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 BAEOZ


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

Comment #109706 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 2:29 pm

"Oh, the scientists think their logic makes them smarter than God, little do they know, we don't care about logic."

I don't know about christians, but I don't think mathematicians can be called scientists, though you need maths in science. To oversimplify: Maths is a formal system based on logic. Science is a method that tests empirical evidence against falsifiable explanations which have predictive power.

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

Comment #109705 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 2:23 pm

I followed the mighty Quetz to an apologist site as part of a non-raiding party. The guy there mentioned a first cause argument. As of this time he's not furnished details of it, so I can't attempt to refute it.
The one I know of is easy to refute:
P1. Everything has a cause
P2. To avoid an infinite regress there must be a first cause.
C That first cause we call god.
Now the premises are wrong, if we accept the first premise then the second premise is an ad-hoc fallacy. That is, it makes a special case that just this once there is no first cause to avoid infinite regress. If we accept the second premise, we have rejected the first that everything has a cause. Why can't the universe be a first cause instead of something else?
Further, the 1st premise as I see it is really an inductive argument: Everything (that I know of) has a cause. If there exists anything that doesn't have a cause, this premise is wrong even without the contradiction of the second premise. There are things that don't have a cause. I believe an excited electron emitting a photon and going to a lower energy state is one such thing.
And finally even if we accept both premises for the sake of argument. The conclusion doesn't hold. It's a long way from some nebulous first cause, some force, to a providential god of the bible.
Thoughts? Or is my logic flawed?

253. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109338 by BAEOZ on January 8, 2008 at 9:44 pm

Dr. Steve is still typing away. Amazing!
The output of the good doctor is astonishing. His husband must be a saint.

254. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #109328 by BAEOZ on January 8, 2008 at 9:24 pm

let the one who objectively and verifiably rose from the dead and appeared publicly to over 500 people at a time, and appeared to many over a period of 40 days, ... let his way become the way we walk in.

Over 500 people at a time? Over a period of 40 days? You know this how? The gospels perhaps? The same that says that a lot of dead people got up and walked about Jerusalem? Funny how outside the gospels there's nothing to support this........

255. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109283 by BAEOZ on January 8, 2008 at 6:02 pm

jmcoley84. Imagine how much more atheists' would be hated if we door knocked?

256. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109278 by BAEOZ on January 8, 2008 at 5:52 pm

Hey Steve. I do see what you're getting at. I think the problem is of usage. I went to dictionary.com and theism is:


1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).


Many people use definition 1. which is a person, the standard providential god. You say definition 2. is strictly (and I believe correctly) the only valid definition.

257. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109270 by BAEOZ on January 8, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Steve:

Theism is simply a label that says "I have a belief that there is some God or Gods". It says, in itself, nothing about the nature of those. Deism does.. it says that God is not active in Nature. That in itself is additional to the basic idea, as I see it.

My understanding is that deism posits a divine watchmaker who got the universe rolling, but never interferes. A deist god doesn't care about the universe or us. In fact he probably just is the universe (Deus sive natura).
Theism posits a providential god, one who created the shizbang, and most definitely cares about us. He has a plan........
Basically deism is a first-cause. Theism posits a person, ominipotent, omniscient and benevolent. But a person nevertheless. A person who will respond to your requests and punish your faults.
That's my understanding. Is that anywhere near what they mean?

258. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #109116 by BAEOZ on January 8, 2008 at 11:25 am

My argument was against some new guy who claimed he was a student of philosophy and who said ID had good potential of science. I said he should study the philosophy of science, learn about falsifiability and then he'd know why ID can't be science.
Doesn't seem rude to me. Not my fault the Emperor has no clothes.....

259. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #109108 by BAEOZ on January 8, 2008 at 11:00 am

Brian. I checked back at the atheismsucks site and they haven't posted my message. But have posted others. Don't think the theists like me. 'Twas a good idea....

260. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108944 by BAEOZ on January 8, 2008 at 2:33 am

Hi Brian. I went over to that site. Posted a reply to some guy who said he was a student of philosophy and that he thought ID had good scientific potential. I pointed out the as a student of philosophy, he'd need to learn about falsifiability and when he understood that quaint concept. He'd understand why ID can't be science. Not sure if the moderators will post it or not....

261. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108893 by BAEOZ on January 7, 2008 at 8:09 pm

There are no snakes and essentially no other critters poisonous enough to kill you

Annabannana better not come to OZ then. It's full of poisonous critters and that's just the human population. The snakes lead the world in being deadly. I think they pride themselves on it. Crocodiles up north. Jellyfish, octopus, sharks in the water. Lots of other interesting wildlife that can take off an arm or crush a few bones too.
On the plus side, we have heaps more sun than NZ, plenty of beaches if jellyfish, octopus and sharks are your cuppa..........Did I mention deadly snakes?
Oh. I forgot deadly spiders and deadly insects.......

262. Blind Faiths

Comment #108845 by BAEOZ on January 7, 2008 at 6:00 pm

he harmfulness (or benefits) of a religion should be defined by its effects, not its intent.

I agree. It doesn't matter if some fanatic, who supports or carries out terrorism is deemed a non-believer of the "true" faith by other believers. The simple fact is, if his belief in his variant of the faith leads him to cause harm. It's the faith that bears the responsibility. He calls himself a believer. He acts out of beliefs taught to him. Without the faith, he wouldn't do it.
You can try and apply this to atheism, but fail. Because belief in nothing doesn't lead to any positive statement or action.....

263. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108842 by BAEOZ on January 7, 2008 at 5:56 pm

Just keep swimming, just keep swimming......

264. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108840 by BAEOZ on January 7, 2008 at 5:50 pm

As for that miserable, nasty person called Paul. Couldn't think of a much worse person to lead a cult.

265. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108839 by BAEOZ on January 7, 2008 at 5:49 pm

What if everyone in the world had the same dream tonight?

Well, if you could demonstrate that. It would be evidence of some phenomena worthy of investigation. It wouldn't be an automatic "godditit" moment. There may be natural explanations that you'd have to rule out first. I think the fact the Christians have Christian revelations and Muslims have Muslims, etc points to a more local cause of revelation.
Tell you what. Until every person in the world has the same dream on the same night. How's about everybody stops believing in religion?

266. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108836 by BAEOZ on January 7, 2008 at 5:45 pm

I think sharkbait has watched nemo too many times and has lost it. Maybe that's an example of revelation?

267. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108832 by BAEOZ on January 7, 2008 at 5:36 pm

What about divine revelation as a source of knowledge?

First, where is it divinely revealed in scripture that god is eternal (outside of time and not a person)? In scripture, god is a person in time, who gets quite jealous when he's not praised sufficiently. He may be all powerful and immortal. But he has personality. He loves to throw a tanty and smite people for no good reason. He curses all humanity for the non-crime of one guy. This is someone you pray in order to avoid the harsh realities of life. But this is not the god of the sophisticated theologian. That god is not a person at all. Not worth praying too as a non-person has nothing to offer persons who pray. How can an unmoved mover think or do anything for an individual?
Second. How can you distinguish divine revelation from imagination, wishful thinking, dishonesty or insanity upon the part of the revealee? You can't share the internal thoughts of another human. That rules out revelation as a form of evidence. Even, in the improbable event that god was revealling himself to some chosen sod......

268. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108827 by BAEOZ on January 7, 2008 at 5:16 pm

Was he NOT doing anything for a hundred thousand million trillion quadrillion years before he got bored and started placing planets around randomly? ...becose that's a real waste of infinite intelligence. A bit like... yeah... I'm omniscent but... I'm not really thinking of anything at the moment since I havn't invented anything yet at all.

Ahem. Let me put on my "Sophisticated Theological hat" on (available online from prestigious, non-accreditted institutions).
God is not infinite, oh no. He's eternal. That is, he's always been. Time started when god created the universe. God, being eternal, is outside of time. It's meaningless to ask what god was doing before creation as there was no time before creation. Here I should mention that physicists superficially agree in that the big bang theory posits that time began after the big bang. (Of course, being a sophisticated theologian I won't mention that the big bang theory doesn't require god nor does it suggest that the universe began then because that would defeat my own argument.) God in this sophisticated sense was the prime cause of everything. Not the Santa Claus that the average believer prays too and whom sophisticated theologians pray too in a sophisticated way. How do I know all this sophisticated theology? I assert it, and it is so. I'm just like god. Fiat lux (let there be light), but in my case Fiat crap (let there be sophisticated theological doggerel).
There you go. Theology asserts that which it cannot possibly know and is proud of its ignorance.

269. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108813 by BAEOZ on January 7, 2008 at 4:34 pm

Well I certainly don't!
I believe that evolution is ...

I used to think believe was a bad word. There's nothing wrong with believe if you mean: accept based on reasonable evidence/argumentation. If you mean faith, then that's another story.
So, yeah. I don't believe in evolution like a person believes in a god. I believe evolution is the best explanation we've got to explain the phenomenom of varied life we see on Earth and how it got to be the way it is. This belief is backed by countless data or evidence that supports the explanation and none that doesn't.....

270. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108573 by BAEOZ on January 7, 2008 at 9:10 am

Holding deep religious beliefs is not incompatible with believing in evolution," Omenn said.

That is wrong. Are scientists in the states so scared of losing their funding that they lie? Evolution is an indifferent process. It has no purpose. There's not one piece of evidence to suggest that evolution has an outcome, namely humans. Thus any providential religion such as christianity is incompatible with evolution.

"But that's different to saying the two can be taught together in science class, because religion and science are two different ways of knowing about the world. They might not be incompatible but they don't overlap each other's spheres.

I'm still waiting to hear how religion allows us to know the world. All it is is a pap where devotees can tell themselves how wonderful and knowledgeable they are without actually engaging the real world.

271. Changing my Mind

Comment #106489 by BAEOZ on January 3, 2008 at 3:25 am

Steve. Would Skeptic be what you're looking for?
Perhaps Empiricist?
Evidentialist? (These words probably have philosophical connotations that you don't require.)

272. Changing my Mind

Comment #106479 by BAEOZ on January 3, 2008 at 2:49 am

From 1972 to 1974 I was a Mormon missionary
Great Zeus in Olympus! And you say you have worse skeletons in the closet? :P

273. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106344 by BAEOZ on January 2, 2008 at 5:29 pm

Have they no shame?

When their narcissism has reached such heights as to hold that they are entrusted by god to get his message out. I don't think shame is a salient emotion they have to worry about.

274. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106339 by BAEOZ on January 2, 2008 at 5:20 pm

Steve. (begin sarcasm) Haven't you heard? Christian have been persecuted since Christ. They're being persecuted as we speak in the US by nasty atheists. They have to carry their cross. (end sarcasm.)

Hypocrites.

Pity they don't care about the fact that there's no evidence of god or immortal souls. Nope, it's all about subjective stuff like feeling christ in my life.

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

Comment #106330 by BAEOZ on January 2, 2008 at 5:04 pm

Paula. What happens is the brain has no master plan in making synaptic connections. Neurons develop fro m stem cells and migrate by following chemical pathways. During migration and reaching their destination, the neurons grow axons, which are sort of like connecting wires. These neurons have a self-destruct mechanism. If the axon doesn't make a connection with another neuron after a certain period, the neuron is culled. In this way, we end up with less cells than a young child. Babies need all the extra neurons to compensate for the fact that many won't make a synaptic connection with other neurons.

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

Comment #106320 by BAEOZ on January 2, 2008 at 4:46 pm

Steve. I'm not sure this is totally relevant. But brain "mass" isn't everything. Women have smaller brains than man on average, but are certainly not less intelligent on average. I think the amount of synaptic connections between neurons and the amount of neurons that occupy a space is important too. What we can't know is if the Neanderthals had a similar, lesser or greater neuron population in their brains. Still, I like the idea that they were too smart for religion. But they weren't smart enough to overcome homo sapiens agility it seems...

277. Moderates Storm The Religious Battlefield

Comment #106288 by BAEOZ on January 2, 2008 at 3:54 pm

Bother. Spelling. Meant extracellular.

Steve you're unfaillingly reasonable and honest. How do you ever expect to win an argument in this age of bombast and insults?

278. Moderates Storm The Religious Battlefield

Comment #106280 by BAEOZ on January 2, 2008 at 3:48 pm

Steve. I salute you!

cells ignores the intracellular matrix
Wouldn't, however, the INTRAcellular matrix be inside said cells? Thus not really doing much for the argument that the body isn't just made of cells?


I don't get the Christian veneration for C.S. Lewis. He was an interesting person, an excellent literary historian, but a rubbish philosopher. I'm not sure how anyone finds his work persuasive.

Because rubbish philosophy in the C.S. Lewis sense coincides well with what the average Christian believes and doesn't require them to jump through any major philosophical hoops. In otherwords, it doesn't strain the brain and require them to justify the unjustifiable.

279. Moderates Storm The Religious Battlefield

Comment #106271 by BAEOZ on January 2, 2008 at 3:36 pm

Steve, you didn't question that bodies are made of cells. Is that a case in which you hold dogmatic certainty? ;-)

We need Richard Dawkins to visit Aus. You yanks have taken up too much of his time as it is.

280. Moderates Storm The Religious Battlefield

Comment #106260 by BAEOZ on January 2, 2008 at 3:15 pm

Janus. Great post. Very well put. How's your month going by the way?

281. Moderates Storm The Religious Battlefield

Comment #106191 by BAEOZ on January 2, 2008 at 1:12 pm

By the way. Great job you're doing Josh. Many thanks.

282. Moderates Storm The Religious Battlefield

Comment #106190 by BAEOZ on January 2, 2008 at 1:11 pm

an evolutionary biologist at Oxford who spends so much time on his own Web site that it's hard to imagine he has time to do his job.

Josh, are you RD's doppelganger?

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

Comment #105899 by BAEOZ on January 2, 2008 at 4:57 am

Quetz was right again. Of course. I'm not sure how you say of course it's a sheep. Some sheep and some goats are pretty hard to tell apart. Especially ones made from mint humbugs....OK, I was wrong!

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

Comment #105893 by BAEOZ on January 2, 2008 at 4:50 am

Has wooter been banned? I clicked on his/her name to see where such a paragon of knowledge resides and got a message saying that the user doesn't exist.....

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

Comment #105892 by BAEOZ on January 2, 2008 at 4:45 am

Praise be Quetz! I imagine an averages peasant's soup wouldn't have been much. Probably just a moldy turnip, putrified rat and a bit of plague for seasoning......

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

Comment #105890 by BAEOZ on January 2, 2008 at 4:42 am

Epeeist. What exactly is your avatar? It looks like a pissed off goat wearing some court jester's robes.

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

Comment #105886 by BAEOZ on January 2, 2008 at 4:32 am

Is wooter the personification of the argument to ignorance?

288. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105687 by BAEOZ on January 1, 2008 at 2:22 pm

AtheistJon. It probably has something to do with the Julian changes to the ancient Calendar and further Gregorian additions......
From Wikipedia....

January assumed that position beginning in 153 BC when the two consuls, for whom the years were named, began to be chosen on January 1. The reason for this shift of the new year into the dead of winter was to allow the new consuls to complete the elections and ceremonies upon becoming consuls, and still reach their respective consular armies by the start of the campaigning.

So, maybe the 1st of Jan was the Winter Solstice. But after Julian alterations it moved. They kept using that day instead of the winter soltice out of tradition?

289. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105682 by BAEOZ on January 1, 2008 at 2:16 pm

Richard Morgan

BAEZ

Who is the BAEZ? Sounds like an interloper stepping on my coat tails. He must be a clever cad too. He managed to change Richard Morgans mind. I think the only thing I'm managed is to reinforce his (Richard's) idea that my name and music should never be used in an positive sense. :)
Happy new year all! My brain is still in intensive care after I insulted it with 20 odd stubbies of Stella Artois. It was a very hot day, so refreshment was required.
I too would like to read WithGoodReason's story!

290. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105222 by BAEOZ on December 30, 2007 at 11:21 pm

It's possible. And we all no doubt do that. Hopefully, there's room too in a rational mind to alter our ideas when evidence points against them.

291. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105218 by BAEOZ on December 30, 2007 at 11:03 pm

Guess I'll continue to wait for a reply from herself.

Probably a good idea. I gave my take on the matter. But I'm not Dr. B so what I say is probably erroneous. :)

and irrelevant.

292. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105210 by BAEOZ on December 30, 2007 at 10:34 pm

Rational discussion will only get you so far:-)

To paraphrase some smart bastard. Beliefs that were arrived at by irrational means, won't be easily shaken by rational arguments.

293. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105207 by BAEOZ on December 30, 2007 at 10:27 pm


Can't see it, myself. With regard to your latest comments, and your semi-cryptic one-liners, I have to say I do not understand you.

And that is the rub. You can't see it. You probably don't get it. No offence. But one man's cuppa is another man's poison.
I thought Dr. B's post that you quoted was too generous to the average person. I don't reckon I (assuming I'm average) could give a good description of 200 separate people with whom I'm acquainted in any unique sense. I'd say Bob was a wanker, like Jim. Not taking into account Bob's unique take on onanism. Thus a stereotype, however ill fitting like a hand is to a .... is used.
We use schemata to group people based on similar characteristics to compensate for our lack of brain power. Hence stereotypes and cliches. They're heuristics that allow us to get by pretty well, most of the time. Not that rational or perfect, but good enough.....

Good enough for a creature that evolved in small groups that is. Which explains a bit of the common outgroup hostility that we see. Which is not to say that cultural evolution can't smooth a few of the sharper edges...

294. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105151 by BAEOZ on December 30, 2007 at 6:34 pm

I'm annoyed with sexist stereotypes, yet find them to be time-savers.

I get were you're coming from Dr. B. I cringe sometimes at the terms I apply to full on creationists, such as wackjobs, god-bothers or plain fuckwits. But such stereotypes are inevitably confirmed after a few posts of said types. They invariably mistake assertions for evidence and reasoned argument. So it's probably safe, but impolite to label them as such.
Of course, that may have nothing to do with your comment and I've just made a dick of myself for the nth time. :)

295. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #104873 by BAEOZ on December 29, 2007 at 9:05 pm

Oh come on Fatima, a miracle? Give me a break. 70 thousand marian followers stare at the sun for several hours. What the hell do you'd think would happen? They all wanted to see something. Stupidly stared at the sun. If you've done this for a second, you start getting wobbly and your senses are completely confused. Ridiculous.

296. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104614 by BAEOZ on December 29, 2007 at 2:16 am

So this is what RD didn't address when he avoided sophisticated theological arguments then?
When RD ignored the existence of Satan and the need to perform exorcisms on people falsely labeled insane, he showed his ignorance. Thank Zeus we have such a pope.....

297. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104151 by BAEOZ on December 28, 2007 at 2:50 am

emaciated and defeated people could be seen walking around the countryside whipping themselves as they had been told that the reason for their predicament was as a result of some unacknowledged personal deficiency.
The real problem is that these people didn't have a sophisticated understanding of theology. They were too medieval! If only they'd believed in the god of Alistair McGrath or Alvin Plantinga, they'd be eating crepes and quaffing sherry while quoting Wilde.

298. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104144 by BAEOZ on December 28, 2007 at 2:10 am

but say prosperity preachers take verses out of context

It's always context. If it was in the correct context it would all make sense. Wouldn't it?
Hardly. God has the worst spokesperson. His message is always misconstrued. Doesn't seem that omnipotent to me.

299. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #104086 by BAEOZ on December 27, 2007 at 9:09 pm

It appears old Billy Coconut isn't interested in arguing what Steve or anybody else says. Only some contorted version that suits his denigrating style.
It's very Simple. The fact that Newton or Mendel didn't know or believe in evolution has no bearing on the viability of evolution. The evidence fits evolution and evolution is not purpose driven, which mean a god is superfluous.

300. Wisdom From The Founding Rationalists

Comment #104062 by BAEOZ on December 27, 2007 at 6:01 pm

I think one must distinguish between simple democracy and secular democracy. Simple democracy will lead to majority rules, and probably some form of authoritarian rule based on the majorities biases. E.g. This is perhaps why the US didn't want to set up a simple democracy in Iraq. The Shia being the majority could choose to extract revenge on the previously dominant Sunni. And implement a Shia based law system.
A secular democracy adds to a simple democracy the idea that everyone must put forward their ideas on a secular basis. If you argue that society must do A because your holy book said so, then you've just left the argument. You have to give reasons that all can discuss and agree or disagree upon in a secular democracy. No special pleading. This is because theological disputes between religions that each claim to be the one true religion are intractable. This is the democracy that the men of the enlightenment were aiming for.

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 | Next