all he really does, he rarely actually answers questions.

Now if Josh had banned him for a rather obvious lack of a sense of humour...

2711. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85197 by epeeist on November 5, 2007 at 9:21 am

Comment #85193 by Quetzalcoatl

It will be useful if you ever get the urge to count the number of times he's used the phrases "atheist faith" and "atheist believers". If you're so inclined...

Many threads and posts back I offered him a small hypothesis to show one particular basis for atheism. He responded to the effect that this wasn't all there was and there must be other "tenets". Despite many invitations he has always failed to enumerate these tenets.

2712. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85194 by epeeist on November 5, 2007 at 9:18 am

Comment #85186 by Seti

Well according to Beattie, what is needed is more women! Apparently the views of the men who have written are invalid because in their "mock battle" (mock?!) they are perpetuating the oppression of women who are "seldom represented by their scholarly elites."

Starting with Hypatia presumably. I wonder whatever happened to her...

2713. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85171 by epeeist on November 5, 2007 at 8:18 am

Comment #85167 by Calvin

3) Ricey - are you really so naive as to think that this thread indicates the open mindedness of this website. It is an attempt at mockery and an accusation that those who respond to Dawkins are only in it for the money. Unless this is the atheist definition of open-mindedness?!

Is this one of the atheist "tenets" that you keep mentioning but never detailing?

I have yet to see ANYONE on this site recommend that any of the 'flea' books should be read - after all why should you? Without reading them you know what they will contain and you know that they are wrong!).

If you look back you will find a number of people who have read at least some of these books, including a compatriot of yours Northern Bright

2714. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #85151 by epeeist on November 5, 2007 at 6:19 am

Comment #85146 by steve99

Yes... "How to deal with Dianelos"! I think the thread would need some kind of counter, showing the number of times DG presses the 'reset' button for each point.

I am sure Josh has something like this behind the scenes.

When did he add the "spam" category, it isn't something that I had noticed before.

2715. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #85144 by epeeist on November 5, 2007 at 5:32 am

Comment #85142 by steve99

Well, I thought it might be useful to show the flaws at least once in each new thread before disengaging.....

Perhaps it ought to go in the "Debate Points" page ;-)

2716. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #85141 by epeeist on November 5, 2007 at 5:21 am

Comment #85137 by steve99

It seems to me that the evidence against metaphysical naturalism at least is overwhelming.

No, it isn't. You only claim this because you personally have difficulty with the consequences of a naturalist view of the world.

Here we go round the mulberry bush (again).

We have the same set of assertions (not affirmations) from DG that started back in the Dawkins/McGrath thread. As you have said before, all that seems to happen is you press the reset button and get exactly the same information that you got the last time - the existence of objective morality, the superiority of theism over naturalism, the inability of naturalism to explain consciousness and its ontological failure.

All of them presented as though the counter arguments had never been made. I make this at least the fourth thread in which this has been done.

2717. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85133 by epeeist on November 5, 2007 at 4:35 am

Comment #85131 by Dianelos Georgoudis

...a question he completely avoided discussing by the way, namely that if our ethical beliefs have merely evolved anthropologically and one can therefore transcend their current state on what standard can one appeal to when transcending them.

On the other hand, assume that there is such a thing as "objective morality" and, for example, "murder is immoral" was one of its tenets.

The statement "murder is immoral" would be true if and only murder was immoral and how would we know that this indeed was objective?

2718. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85114 by epeeist on November 5, 2007 at 2:49 am

Comment #85111 by Quetzalcoatl

Doc B has been in hospital recently, for a hysterectomy! Turns out he's a she.

Of course we could be the subject of a wind up...

2719. The truth in religion

Comment #85113 by epeeist on November 5, 2007 at 2:43 am

Comment #84920 by Bonzai

Confucianism has always been an ideology for the rulers as envisioned by its founder.

From my readings it wasn't completely rigid to start with, though it became so later.

However, I don't think this matters. What has been demonstrated is that there were a number of people who existed centuries before Jesus who were attempting to create ethical systems on which to base societies.

Where I believe Jesus is unique in this scheme of things is that his ethical system is essentially theocratic. While the other systems mention one or more gods there does not seem to be the same dependence on them.

2720. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85110 by epeeist on November 5, 2007 at 2:32 am

Comment #85109 by Logicel

Is it known why Doc B was absent for the last week or too?

A hysterectomy

2721. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85080 by epeeist on November 4, 2007 at 11:19 pm

Comment #85062 by Dr Benway

Hi monkey!

Welcome back my old cock.

Speak it quietly - but there has been no word of Dianelos since you have been gone.

2722. The truth in religion

Comment #84917 by epeeist on November 4, 2007 at 7:51 am

Comment #84904 by Veronique

Someone has a good idea; then the bureaucracy picks it up and runs with it, manipulating it to fit with the society at large and eventually canonising it in the legal framework. Then the original idea is lost forever within the maze of interpretation.

This is more or less exactly what happened to Confucianism.

And to add to the score of ethical systems that were produced pre-Christ, we actually do have one that was written down and from an historical personage. Namely Aristotle's "Nichomachean Ethics", written about 350BC.

2723. The truth in religion

Comment #84915 by epeeist on November 4, 2007 at 7:45 am

Comment #84908 by keith

What's bellicose (or even pseudo-bellicose) about thinking that 'Zen and the Art of Archery' is thought-provoking? Are there some people on this site who don't like (or pseudo-don't like) Zen?

Note the three foot pieces of steel sitting on my shoulder. I wouldn't want people to get the idea that I am a weapons fetishist.

Both "Narziss and Goldmund" is Christianity with an Apollonic/Dionysian viewpoint.

Does this mean that both characters in the novel is Christianity or that both books, "Narziss" and "Goldmund" is?

This is a case of letting the fingers getting ahead of the brain.

Both "Narziss and Goldmund" and "The Glass Bead Game" are about the conflicts between Apollonian and Dionysian modes of living.

2724. The truth in religion

Comment #84903 by epeeist on November 4, 2007 at 5:57 am

Comment #84900 by steve99

I don't know that, because I don't believe it is all bullshit. A lot of what the Buddha taught was extremely sensible (*).

Speaking with my pseudo-bellicose hat on, I thought "Zen and the Art of Archery" was extremely thought provoking.

As for Hesse, you have to remember his background. He was looking at Eastern philosophies with an existentialist bias. Both "Narziss and Goldmund" is Christianity with an Apollonic/Dionysian viewpoint. The "Glass Bead Game" is similar, but without the Christianity.

One other Jew you could look in terms of a system of ethics is of course Spinoza.

2725. The truth in religion

Comment #84892 by epeeist on November 4, 2007 at 4:02 am

Comment #84846 by ADH

Steve, I appreciate your difficulty in accepting that there was anything supernatural about him, if you already hold the position that the idea of the supernatural is itself an absurdity. In that case nothing I or anyone else could say would persuade you that God could embody himself in a human being. How can he if God does not actually exist?

How many other people have there been supposedly born of virgins? How many resurrected?

You are claiming a set of extraordinary events. As such the burden of proof is upon you to validate your claims.

If your claim is that god is purely "supernatural" then I think steve99 and I would (provisionally) be prepared to accept this. Steve will correct this if he doesn't agree. But as soon as he sticks his oar into the natural world then we require some extraordinary proof to go with the extraordinary claims.

2726. The truth in religion

Comment #84891 by epeeist on November 4, 2007 at 3:54 am

Comment #84887 by steve99

It is the other way around. The Buddha lived hundreds of years before Christ (assuming both were real historical figures).

And this makes him roughly contemporary with Confucius. A different way of coming at things, but still a thought out set of ethics half a millennium before Jesus.

2727. AAI 07

Comment #84743 by epeeist on November 3, 2007 at 12:13 pm

Comment #84739 by NMcC

My main point however, is that I don't understand why supporters of capitalism (as I suspect the 3 or 4 contributors to this thread that I alluded to could be described) even bother discussing the ins and outs of which taxes and at what levels these taxes should be imposed since the obvious and simple answer to this 'problem' for a supporter of capitalism is: as little as possible if you want to encourage capital to expand and invest.

Have you looked at the Open Source movement (or preferably the Free Software movement)? A strange mixture of cooperation and competition. It really is starting to redefine the way software is developed and distributed. It has gutted certain sectors of the software market (which is one of the reasons that Microsoft is trying to subvert it).

It is starting to spread into other areas where "Intellectual Property" is rampant. Documents published under a "Creative Commons" licence and journals being published online rather than in expensive journals.

2728. AAI 07

Comment #84729 by epeeist on November 3, 2007 at 11:09 am

Comment #84727 by notsobad

"free health care" must be one of the stupidest oxymorons around

Personally I would like to see it restricted. I don't think trolls should be eligible.

2729. AAI 07

Comment #84720 by epeeist on November 3, 2007 at 10:27 am

Comment #84713 by Logicel

However, governmental spending naturally grows because it does not have any restraints on its potential spending. An inefficient private enterprise will shrivel, while its government counterpart will grow (because if it is ineffective, it is obviously because it has insufficient resources.)

I am going to disagree with you on two counts. The first one is only partial, central government here in the UK has much less restraint than local government (which may explain why we have one of the most centralist governments in the EU). Personally, for most areas of government I would like to see things moving to a more regional level, with central government only mandating policy (You will ensure that you recycle at least x% of the waste in your area, now sort out between yourselves how you do this). From what I have seen command driven systems working from a single central point don't work as well as devolved organisations.

The second place I am going to disagree, again only partially, is in terms of inefficient private companies. It is true that for a small company, inefficiency will lead to its demise. However for large companies which have a considerable grip on the market this isn't true, they can simply lose the inefficiencies in the accounts and squeeze their customers some more.

The most woefully inefficient company I have ever worked for is a large UK bank. The number of projects that took vast amounts of time to complete, or were simply abandoned was enormous.

2730. AAI 07

Comment #84711 by epeeist on November 3, 2007 at 9:44 am

Comment #84673 by NMcC

I call the society advocated above genuine 'Socialism' and contend that, far from having been a failure, it has never existed anywhere in the world at anytime.

I hate going theistic on you, but here is a slightly modified Chesterton quote:~~The Christian ideal~~ Socialism has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.

And I guess you already know this one from "The Man who was Thursday": The poor have occasionally objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all."

2731. AAI 07

Comment #84710 by epeeist on November 3, 2007 at 9:37 am

Comment #84680 by scooternyc

I shall return and engage forthwith into our debate in a couple of days.

Don't rush back, dealing with your loss is much more important.

Many condolences.

2732. AAI 07

Comment #84708 by epeeist on November 3, 2007 at 9:31 am

Comment #84655 by Rtambree

You could go one step further and use citizen voting on the issue of the week.

I know this is going to sound elitist, but have a look at the likes of "The Daily Mail" and "The Sun" here in the UK. Not very pleasant, but influential.

I would hate to see a "vote of the week" started by either of these two papers.

2733. AAI 07

Comment #84707 by epeeist on November 3, 2007 at 9:27 am

Comment #84633 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

Bascially a constant balance needs to be struck,

I am pretty well with you until this point.

I think the balance needs to be dynamic, it will need to change as circumstances change.

I am not fully with you in terms of government commissioning. I have worked in private industry, public utilities and academia, with units of varying sizes and in different countries (European and American). The claim that private industry is more efficient than the public services is, in my experience at least, false. The places that have been the most efficient are small with a management that has a commitment.

The least efficient are large and with a CEO who is there to get his golden hello, pension and stock options and a golden handshake (known to me as seagull management - flies in, pecks about a bit, drops a load of shit and flies out).

2734. Believe it or not, courtesy counts

Comment #84634 by epeeist on November 3, 2007 at 1:33 am

Comment #84626 by Veronique

He goes to Liberty Uni or one of the faith "universities" and is doing "biology".

Sorry V., I just had to make a couple of amendments to your post.

2735. AAI 07

Comment #84628 by epeeist on November 3, 2007 at 12:49 am

I wonder how these go down with scooter and notsobad -
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/03/opinion/03herbert.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2204504,00.html

2736. AAI 07

Comment #84552 by epeeist on November 2, 2007 at 11:39 am

Comment #84549 by NMcC

thirdchimpanzee, epeeist and briancoughlanworldcitizen

Don't encourage that ignorant half-wit notsobad. I now believe that he's a troll.

Yep - see the latest "response" to my last post.

To paraphrase Marvin - brain the size of a small peanut.

2737. Jury Awards Father $11M in Funeral Case

Comment #84546 by epeeist on November 2, 2007 at 11:00 am

Comment #84537 by Klaatu barada nikto

For those of you who thought that 11 million was too much. The Phelps family disagrees. http://www.godhatesamerica.com/

Aw fuck it, now I have to go have a shower and disinfect my PC.

2738. AAI 07

Comment #84544 by epeeist on November 2, 2007 at 10:58 am

Comment #84542 by notsobad

Marx was after a demographic group - the weak, gullible, oppressed, and easy to control. The same group religions were using.

Have you actually read any Marx?

Do you know why the British workers said fuck off to his ideas (figuratively indeed) while the Russians did not? Because the British workers got much better during the years since he wrote The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844 without his miraculous medicine called communism.

The question is why things got better. And the answer isn't libertarianism or classical liberalism.

And yes, Marx got it wrong in terms of the necessity of revolution. It is possible to make incremental changes in society. But there again he got it wrong following the pronouncements of Hegel who was a total charlatan.

2739. AAI 07

Comment #84524 by epeeist on November 2, 2007 at 9:04 am

Comment #84522 by notsobad

NMcC,
I am genuinely interested why you have to put personal attacks in each of your posts? Does it make you feel better, or do you think it makes your arguments stronger? Perhaps both? Or is it just a habit from the past?

One might also ask why you keep resorting to tu quoque ;-)

2740. AAI 07

Comment #84486 by epeeist on November 2, 2007 at 6:46 am

Comment #84485 by NMcC

I have already stated that wealth in the form of rent, interest and profits is legalised robbery.

Having seen it in action, can I add in those who try to make a profit by extrapolating on the second derivative of the "value" of shares and currencies.

2741. AAI 07

Comment #84440 by epeeist on November 2, 2007 at 3:46 am

Comment #84433 by scooternyc

epeeist - your father didn't pay for or have opportunity to purchase health insurance?

Yes he did, he paid his national insurance which pays for the National Health Service.

2742. AAI 07

Comment #84430 by epeeist on November 2, 2007 at 3:28 am

Comment #84429 by scooternyc

Just making sure I've found the question:

"What would your decision on my father be?"

Those are the ones.

2743. AAI 07

Comment #84428 by epeeist on November 2, 2007 at 3:23 am

Comment #84423 by mejdrich

He then produced casual linkage

I don't usually pick on spelling, but the one above could cause some misinterpretation.

Do you actually mean causal?

2744. AAI 07

Comment #84425 by epeeist on November 2, 2007 at 3:18 am

Comment #84412 by scooternyc

"You haven't answered mine."

Perhaps I've missed it while scanning the thread, please re-ask the question and I'd be happy to answer.

My original questions were in #82909, with a follow up to your queries in #82915.

2745. AAI 07

Comment #84408 by epeeist on November 2, 2007 at 2:37 am

Comment #84407 by scooternyc

Comets - I haven't dodged ONE question on this thread, but nice try. I've said before I'm happy to address the things I've stated and defend my posts.

You haven't answered mine.

2746. AAI 07

Comment #84403 by epeeist on November 2, 2007 at 2:24 am

Comment #84401 by Comets

Well I think there are a lots of threads on this site that follow a similar pattern. What should we do? Is it just a waste of time to discuss things with people of opposing views?

Cut it from this bit of the site.

Take it up as a formal debate on the Forum, with a set format. Look at the rules for other debates and follow them.

2747. AAI 07

Comment #84383 by epeeist on November 2, 2007 at 12:34 am

Comment #84314 by Diacanu

So, how many more cycles of...

"Piss on the homeless!!".

"You're a sociopath!!".

...are we going to do here?

Yes - there isn't any argument going on, just a series of ad hominems of both types.

2748. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #84382 by epeeist on November 2, 2007 at 12:29 am

Comment #84380 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Speaking of books, I recommend "Naturalism in Quesition" by Mario de Caro and David MacArthur, as state of the art compendium of what philosophers today think about naturalism.

I will have a look. You miss the quantification, is this "some philosophers" or "all philosophers"?

You know Hegel's idea of thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

Given the atmosphere of Marxism I grew up in I should do ;-)

However, my personal opinion was that Hegel was a buffoon, where he wasn't an establishment lackey.

2749. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #84170 by epeeist on November 1, 2007 at 11:04 am

Comment #84168 by walk

Ah, yes, epeeist, I forgot to mention the "reward" thing.

No problem. Just that I used to work for a bank, and these were the only two emotions that the corporate guys seemed to exhibit.

Not for nothing is the collective noun for such a people a "wunch".

2750. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #84157 by epeeist on November 1, 2007 at 10:12 am

Comment #84149 by walk

- - you seem to be saying that the only reason YOU behave morally is fear of god, fear of hell - - - otherwise it seems you see no reason not to hurt others for your own benefit. Do you worship god because you fear you'll do terrible things if you're not controlled from above?

You seem to be going one step beyond my comment #81614, I raised this as the "fear and greed" gambit. You don't even bother with the greed bit.