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


301. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #104012 by BAEOZ on December 27, 2007 at 2:38 pm

(1) we have never failed to observe that something doesn't come from nothing,

Is BJohn still ignoring quantum vacuum fluctations?

302. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #104009 by BAEOZ on December 27, 2007 at 2:30 pm

(One cannot prove a negative anyway, you should know that)

OK, this is false. I believe logicians can prove the law of non-contradiction, which is a negative.....
This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false.Furthermore, you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from the empty set using provably valid rules of inference.*


Is that proving a negative? I know it doesn't mean you can prove all negatives. But it may instill a little doubt into the haughty types who say "You can't prove a negative". Maybe????

*Taken from ESkeptic.

303. The Evangelical Rebellion

Comment #103272 by BAEOZ on December 24, 2007 at 9:10 pm

The US amazes me. It's a place of such varied ideologies and dynamics. I'm glad I live in OZ. We have our wackjobs here. But we're too lazy (hopefully) to take them that seriously. So, Ken Ham moved to the US. (Would you be interested in a xenophobe called Pauline Hanson or a used PM called John Howard?) Anyway, It seems the US has a majority of wackjobs who feel they've been short changed and want what they perceive is their due......

304. Chasers war on everything: Evangelicals

Comment #103163 by BAEOZ on December 24, 2007 at 11:31 am

I could be a lot of fun.

As opposed to you not wanting to be fun or something more saucy?
:)

Sorry Steve. But you're just such a thoughtful, reserved, well written poster here on the site. You are screaming out to have the mickey gently taken. Please forgive me. I'm going to flagellate myself with an Inland Taipan that's been dating a Blue-ringed octopus. :)

305. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #103140 by BAEOZ on December 24, 2007 at 11:00 am

ADH, Dawkin's isn't a logical positivist as far as I know and Plantingas arguments, at least the ones I've read, could only aspire to be sophomoric. He doesn't even understand evolution. Or he's a liar.

306. 2007, a bad year for God squadders

Comment #101745 by BAEOZ on December 20, 2007 at 9:21 pm

Bollocks!

307. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #101732 by BAEOZ on December 20, 2007 at 8:47 pm

Pleasing symmetry, no?

Not if you ontological commitment to a creator sky daddy drives you to ignore such symmetry.

308. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #101728 by BAEOZ on December 20, 2007 at 8:33 pm

This may help you BJohn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

309. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #101726 by BAEOZ on December 20, 2007 at 8:31 pm

Why appalled? You make assertions that are false or misleading?
Nothing can and has been observed coming from nothing. So you are wrong.
The second statement is teleological and nature isn't into teleology. Only believers* like purpose.

*OK. Humans like purpose, believers see it in everything though.

310. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #101721 by BAEOZ on December 20, 2007 at 8:20 pm

What we have observed about the universe, that "nothing comes from nothing" is a characteristic of universe.


Whether it's correct or not (it's false, but anyway), the proposition is:
We observe that nothing comes from nothing.


Since we know that the universe cannot create itself because of this limitation

And how do we know this? This does not follow from your statement of what we have observed. It only had to happend once, before humans and we would not observe it.

and that nevertheless it has been created, we suppose that something else created it

No. You suppose that it's been created and posit a creator. It's just an assertion no more.


This would be true if God was a part of the universe. Because this can't be true (that the cause of the universe had a creator) we know that the cause of the universe is outside the universe.

How do you know god is or isn't part of the universe? You've not even shown a need for a creator, much less a god. Evidence. How do you know this?


We also know that the cause of the universe is outside the universe because nothing can bring itself into being--for if it was "there" to bring itself into being, then it already was and could not have been created.

How do we know this? It doesn't follow from any argument you've presented. Where's the evidence that a creator exists outside the universe? Where's the evidence he's your god? Where's the evidence he wasn't created by another creator?

There's so many logical fallacies. It hurts.

311. For the Love of Christ

Comment #101718 by BAEOZ on December 20, 2007 at 8:13 pm

Spinoza, is that a false dichotomy? Isn't it possible he'd open up a can of christian bigotry on you? Or become your best pal? Or disolved into amino acids....????

312. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #101694 by BAEOZ on December 20, 2007 at 7:08 pm

Steve, it is absolutely impossible for "quantum mechanics" to create something from nothing. Why? Because quantums ARE SOMETHING. So you are not getting something from nothing, but something from something.

So, Quantum Mechanics creates something or doesn't? I think we have an exemplar of reification or some similar fallacy. And it's downhill from there. You're wrong. Simple as that.

"proof" in the sense you demand is not possible for religion, science,

Let's see. Science offers an explanation, the evidence backs it or refutes it. We're left with a good explanation that predicts how the world works.
Religion asserts an explanation, usually contradicted by facts, which explains nothing.
They're the same. It's obvious.

313. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #101681 by BAEOZ on December 20, 2007 at 6:22 pm

Dr. B. Here Kitty kitty.....

314. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #101671 by BAEOZ on December 20, 2007 at 5:59 pm

a bankrupt idoligy (sic) like athieism (sic)

How can a statment of non belief be called an ideology?

face of truth and reason

What truth or reason is there in religion? Is there an incontrovertible fact or evidence of god? No, then the truth is there's no reason to believe in god.

315. 2007, a bad year for God squadders

Comment #101618 by BAEOZ on December 20, 2007 at 3:17 pm

But He chose instead to come in a way that ensured just about the maximum room for doubt; merely another barely noticed nativity in the most miserable of circumstances.

Underlying assumption is that the nativity is somehow historical. It's not. I'm not saying Jesus didn't exist, just the implausability of a Galilean travelling to Bethlehem, avoiding robbers, for a census that didn't take place.....

If you were lucky enough to be one of those shepherds on the hills around Bethlehem who got the news from the angelic host, or one of the wise men who followed that star, you were lucky.

To paraphrase the archibishop, stars don't do that sort of thing. Also, at this time of year, shephards wouldn't be out in the fields at night, being cold and wintery......

forced to ponder the complexity of our existence and the competing implausibilities of faith and unbelief

Where is the implausibility of not believing when there's no evidence. Faith in a myth does seem problematic though.

That God would choose to come among us in such a way is so strange, so inexplicable, so unbelievable, it compels us to believe.

As Daniel Dennett says in his book, religion hit upon a good idea. The more implausible or difficult the belief, the more one has to sacrifice because it must be the true belief and the only provider of the afterlife*.... Doesn't require god existing in the slightest

*Religion is great. It offers services that it can't demonstrate exist. What a sham.

316. This Week's Flea

Comment #100507 by BAEOZ on December 18, 2007 at 6:49 pm

Biz, I think there's a difference between arguing your case, As I think RD does in the God Delusion. Which by the way doesn't just aim at the bible. And just stating assertions, such as god exists, or atheism is nihilism, like this flea does.

317. This Week's Flea

Comment #100491 by BAEOZ on December 18, 2007 at 6:00 pm

Blake, if you right a serious book, challenging RD's arguments, the theists will claim it as thier own. Make sure you rip shit out of the flea books too.
:)

318. This Week's Flea

Comment #100353 by BAEOZ on December 18, 2007 at 2:15 pm

The new atheists don't want to think out the implications of a complete absence of deity. Nietzsche, as well as Sartre and Camus, all expressed it quite correctly. The implications should be nihilism.


Where in the canard collection does this one fit?

Canard a: Atheism is a faith
Canard b: Atheists are immoral.
Canard c: Atheism is self-refuting.
.....
Canard n: Atheism is nihilism.

I couldn't go on after this. The man is a either very ignorant or a liar. Neither interests me much today.

319. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #99898 by BAEOZ on December 17, 2007 at 7:21 pm

I shot a man in Rio just to watch him die", does this mean I really did or want to?

Only if you shot him in Reno.

If I watch The Terminator and cheer each time Arnie kills some innocent civilians, does this mean I want a nuclear armageddon and to declare war on humans?

Booyeah!

320. Synthetic DNA on the Brink of Yielding New Life Forms

Comment #99617 by BAEOZ on December 17, 2007 at 7:40 am

mindblowing.
possibly one of the most important scientific processes ever?

No, superluminal travel would be the most important scientific development, if it be possible. :P
Followed by the creation (damn that word!) of the Federation and war with the Klingons on the political front......

321. Synthetic DNA on the Brink of Yielding New Life Forms

Comment #99615 by BAEOZ on December 17, 2007 at 7:37 am

That unprecedented degree of control over creation raises more than philosophical questions

Creation? That implies a creator, doesn't it? And that creator must ultimately be the chrisian god. That's it! I'm converted! I'm becoming a zoroastrian, they're christian aren't they?....What a loaded word!
Cool science, raises a few ethical issues. Also puts certain religious types' beliefs in the "oh don't worry about him, he's a bit dotty, but we humour him" basket when they say life is a gift of god.....ok, it may be a gift of god, but he's not the only giver* it would seem. Damn logic gets me every time. :)

*If god exists, and god is a providential god as roughly defined in so called holy books....

322. Creation vs. Reality

Comment #98556 by BAEOZ on December 13, 2007 at 9:20 pm

If thou shalt believe the Book of Darwin, t'is five billion years after the Big Bang that we behold what the cosmos hath begat: the magma, the terra firma, the creeping beast, and mankind, whose dolorous and chaotic evolution begat the gift of consciousness.

gak! What does cosmology have to do with Darwin? Isn't the Earth 5 billion or so years old and the universe about 3 times that age?
gak!

323. Here's an improvement on democracy

Comment #98291 by BAEOZ on December 13, 2007 at 12:42 pm

Good article. Unfettered democracy can lead to a majority working might makes right.

Bishop Robert Grosseteste, early in the 13th century, the first person to imagine the experiment

I reckon the ancient Greeks might argue with this...

324. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98230 by BAEOZ on December 13, 2007 at 10:07 am

David Blackwell. Here's a pointer. The philosophy of atheism is that there are no gods. There is no ideology of atheism. There is no ethics of atheism. It's not even a belief as such.
Marxism may require you be atheist. But it's Marxism you are attacking not atheism. As atheism has nothing to say on how a society should be run. Religion on the other hand has a whole bunch of ideology and philosophy, as well as moral and sometimes immoral imperatives.
Why is it so hard for people to grasp why religion can be blamed because it promotes a certain set of actions, but atheism just denies that gods exists and promotes nothing else?

325. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98038 by BAEOZ on December 13, 2007 at 2:47 am

The fact that other sites are worse is not an excuse, surely you should be settig an example in "clear thinking.

Agreed. So all that is left is for you to demonstrate that god exists or admit you're a liar.
Please continue......

326. Voyager 2 probe reaches solar system boundary

Comment #98036 by BAEOZ on December 13, 2007 at 2:43 am

Now if only they could fix the space shuttle...

God, if he existed couldn't fix the space shuttle. It's the very definition of design by commitee (Camel runs close second.) From my understanding, the Air Force, Nasa and a few other agencies wanted different things from the shuttle, making it rather unwieldy. Not unlike the LEO space station. But when politics has it's way, science is an easy biatch......

327. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #98030 by BAEOZ on December 13, 2007 at 2:24 am

"I have 5 intelligent, independent sisters and a strong wife."

--

If they believe in evolution, they're not as intelligent as you pretend.

Wanker! Where do you live? How brave are you?

328. U.S. Congress Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith

Comment #97949 by BAEOZ on December 12, 2007 at 9:40 pm

And since when do only Christians celebrate Christmas?

Exactly. Let's put the pagan back into the festival of SOL INVICTVS!

329. U.S. Congress Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith

Comment #97936 by BAEOZ on December 12, 2007 at 9:11 pm

This is the problem with democracy. Whenever a majority desires or wills to change the law or how they're interpreted to suit themselves over minorities we get a step closer to authoritarianism. In this case the Christian majority will it that Christianity has pride of place in the U.S. congress.
Now, as I often get buzzed for what I didn't say or not being clear enough, let me say this: I think that democracy is the best option we have. I just think that secular democracy shits over plain vanilla democracy. I'm in a minority, being atheist, though in Australia stuff all give a shit about religion, so it's not a precarious situation. However, whenever the wall is chipped away it, it's hard to repair the damage.
So, can you yanks get your shit into gear and stop pretending the founding fathers were christian and that science is the child of the church when it's really the child of the ancient greeks, sustained perhaps by the schoolmen? Here endeth the rant! Fire away!

330. Functional Neuroimaging of Belief, Disbelief, and Uncertainty

Comment #97245 by BAEOZ on December 11, 2007 at 7:51 pm

Thanks Don_Quix. I've used heaps of emoticons. But that is not event vaguely a heart. Thanks anyway. :)

331. Functional Neuroimaging of Belief, Disbelief, and Uncertainty

Comment #97239 by BAEOZ on December 11, 2007 at 7:46 pm

OK, off topic. But robotoholic. What does the <3 thingy stand for? Less than 3?

332. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96754 by BAEOZ on December 10, 2007 at 9:55 pm

Well. I won't argue about the being born areligious. And I'm ignornant of the book you quote. Even so, having an inate ability to sense gods doesn't make the gods exist.

333. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96751 by BAEOZ on December 10, 2007 at 9:53 pm

Course, the argument isn't the point, is it, fellas?
You just have a hair across your ass, and think I need to be taught a lesson.

OK. You lost me. I only logged in a few minutes ago.

334. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96746 by BAEOZ on December 10, 2007 at 9:50 pm

I agree with Spinoza's comment 117. Makes sense and I don't need to think up an explanation now. :)

335. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96737 by BAEOZ on December 10, 2007 at 9:40 pm

Is sinful Messiah claiming that we are all born Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc and then we winnow away those religions which just don't happen to coincide with our parents religion*? Religion is learnt through culture and upbringing. It's not innate.

*That seems to be your underlying assumption.

336. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96573 by BAEOZ on December 10, 2007 at 6:07 pm

Oh great. Faith in nothing inspires so it must be true.....

337. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #96019 by BAEOZ on December 9, 2007 at 6:13 pm

Is picking your nose and eating it vegan or canabalistic?
Sorry. Just thought I'd put in my 2c of silliness today.

338. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #95704 by BAEOZ on December 9, 2007 at 2:30 am


If you think your righteousness or intelligence exceeds God's, you are a fool.

And if you believe in god without evidence that all can see. Then you are the definition of fool.
And if you were to talk about women that way in front of me, perhaps I'd treat you like the vicious fool that you are. I have 5 intelligent, independent sisters and a strong wife. Tell them to shut up and I'll debate you in anyway you choose fool.

339. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95490 by BAEOZ on December 8, 2007 at 12:44 pm

Can someone tell me whether the atheist position on "speciesism"

Go bite yourself ADH. Atheism isn't a position on anything except lack of belief in gods. Dawkins believes what Dawkins believes for Dawkins' own reasons. He may share those beliefs with theist and non-theist alike. But it's not an atheist position. It may be a utilitarian position I believe. Read Peter Singer's works if you want a particular view. But is there any need to post a straw-man about atheist "beliefs"?

340. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95483 by BAEOZ on December 8, 2007 at 12:34 pm

Very cute Northern Bright. I think what we need now is for Russell Blackford to saunter in and give us his considered, erudite opinion. He's some form of ethicist/philosopher. Unfortunately, the last I heard he's up around Newcastle (NSW) catching up with family. So rude!

341. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95481 by BAEOZ on December 8, 2007 at 12:28 pm

Bonzai. I see that you're right. I jumped in on the thread and only read about the argument about debating theists. I only read Mitchell's post that follows my attempt to gain attention to sooth my narcissistic mind*. Which you kindly provided. I see in the Mitchell's post before my first one he did indeed say eating meat is immoral.
I should read posts thoroughly before putting my half-arsed opinions. But then they'd only be quarter-arsed.
*Forget Math. I need English lessons.

342. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95474 by BAEOZ on December 8, 2007 at 12:22 pm

Thanks Bonzai. I always post and then read it and realise that wasn't all or even what I meant to say*. I could use the preview mode but that would be logical. :)
By that way. Can you tell me the secret to understanding Math? I suck at that.

*Which I then edit, unless it's humorous. :)

343. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95471 by BAEOZ on December 8, 2007 at 12:15 pm

Dicanu:

I've never gotten a decent answer from a vegetarian of why lions, and tigers, and wolves, and jackals all get a pass on devouring flesh, but not humans.
We're part of nature, but somehow exempt from nature?

The same reason we think rape is bad I suppose but we're OK with chimps doing it. As RD quote recently in an article "we're supposed to rise above nature."
One can see suffering is unncessary and choose not to inflict it. I would like to see you make the case that this is the same for a species of cat. Now where's my Christmas Ham. Mmmm. Sweet ham.

344. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95469 by BAEOZ on December 8, 2007 at 12:13 pm

Bugger. Bonzai has decided to get me. This is gonna hurt. Please be gentle ;)

OK. All I read in Mitchell's comment was that causing something pain would be immoral. I would say causing unnecessary pain is immoral. Anway, that doesn't seem to entail extending human morality to all animals. A chook can't suffer to the extent that a dog or dolphin can but suffers more than a gnat. I think lobster's are protected somewhat these days. You're supposed to chill them before boiling so they don't feel it. The point would be what's appropriate I guess.
The question would be how much suffering are we inflicting on an animal. I'm all for abattoirs in which the animal is calm and not stressed and gets the bolt into its brain, or electric shock before it knows what hit it. That would seem to cover a large part of the suffering is bad angle. It doesn't cover any argument you could make about a sentient being having a right to live. If you could make that argument is a different matter.

345. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95463 by BAEOZ on December 8, 2007 at 11:59 am

Bonzai, I'm pouting less now.
Just a question. Isn't comparing spraying cockroaches with pesticide to killing cows for meat* like comparing oranges with apples? As far as we know cockroaches don't have a great ability to suffer like a cow.
Now I'll duck and run. You are way too smart for me to tackle in a debate. :)

*I'm not a vegetarian but I can see how preventing the suffering of sentient animals is a moral issue (unnecessary suffering = bad). Also, I don't know of any logical reason why we can say that humans have a right to life, but other sentient animals, say a whale or Bessy the bovine don't. I guess I have my own share of cognitive dissonance going on. I've worked in an abattoir and have no problem eating meat. Yet I've seen how cruel it can be. I think I'm ready to join theists in being irrational!

346. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95454 by BAEOZ on December 8, 2007 at 11:29 am

I've just read the posts in this latest atheist smackdown and one point has stuck out like dogs bollocks. Everybody's commenting on how polite, insightful and humourous atheist a is compared to atheist b. But no one has thrown compliments my way!
(Walks off and pouts!)

347. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #94857 by BAEOZ on December 6, 2007 at 9:00 pm

nd no one born of the Spirit of God is 'natural.'

I guess you'd say all humans qualify to interpret the bible then. If we're all god's creation. My interpretation is it's a load of shit. It doesn't read well. It's false in many places. It's inconsistent......

348. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #94856 by BAEOZ on December 6, 2007 at 8:57 pm

First: Natural selection involves no random chance.
Second: The banana has been selectively bred to the size and taste it now has. Wild bananas are small little fruit with seeds. The don't much resemble your supermarket variety. So man intelligently designed them not a god.

Also, the Koran mentions the Bible and therefore bows down to it, as does the book of Mormon. The Bible, on the other hand, makes no mention of these because they are fake, and the Bible therefore gives no respect to such abominable fakery.

Uhm. No and no. The Quran says the Bible is incorrect as it has been corrupted. Only the Quran has god's true message. So it doesn't bow before the older book. The Bible came before both the Quran and book of Mormon in time, not veracity (they're all of human hand as they're all shonky and contain falsehoods), which is why it makes no mention of them.
Can you really be this ill informed?

349. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #94851 by BAEOZ on December 6, 2007 at 8:37 pm

How then could you ever possibly interpret the Bible properly, a book that testifies of itself that it was written by the greatest being in existence, who purposely hid the proper interpretations of it from the natural man; halleluiah.

A book that testifies of itself that it was written by the greatest being in existence. So, you accept the Quran and book of Mormon obviously? They testify to the same thing.
Apparently any old grab bag of folk wisdom and folk philosophy that has words to the effect "written by god" is divine.
So, are you natural man? Then your interpretation would be wrong by your own logic. If you're not natural man, then what are you?

350. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #94563 by BAEOZ on December 6, 2007 at 1:43 am

I can know that God is real by God revealing to me that he is real. It's that simple. Just because an idiot like you isn't there when it happens or doesn't believe it, that doesn't change the truth of the matter.

And a schizophrenic has the same sense of conviction that you do when he hears voices or senses a vision. Does he know that the voices and visions are real? He would say so with as much conviction as you. Are we locking up lots of people because they know what they are experiencing? Or are they deluded? That is why you need to demonstrate that god exists and have it corroborated by non-believers. Do you accept Mohamed's testimony about the Angel reciting the Quran to him. This was a real as your feeling of god. You can't have it both ways if you're honest.


Truth doesn't change just because someone doesn't know it or witness it or believe it. You might want to try and understand this.

I agree totally. No matter how much you feel god exists. It's isn't a reliable guide to the truth status of god's existence. It's a feeling. It has nothing to do with truth. Even in the unlikely coincidence of your mental state with that of god's existence.....Perhaps you need to understand that.

And your insults make me worry about your state of mind. Perhaps you need some counseling.

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