Why I am an atheist – Rolf Schmidt »« Simple guidelines

Comments

  1. Louis says

    Nasty PZ. I need to sleep some time. Coulrophobia…no joke man. Game over, man. Game over!

    Maybe that’s why Raj is getting such a shellacking, we’re beating the clown.

    Nah, that would mean we’re afraid of him and…wellll…how do I put this nicely? We’re not.

    Louis

  2. Louis says

    Pentatomid,

    You should see this cool trick he can do with marbles and his hands. And he’s great at low budget parties where no booze is available.

    Louis

  3. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    Pentatomid,

    You should see this cool trick he can do with marbles and his hands. And he’s great at low budget parties where no booze is available.

    Louis

    Keep him away from the kid’s punch bowl and make sure to check the crawl space when the party is over.

  4. DLC says

    when I was a kid, there was this evil clown that lived down in the storm drains. . . he would come out to steal children . . . Let me see, was his name Cardinal Ratzinger ? or Pennywise?
    I forget now. It’s been a long time.

  5. Louis says

    Rev BDC,

    Anyone who says “suffer little children to come unto me” should probably not be at kids’ parties at all. And given what many of his Official Catholic Chappies seem to feel on the matter of kids, I’m not sure he shouldn’t be kept away with a shotgun. Certainly that Muhammed fellow has dodgy ideas about young ladies. And the god thingy is mad keen on impregnating virgins, a paraphilia with deeply misogynistic tendencies.

    Hmm, let him in, get him to make the wine, then {cough} “end the party early” pleading a morning appointment for everyone coincidentally.

    Kinda like the guy with the best fake ID that people hate because of his personal hygiene problem, but need for the bevvies.

    Louis

  6. says

    Hmm, let him in, get him to make the wine, then {cough} “end the party early” pleading a morning appointment for everyone coincidentally.

    Kinda like the guy with the best fake ID that people hate because of his personal hygiene problem, but need for the bevvies.

    yep, that’s Jesus alright.

  7. jonmilne says

    I really hate to be the one that’s going to end up doing the biggest pwnage of Raj yet again – I mean, not to blow my own trumpet, but I was the one who lead him into asking his most stupid question ever on this site, namely “Where did I define God?” – but on the other hand I’m a massive egotist and having a whole bunch of people praise me on ruthlessly I burned him last time has turned out to be a massively alluring factor in tempting me to massively pwn him again:

    Raj, with regards to this God that you’ve posited on this site, does it actually make ANY difference whatsoever whether we believe in it or not? Like, for instance, do you think that us non-believers will be doomed to an eternity in hell if we don’t believe, while thinking that believers like yourself will be granted with life in heaven? This is a hook of many of the mainstream religions in order to attract followers, which namely takes the form of what I like to call the “Reward/Punishment Gambit”. Speaking as an ex-Christian, I can testify to the basic effectiveness of this type of marketing from followers of any specific God: “Believe what we say and you will be rewarded with paradise, don’t believe in what we say and you’ll be tortured forever!”

    A simple “Yes” or “No” answer will be sufficient here, but either way you lose.

    If you don’t believe that there’s any real benefit to believing and drawback to not believing in your God, then there’s even less reason to both believe and worship your God since your God can’t do shit if we don’t do those things. Heck, it will make your God even lamer than the mainstream Gods, and that will be one heck of an achievement.

    If however you believe that we will get punished if we don’t believe, then you’ve contradicted yourself again and are therefore subject to another loss. See Raj, it was you who said to us that “it was by God’s own design” that we were supposedly made to be “limited in our understandings about God and how he works”. And yet if you think that your God is capable of rewarding/punishing people for believing/not believing in it, then you’ve added yet another definition to a seemingly “undefinable” God, namely that which can make judgments on humanity. Furthermore, it also makes your God if it exists a complete fucking morally corrupt asshole since it punishes people for not believing in it EVEN THOUGH IT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPPOSEDLY LIMITING PEOPLE’S MINDS SO THAT THEY WOULDN’T SEE EVIDENCE TO BELIEVE IN IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

    As well as this post, Raj, I’d really appreciate if you also address my previous post to you. Please do not hide behind the fact that my post was long, it was still considerably more educated and informed than the really poor quality responses that you have levelled towards me, even despite the fact that throughout our entire exchanges with you, I’ve probably been absolutely the most civil and patient one here dealing with what you write.

    Much thanks,

    Jon Milne

  8. Louis says

    Jon Milne,

    Don’t worry about it. It’s nice to have someone take Raj seriously enough to bother with him.

    It’s something I do once in a while, as do many here. Very effective. But you can’t expect one person to do all the heavy lifting, hence why we spread the jobs out. I think Chigau has to take the next abject muppet seriously! ;-)

    Louis

  9. jonmilne says

    Reproducing my previous post that Raj didn’t answer:

    Where have I defined God? I have already said why and in which context I use the word God. Can’t repeat what I have already repeated 20 times.

    You defined him as something that couldn’t be defined, and where as a result minds trying to define him are limited in how they can do so. But that’s STILL A DEFINITION. If you TRULY couldn’t define God for us, you’d simply say “I don’t know” and admit you’re either ignorant or being simply disingenuous on the subject. Either way, you’ve self-contradicted yourself.

    >And, what do you mean by:

    “what precisely would be the point of having limitations placed on the human mind in order to understand God“.

    Here is what I said:

    “God CANNOT be defined or conceptualized. Not Possible. Or, let’s put it this way: Human minds have limitations placed upon them. The mind cannot understand God, and this is by God’s own design. **”

    The bolded parts answer your question by what I mean. What purpose does it serve for “God” to make it so that it’s creation can’t understand exactly what it is? When crafting a supposedly “intelligently designed” world, what benefit exactly would it serve to God to have its created people not comprehend it, and what benefit would it serve to the people to be ignorant of the meaning of the supposedly existent God to which you posit?

    The mind has limitations placed on it, and because of these limitations, the mind CANNOT understand God. No matter how hard you try. Now when I say the cannot ‘understand’ God, it means the mind cannot comprehend what God is, how God operates, and why God does what God does. Which means, your questions, which are questions originating from your mind, cannot be answered.

    My question was: What is the practicality of “limiting our minds” so that we “cannot understand God”? Nonetheless, even if one buys into the notion that your paragraph just there – rather than amounting to more obfuscation – is even remotely considerable as an actual answer to my question, we still have the problem that you’ve just self-contradicted yourself AGAIN.

    On the one hand, you claim our minds are so limited that we can’t comprehend God, and yet nonetheless this is a God that you claim to worship. Which means that if that’s truly the case, then despite the fact you have a human mind and therefore have all the “limitations” you talked about, you regardless still seem to UNDERSTAND and COMPREHEND your God of choice enough to WORSHIP it. But by your own logic, that’s simply not possible. There’s close to zero sense in worshipping any of the Gods that have been given certain definitions of characteristics by some of the more main-stream religious cults. There’s ABSOLUTE ZERO sense in worshipping something that you yourself claim that you as a human absolutely do not understand.

    Here is one example which I have given many times before. Can you use to mind to visualize something that you haven’t experienced with your sense before? For example, can you visualize the colour ultra-violet in its true form (not false colour)? Or, could you visualize or imagine existence without space and time? Can you imagine ‘what’ was ‘before’ the big bang?

    You add an addendum to your point on colour, namely about I how apparently I should not present you with any stuff on the science behind colour perception and the colour spectrum.

    What you’re pulling here is similar to something Ray Comfort did in his interview on the Atheist Experience, wherein Ray asked the AE hosts to give him evidence on evolution. I will display the link later on in my post, but what was particularly revealing about the exchange was that the hosts gave Ray some damn good evidence (namely to do with how the development of vaccines are aided, the great deal of transitional fossils, the DNA evidence, the observation of speciation in the lab including flies and bacteria) and Ray rejects all the evidence the hosts present based on his presuppositions despite it being perfectly valid.

    That’s what you’re doing here by rejecting the scientific explanations of how colour spectrums and perceptions actually work. They don’t fit with your world-view, so you disregard them, despite having nothing remotely decent resembling evidence to offer as an alternative explanation.

    As for what you say about the Big Bang, again I have to invoke the Ray Comfort/AE interview, namely the part where Ray asks the AE hosts “tell me what was in the beginning without saying I don’t know”. As RationalWiki points out: (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Feredir28/The_Atheist_Experience_debates_Ray_Comfort)

    Matt asks why can’t he say that? Ray proclaims that is ignorance and an atheist cannot have that. Matt corrects Ray and says yes you can because atheists are not proclaiming absolute certainty. Ray says Christians DO, and they know there is a creation an a creator. Matt repeats himself by telling Ray that he is just asserting that it is a creation, which is different from demonstrating that this knowledge is true.

    What Ray does here is basically saying I can label it as I wish because no one else can explain it to me. Ray is still simply asserting that everything is a creation without providing a shred of proof that it is the result of divine creation, and failure to explain it in a natural process does not mean his position wins by default. Ray claims to “know” that it is a creation, but if he cannot demonstrate it, then he does not know it.

    Without evidence, and proper application of the Scientific Process, you cannot just claim that your version of events is the truth. I’m sure I’m not the first person to say this to you, and I almost certainly won’t be the last, but the burden of proof is on YOU.

    And please, do some trimming and pruning on your future comments if it is possible.

    Sorry buddy, but to paraphrase a great mind, Richard Lenski when he was confronting Conservapedians on their similar level of ignorance and obfuscating and intellectual dishonesty that you’re displaying (especially since you disregarded the entire first half of my last post where I rip Scwartz to shreds):

    “I offer this lengthy reply because we are educators as well as scientists. It is my sincere hope that some readers might learn something from this exchange, even if you do not.”

  10. FossilFishy (Lobed-finned Killer of Threads) says

    When my daughter was three she went through a period where she refused to go to sleep unless her mother was present. We tried lots of tactics but nothing worked and it was getting worse and worse. In the end we decided to go with a modified “cry it out” strategy.

    In the straight up method you simply put the child to bed, shut the door and leave them there until they cry themselves to sleep. That seemed cruel and also felt like it had the implied message of “we won’t always be there for you”. So we put her to bed, told her we loved her and that she had to stay in bed, left and shut the door. I waited in the hall until I heard her get out of bed. I then came back in, picked her up, put her back in bed, tucked her in, told her I loved her and that she had to stay in bed. This seemed to us to have the right message: bed time is non-negotiable, we’re doing this because we love you and we will always be there for you, especially when you are being naughty. :)

    Through the course of this my emotions ran the gamut. First I was nervous and apprehensive about how it would go. Then I became quite upset at the obvious distress my daughter was exhibiting. And as time passed, the count of how many times she got out of bed climbed from ten to twenty to forty to eighty and with that mounting number my mood swung round. I grew more and more admiring of the tenacity of my intelligent, beautiful, wilful little girl. I began to barrack for her. “Come on, one more time, don’t let a meany like me win.” I whispered to myself after putting her back yet again. I lost count somewhere in the nineties and she eventually didn’t so much give up, as run out of energy to continue. My back and arms ached for a couple of days after: The Toddler Workout ™, coming soon to a bankrupt Zumba franchise near you.

    Perhaps this is why I have a soft spot for Raj. I mean yes, his light bending density has time and again made me truly laugh out loud and I do enjoy the self-esteem boost that that gives me. But I also admire unblinking tenacity, misguided though it might be. YMMV of course.

    Oh the other hand I just realised that my three year old is also smarter than Raj. She knew when she was beat. The next night only took a dozen or so repeats to get her to stay in bed, and the following night just a couple, and we haven’t had a problem since.

    So there you go Raj, increasing my self esteem once again, only this time by the second hand glory in being the father of a three year old who’s smarter than a purported adult. Please I beg of you, don’t flounce for real, you’re the gift that just keeps on giving.

  11. says

    jonmilne:

    …I’ve probably been absolutely the most civil and patient one here dealing with what you write.

    I used to do that, too — attempt intellectual engagement with the clowns. I’m glad you’re taking that role here. While I hope you have better experiences than I, there is a good chance you’ll find what I found: folks like Raj don’t want the truth. They don’t want debate. They don’t want to explore their own ideas, however interesting or mundane.

    They want to pontificate. They want to proselytize. They want you to tell them their thoughts are brilliant and original and insightful, and you are enlightened.

    But I suspect you already know that, and are sincere in spite of Raj’s patent willful ignorance. In which case, you are a far more patient person than I.

  12. Hurinomyces bruxellensis says

    Pentatomid

    Wow, I didn’t know Jesus worked as a clown…

    And to think the catholic church has been faithfully reproducing the last supper all these years, and callously omitting the colorful balloon animals that followed!

  13. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    Awwwwww someone’s feelings are hurt because people are making jokes about their make believe friend.

  14. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    Good grief. That’s all you’ve got?

    The Zombie Jesus thing is a joke. A play on a myth.

    Your video attempts to make a point but….

    where is it?

  15. FossilFishy (Lobed-finned Killer of Threads) says

    Weee, that rebuttal was so weak antigodless that EPO, synthetic growth hormone and a killer exoskeleton wouldn’t be enough to get up and walking. Much like your non-existent zombie BFF I might add.

  16. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Sorry AntiIMAGINARYDEITYless, until you provide conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity, it remains imaginary. Evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. Same for your babble, a book of mythology/fiction you claim is inerrant. And what have you presented so far? Your unevidenced OPINION, which *POOF* is dismissed as bullshit, and makes your deity and babble bullshit…Welcome to science, where evidence, not YOUR OPINION, rules…

  17. says

    Rev. BigDumbChimp:

    The Zombie Jesus thing is a joke. A play on a myth.

    The video was very much a play on a myth. Those were, after all, mythical misrepresentations of atheism and atheists.

    The major distinction is, we don’t believe the myth we’re lampooning. I suspect antigodless is jejune enough to believe not only the myth of the resurrected Christ, but also the myth of the evil atheist.

  18. Anri says

    I will admit to being weak and therefore unwilling to watch the video, despite the clear state-of-the-art animation and screenwriting it so clearly embodies.

    If someone who has bothered to do so could clue in the less brave of us – are there any points made in the (no doubt) in-depth analysis of faith versus godlessness other than “Hur hur, atheists R dumb and I can give them dumb names,” by chance?
    Because if there’s more to it than that, I’ll gird up all my various loins and watch the thing, as the last chewtoy I was working on appears to have long since scarpered.

    Even better, antigodless could personally summarize the arguments presented in their (I presume) deeply insightful video. That would be helpful.

    Thanks!

  19. says

    Why, Nigel,… Are you sayng that we atheists aren’t evil!?! But I just renovated the old secret volcano base. Fitted a new doomsday device and everything. I was going to have a baby barbecue and all too. Goddamn.

  20. Hurinomyces bruxellensis says

    antigodless, a sincere thank you for the amusing video. My absolute favorite part occurs at about 1:05 when a banner says “watch as these bumbling little atheists attempt to make a cogent argument”, and then none of them actually make any arguments.

    This is a video with a wonderful message, namely that theists can appropriate our “fairytale” line and use it to call us names, but they cannot address our ideas. Have fun with that sunshine. Let me know if you come up with any colorful ones the next time you are seething about how your rhetoric doesn’t make any sense.

  21. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    The video was very much a play on a myth. Those were, after all, mythical misrepresentations of atheism and atheists.

    you have a point

  22. Hurinomyces bruxellensis says

    pentatomid

    Might I ask where you’re nym comes from? I’ve been wondering about it

    Brettanomyces bruxellensis, which is one of the species of wild yeast commonly found in Belgian lambic ales and saisons. The species name is derived from the latinate spelling of Brussels.

    Hurin is my stable nym. You can call me Hurin for short if you like.

  23. FossilFishy (Lobed-finned Killer of Threads) says

    Perhaps that video is an example of the same cognitive collapse that happens to musicians when they find Jesus and lose their talent. I’m sure that prior to the videographer being washed in the blood of JEEBUS they were creating things like this.

  24. says

    Hurinomyces,

    Ah, I see. A fellow fan of Belgian beer. The ‘Brussels’ bit I got already (I’m Belgian myself so that was part of why I asked).

  25. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    Brettanomyces bruxellensis, which is one of the species of wild yeast commonly found in Belgian lambic ales and saisons. The species name is derived from the latinate spelling of Brussels.

    we want the funk

  26. Louis says

    I once heard a tale, probably apocryphal, that a Belgian lambic beer brewery was required by EU Health and Safety regs to remove all its old Nth century tiles from the pipes/ducts down which the heavenly brew used to flow.

    They did so, putting in New, Clean and Shiny tiles™. As required.

    And they no longer got lambic beer out of the other end. It turned out that the bacteria in the old tiles were what made the beer lambic beer.

    For those not in the know lambic beer ages like wine ages. Normal, non-lambic beer doesn’t.

    Louis

  27. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    For those not in the know lambic beer ages like wine ages. Normal, non-lambic beer doesn’t.

    Not necessarily true. Many higher alcohol beers will age just fine. Imperial stouts for example do well.

  28. Louis says

    Rev BDC,

    Well I learned something today. And about beer too. I didn’t think that was even possible! :-)

    Louis

  29. says

    Rev. BDC,

    There’s a difference between ‘aging just fine’ and aging like a lambic ale (which is a thing of pure beauty).
    Seriously, though, you’re quite correct in that lambics aren’t the only beers that age. Though it is rather exceptional.
    I think what Louis was referring to is that lambic ales, unlike other beers, are fermented spontaneously, like wines. in other words, it is fermented through exposure to wild yeast strains present in the air and the building of the brewery. Other beers are fermented by the addition of cultivated yeast strains. As a result, the properties of a lambic ale is much more dependent on the environment than other beers.

  30. Louis says

    Chigau,

    It’s your turn to take the next clueless troll here seriously. You have to be nice to them for an above average number of posts, take their “arguments” apart in detail and generally treat them like special snowflakes. Rather like Jon Milne is doing to Raj.

    Don’t object, your name came up on the rota. See?

    {Shows Chigau the rota}

    Louis

  31. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    I think what Louis was referring to is that lambic ales, unlike other beers, are fermented spontaneously, like wines. in other words, it is fermented through exposure to wild yeast strains present in the air and the building of the brewery. Other beers are fermented by the addition of cultivated yeast strains. As a result, the properties of a lambic ale is much more dependent on the environment than other beers.

    Oh I’m well aware of Lambics (Had a bottle from Brasserie Cantillon Brouwerij a friend had been saving not too long ago) and how they are made I was just correcting the idea that only Lambics age well.

    And wines are not typically fermented through wild yeast strains. They use cultivated yeast as well.

  32. says

    And wines are not typically fermented through wild yeast strains. They use cultivated yeast as well.

    Oh, you are of course quite right. That was a stupid mistake on my part. Although wines could quite easily be made through spontaneous fermentation. I guess using cultivated yeasts just adds a level of control to achieve a desired end-result. I don’t know all that much when it comes to wine making. More of a beer person myself.

  33. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    Well I learned something today. And about beer too. I didn’t think that was even possible! :-)

    Yep there are even people with beer cellars.

    In fact there are a lot of people with beer “cellars” for aging beer, me included.

    If you consider a specific temp controlled fridge a cellar.

    I have a number of bottles I’ve been aging for a few years and a bunch from the last couple.

    Typically anything above 8% will age though there are some lower ABV styles that age well too. This is thrown out the window with super hoppy IPAs. They lose their flavor rapidly after being brewed due mainly to the hop volatility. Drink your big ass IPAs fresh.

    Lambics of course, Barley Wines, Stouts, Belgian strong ales, Triples, Quads, some porters, other Bretty ales, sours, Berliner weisse, some Saisons, and a number of other styles etc..

    If I think a beer will age well (and I can afford it) I’ll buy two (or more) of each. One to drink and one to age.

  34. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    Although wines could quite easily be made through spontaneous fermentation. I guess using cultivated yeasts just adds a level of control to achieve a desired end-result. I don’t know all that much when it comes to wine making. More of a beer person myself.

    Yeah totally. I’ve had lambics that completely change their character from year 1 to year 2 because of the nature of the wild yeast. Sometimes with amazing results, occasionally not so much.

    There are a lot of cool brewers doing crazy funky things with wild yeast. Allagash has a line of coolship beers in this exact vein. Had a few of them and they are fantastic.

    Others are the The Bruery, Russian River, Lost Abbey, New Belgium and many others.

    It’s a great time to be a beer lover.

    I’m a big fan of Sour and Funky beers.

  35. RahXephon, Bouncer of the De Facto Feminist Club says

    I watched IT as a kid, which was a bad idea, so thanks for the murderous clown flashbacks, PZ.

    As far as TZT, I thought this was where trolls were quarantined? This all seems far too genteel! Where are the insults? The fiery recriminations? The porcupines?

  36. says

    pentatomid:

    Are you sayng that we atheists aren’t evil!?!

    Not at all. Just not in the simple, trivial evil ways portrayed by the Seven Atheists in the video. People who do not understand the evil of atheism simply don’t understand how sophisticated the evil of atheism is.

  37. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    Sorry that was very USA centric on the brewery list. Was not intended.

  38. says

    If I think a beer will age well (and I can afford it) I’ll buy two (or more) of each. One to drink and one to age.

    I was thinking of doing that. I currently don’t have the space for it, though. Although come to think of it… Plenty of space at my parents’house… Hmmm.

    And yeah, I’m a fan of sour beers too.

  39. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    Yeah my problem is that I live in Charleston SC.

    What this means is

    1. No basement or cellar due to extreme proximity to the ocean. Those things tend to flood very easy around here.

    2. 95-105 degree heat throughout the summer meaning a garage will not work.

    So I had to commandeer a second refrigerator and through my masculine guile and exerting my Man of the house power (ie.. begging) I was allowed to use it as my beer fridge / cellar.

  40. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    Beer is proof that yeast exists, and loves us.

    so fucking stealing this

  41. FossilFishy (Lobed-finned Killer of Threads) says

    RahXephon

    This all seems far too genteel!

    Well, we can’t have that! What to do, what to do….ah yes!

    I enjoy the occasional VB (The much reviled mass produced Victoria Bitter).

  42. says

    Not at all. Just not in the simple, trivial evil ways portrayed by the Seven Atheists in the video. People who do not understand the evil of atheism simply don’t understand how sophisticated the evil of atheism is.

    Thank goodness for that. Now I can continue my evil ways without worries… Now where did I put that death ray…

  43. says

    As far as TZT, I thought this was where trolls were quarantined? This all seems far too genteel! Where are the insults? The fiery recriminations? The porcupines?

    Yeah, well, little troll action for the moment. Just grab a pint with us.

  44. says

    pentatomid:

    Now where did I put that death ray…

    Uhm, I’m embarrassed to say it’s still in my garage from when I borrowed it from you two months ago. I mean, your volcanic base wasn’t finished yet, and there was this troll infestation and all.

    You can have it back now, I reckon.

  45. says

    Is there any entertainment value in the video antigoodness posted? I’m speaking as someone who has watched War of the Gargantuas in its entirety.

  46. says

    Rev. BDC

    So I had to commandeer a second refrigerator and through my masculine guile and exerting my Man of the house power (ie.. begging) I was allowed to use it as my beer fridge / cellar.

    I don’t even have the space for that, living in a tiny student flat as I do.

    Myeck waters,
    War of the gargantuas? I vaguely remember that movie…Wasn’t that originally intended as a sequal to ‘Frankenstein conquers the world’?

  47. says

    myeck waters:

    Is there any entertainment value in the video antigoodness posted? I’m speaking as someone who has watched War of the Gargantuas in its entirety.

    Not really. It takes its own stereotypes too seriously. It’s essentially an extended “atheists are poopyheads.” SEE the amazing equation of atheism and faith! HEAR such great arguments for a god like, “My god really does exist!” BE ASTOUNDED by the lack of actual humor!

    It’s pretty bad. And I’m speaking as someone who has watched Battlefield Earth in its entirety.

  48. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    And I’m speaking as someone who has watched Battlefield Earth in its entirety.

    good grief man

  49. says

    And I’m speaking as someone who has watched Battlefield Earth in its entirety.

    You saw Battlefield Earth in its entirety? You’re that person?

  50. says

    nigel,

    You still had the deathray? Oh okay, I was starting to think I threw it away by accident… You haven’t seen my Giant Millipede of Doom by any chance, have you. I’m pretty sure I parked it next to the Infernal Aquarium of Certain Death, but it appears to have gone missing.

  51. Louis says

    Rev BDC,

    Is it wrong that I love you? If it helps, it’s a very shallow love…about the depth of a beer cellar! ;-)

    You’re a man who takes his booze seriously, I respect that.

    Louis

  52. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    You’re a man who takes his booze seriously, I respect that.

    Don’t get me started on whisk(e)y I might nerdgasm all over my office.

    That would be hard to explain away.

    The worst (or best) thing my doctor has done to me over the last few years was to give me a status report on the health of my liver as amazing and in fantastic shape.

    I’m always up to a challenge.

  53. Brownian says

    Having said this, I may have experienced tough times as a child, but I am quite sure I was much more of a nuisance to my parents than they were to me! Wouldn’t you agree…?

    Yes, you are a terrible person, rajkumar.

  54. Louis says

    Rev BDC, #70,

    I received a similar challenge recently. I view it as an insult to my masculinity and shall be correcting with Jagermeister and self loathing this weekend.

    Louis

  55. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    Rev BDC, #70,

    I received a similar challenge recently. I view it as an insult to my masculinity and shall be correcting with Jagermeister and self loathing this weekend.

    Louis

    Yes I’m on my way to the Asheville “Beer City” festival this weekend. I’m testing the hypothesis that I can float my way back to Charleston Sunday riding on my liver.

  56. Emptyell says

    myeck waters

    Is there any entertainment value in the video antigoodness posted? I’m speaking as someone who has watched War of the Gargantuas in its entirety.

    Just in the meta sense of imagining the perspicacity level of anyone who could find it even remotely amusing or insightful. The pace is quite slow to make sure you don’t miss it’s utter lack of anything interesting.

    If antigodless is all that’s left around here, and that’s the best ze can do, someone should go spelunking the fundie webs and do some recruiting. You can point out the great service they would be doing by bringing the good news to the benighted heathens. Truly a missionary calling.

  57. Ogvorbis says

    Thank you for the beertalk. I enjoy. (Especially Belgian lambics).

    Last week, I tried to describe Ommegang Three Philosophers to a man who drinks Coors Light.

    Not sure why I tried. Apparently the idea of drinking beer for the taste is foreign to some.

  58. theophontes 777 says

    @ Hurinomyces bruxellensis

    … namely that theists can appropriate our “fairytale” line and use it to call us names, but they cannot address our ideas.

    I have noticed the same thing on the xtian sites I have been banned from. They are adopting our mannerisms but failing to take on our ideas.

    (They have taken their mannerism to a high level of affectation. If you are bored, it is well worth prodding around on such sites and watching what crawls out of the woodwork. It is très drôle.)

    @ nigel

    yeast exists, and loves us.

    All bow down before Almighty Phoenicia (PBUH)

    @ pentatomid

    student

    My student diet revolved around Geuze, mosselen and haring. Omnomnom….

  59. life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ says

    Walton,

    But the problem is that, having accepted that there is no free will, holding people accountable for their actions and punishing them feels fundamentally unjust

    I agree. And maybe it should feel unjust. Maybe that’s best. Maybe people will be a little less cruel when they know the person being punished can’t actually deserve it.

    If you haven’t checked out Smilansky on the shallowness of compatibilism, by the way, I think you’ll appreciate the heck out of it.

    You, as a utilitarian, must be comfortable with that,

    Comfortable still isn’t the right word. Aquiescing, maybe.

    But I’m not comfortable with it, because I have a problem with the sacrifice of the individual. I don’t want to be sacrificed for the greater good, and fairness and empathy dictate that I cannot impose on anyone else something I would not accept for myself.

    Yeah but don’t frame this as though it’s particularly a problem with utilitarianism. As you noted, it’s a problem with every justice system ever. And the alternative is to say to murderers “please don’t do that again” and then let them go.

  60. says

    myeck waters:

    Battlefield Earth? Damn, I’m such an amateur.

    Just don’t try this without building up your resistance first. Start with something relatively tame, like Deep Blue Sea or Reign of Fire (depending on your current level of resistance). Build up slowly until you can handle the third Spiderman movie. After that, I’d highly recommend a solid week of the original Battlestar Galactica or Buck Rogers (the 1980s version). You could also try the second season of Space: 1999.

    After that, you are most likely ready for Battlefield: Earth.

    Just don’t watch the video antigodless posted. Leave that one to the professionals.

  61. theophontes 777 says

    Oi ! You xposted…. (But grab a beer now that you are here anyway.)

  62. says

    Ogvorbis,

    Not sure why I tried. Apparently the idea of drinking beer for the taste is foreign to some.

    Indeed. It’s sad really, since there is such a diversity of beautiful beers out there.

    theophontes777,

    My student diet revolved around Geuze, mosselen and haring. Omnomnom….

    Pretty close to my current diet: mosselen, frieten (French fries*) and a wide variety of Belgian beers (including Geuze, obviously).

    *which are totally belgian, not french.

  63. bigbear says

    Crossposting for topicality:

    ॐ :

    Sure, but deontology works just as well for that.

    No it wouldn’t, precisely because,

    My reason for not going with anything deontological is that I can see the total made-up-edness of such projects and the apparent impossibility — since so many great thinkers now have tried and failed, I don’t imagine I can do better — of building any logical foundation for them.

    I was trying to imply that when I said I understood its appeal. That consequentialism is, like you said, almost tautological as a foundational system for ethical action, since it is more rigorous and robust and empirico-rational than deontological or other systems. Though I admit I didn’t explicitly elaborate this, and left it as an unsaid assumption that only systems of thought that passed muster in this way are what I had in mind when I said “appealing”.

    I have to read around a little more about the Knobe effect and evolution-of-intentions-as-heuristics hypothesis before I can say anything intelligent about them.

    Anyway,

    That only explains why we have these intuitions, though. It doesn’t follow that it’s actually more wrong to cause the same amount of pain deliberately or accidentally.

    This is what vexes me about utilitarian evaluations. Sure, far as consequences are concerned, it makes not a smidgen of difference. But if “punishments” are going to be utilitarian in character, you would need to do almost virtually impossible ethical computations, in many cases if not all, while meting it out to actors who can not be innocent, due to their lack of intentionality. How fair would that be to the actor, even if it meant a world of good? How do you make that choice?

    I am probably rehashing the same point, and you’d be perfectly in your right to “so what? thats how it is and if everyone saw that, they’d get with it and these vexations would fade away” me.

    But I’m not so confident in our ability to run these sorts of ethical calculuses to rank utilitarianism above other systems, which are more sympathetic to these concerns and which do not require us to make impossible evaluations.

    A coherent rule consequentialism won’t offer anything to say about intention either though. In any deontology, what matters is whether certain rules of action were followed, not why they were followed.

    No, not if rules are set up based not only on consequential considerations but also encompass justice and fairness. In fact this is what sets rule consequentialism apart from other utilitarianisms.

    And if its demonstrated that there are serious flaws in rule consequentialism, well there’s always pragmatic ethics.*shrugs*
    We don’t have to be beholden to ethical systems that don’t pan out in the real world or systems that cause serious infractions on our moral intuitions which can’t be redressed by rational analyses.

  64. says

    pentatomid:

    Uhm… Feeling a bit embarassed now… I actually liked Reign of Fire

    I totally enjoy Reign of Fire. It’s just that it’s not a very good movie, as far as most criteria for “good movies” go. The dialog is generally sub-par, the action is often illogical, and the resolution was completely contrived. I really enjoy it, in spite of those flaws.

    My wife is the same way about Deep Blue Sea. That’s her Bad Movie Night movie — y’know, when the day has been so terrible, the only solution is chili cheese dogs with Fritos, and a bad movie.

  65. theophontes 777 says

    @ bigbear

    Sneaking a cross-post in here doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll get a free beer!

  66. bigbear says

    @ theophontes 777 :

    Heh, I’m always prepared for such hijinks, so I bring my own.

    *Pops can and swigs*

  67. says

    I haven’t seen it in years but I loved Space: 1999 when it was in its first run. It was like someone had taken the worst element from the weakest episodes of Star Trek TOS and put them in a blender. Plus I was a huge fan of the Andersons’ crappy model work going way back.

    The original Galactica, on the other hand, I never could take. Ugh. We were all excited when it premiered, and a local pizza parlor advertised that the were showing it on their giant screen TV, so we went – and the sheer awfulness of it drove us back out of the place.

  68. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    I totally enjoy Reign of Fire. It’s just that it’s not a very good movie, as far as most criteria for “good movies” go. The dialog is generally sub-par, the action is often illogical, and the resolution was completely contrived. I really enjoy it, in spite of those flaws.

    My wife is the same way about Deep Blue Sea. That’s her Bad Movie Night movie — y’know, when the day has been so terrible, the only solution is chili cheese dogs with Fritos, and a bad movie.

    Krull

  69. life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ says

    I was trying to imply that when I said I understood its appeal. That consequentialism is, like you said, almost tautological as a foundational system for ethical action, since it is more rigorous and robust and empirico-rational than deontological or other systems.

    Ah. I see your point.

    But if “punishments” are going to be utilitarian in character, you would need to do almost virtually impossible ethical computations, in many cases if not all

    I think this is a feature, not a bug. In deontology, arriving at the best rules is at least equivalently difficult (or in fact impossible), but these computations take place in an abstracted debate among elites, with the result that a set of rules comes “pre-packaged” for the punisher, who can simply do as instructed and then feel fair for carrying out the dictates of a procedural justice.

    Utilitarianism confronts the punisher with the real difficulty instead of abstracting it away, and so may foster less self-righteousness and seemingly-justified gratuitous cruelty.

    while meting it out to actors who can not be innocent, due to their lack of intentionality. How fair would that be to the actor, even if it meant a world of good? How do you make that choice?

    There’s no better option, though. Any intentionality is ultimately caused by the initial conditions of the universe and subsequent random quantum effects. Everyone is ultimately innocent, because they couldn’t choose to choose otherwise, and yet we are apparently left with the necessity of punishing some, at least if we are going to have a civilization.

    Saying “we are going to punish you even though you are incapable of deserving it” is at least honest.

    But I’m not so confident in our ability to run these sorts of ethical calculuses to rank utilitarianism above other systems, which are more sympathetic to these concerns and which do not require us to make impossible evaluations.

    Caring about intent produces injustices, though. If it results in harsher legal penalties for people with malicious intent, then we’re treating those people harshly for something they could not have chosen otherwise. Intent can only ultimately matter in a world with contra-causal free will, which of course can’t exist.

    No, not if rules are set up based not only on consequential considerations but also encompass justice and fairness.

    What can justice and fairness possibly mean if they don’t refer to just and fair outcomes?

  70. says

    Krull

    Ooh, the hell with that! For some reason I thought it might be interesting because I heard it mentioned as some kind of a cult favourite, but I couldn’t stand 20 minutes of it. It started awful and got steadily worse. And not awful in the way some movies are so bad they’re good.

  71. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    Ooh, the hell with that! For some reason I thought it might be interesting because I heard it mentioned as some kind of a cult favourite, but I couldn’t stand 20 minutes of it. It started awful and got steadily worse. And not awful in the way some movies are so bad they’re good.

    Yeah it’s easily one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen. But if for some sadistic reason the programming director at whatever buried in the dial cable channel I happen to be flipping by has it on, I find myself drawn to it.

  72. life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ says

    well there’s always pragmatic ethics.*shrugs*

    :) That shrug is most appropriate! Pragmatic ethics have much to recommend them, and my thinking has been informed by Rorty, that’s why I was recently reading this, which I linked to this back in the Bruggencate/Hovind thread, around #102.

    Pragmatism is great for its anti-foundationalism. The only problem is it doesn’t offer much in the way of determining “what is good”. Rorty didn’t think “what is good” is even a coherent question, except that it refers to whatever democratic debate arrives at — essentially it’s “democratic commant theory” as opposed to “divine command theory”.

    That’s a refreshingly honest approach, but I’m not persuaded that something can be good just because people discussed it and decided it was good. I think we have a tendency to get those questions wrong. By taking the positively-valenced affects as the good, at least we can know what the democratic debate should be aiming for and why.

    (But yeah, I’ve borrowed the descriptiveness of pragmatism for my aforementioned descriptive utilitarianism. I just think they neglected to note that there is a neurological answer to “what is good”.)

  73. bigbear says

    ॐ :

    I think this is a feature, not a bug. In deontology, arriving at the best rules is at least equivalently difficult (or in fact impossible), but these computations take place in an abstracted debate among elites, with the result that a set of rules comes “pre-packaged” for the punisher, who can simply do as instructed and then feel fair for carrying out the dictates of a procedural justice.

    I see what you’re getting at here and I concede you’re right about deontological rule making.

    Less importantly, I think you’re a little off-keel to think deontological ethical debates have to be in the domain of elites any more or any less than those of any other system. It seems that way, but it isn’t really, atleast it doesn’t have to be, to qualify as deontological. We could be equally honest and describe in great detail to any interlocutors on why the rules were chosen.Or you could always publish regular despatches to the laity to keep them in the loop on the latest in Metaethics;I can see how that would catch on :)

    Also more importantly, you’re addressing purely deontological systems here and not hybrids with consequentialism.

    Caring about intent produces injustices, though. If it results in harsher legal penalties for people with malicious intent, then we’re treating those people harshly for something they could not have chosen otherwise. Intent can only ultimately matter in a world with contra-causal free will, which of course can’t exist.

    Hmmm, this I had not considered. But I don’t see why knowing there’s no contra-causal free will can’t still inform our attitudes towards intentional transgressors in a non-consequentialist system as well, while simultaenuously avoiding injustices to accidental transgressors. Am I missing something here?

    What can justice and fairness possibly mean if they don’t refer to just and fair outcomes?

    Ah I see how by making it descriptive you’re trying to avoid some of the notoriously intractable problems with utilitarianism. But this is a little circular, no? A purely consequentialist system defines what a just a fair outcome is very differently from all other non-purely consequentialist systems. So which metric of fairness and justice do we use?

    For instance, there’re many famous hypotheticals in the literature, where impossible choices between the interests of a few and interests of a multitude have to be made which illustrate problems with utilitarian calculations that don’t consider fairness and justice in the conventional sense, which isn’t – note, a purely utilitarian calculation of the greatest good for the greatest number.

    :) That shrug is most appropriate! Pragmatic ethics have much to recommend them, and my thinking has been informed by Rorty, that’s why I was recently reading this, which I linked to this back in the Bruggencate/Hovind thread, around #102.

    I’ve yet to readskim that link, thanks :)

    I just think they neglected to note that there is a neurological answer to “what is good”.

    LOL

  74. Hurinomyces bruxellensis says

    RBDC

    Typically anything above 8% will age though there are some lower ABV styles that age well too. This is thrown out the window with super hoppy IPAs. They lose their flavor rapidly after being brewed due mainly to the hop volatility. Drink your big ass IPAs fresh.

    I brew beer, and 7-8% is usually my dividing line between “keeping beer”, and beer that needs to be served quickly. Most of the brews I’ve made from a mashing process have been stable for at least 6 months, though. Beers made from malt extract seem to go stale after about 6 weeks. If I remember correctly, that’s almost irrespective of strength.

    For some of the bigger brews I’ve made, the aging process is actually essential. I brewed a quad last summer that didn’t attenuate as well as I had hoped, and carbonated sluggishly during bottle conditioning. I was embarrassed of the beer about 6 weeks after brewing it; it was chewy and flat. After 8 months in the basement, its fully carbonated, dry enough to be palatable and actually gained some complexity.

    Not correcting you there – just adding to the discussion.

    Louis

    For those not in the know lambic beer ages like wine ages.

    With the exception of the sourness of lambics which is mostly caused by cultures of Lactobacillus species. After the initial fermentation lambics will continue to sour during subsequent aging, up to and beyond the point of being undrinkable. This is why lambics are typically aged to varying degrees and blended to make gueuze or with fruit to make the variety of fruit lambics. I think they tend to be more stable after blending, however some of the gueuze I’ve had in the states makes me wonder. In principle the yeast and bacteria shouldn’t die even if they go dormant over time.

  75. Louis says

    Hurinomyces bruxellensis,

    I learned TWO things today, both about beer. This is exceptionally rare! A Red Letter day!

    Thanks.

    Louis

  76. says

    Yes, you are a terrible person, rajkumar.

    Still seeing only one side of the coin…. You are the other side, Brownian. Yan and Ying, or polar opposites, as it is commonly called. Get to know this and you’ll get a crystal clear understanding of why there are so many **irrational theists** in the world. Atheists like you define those theists… you cause them to exist.

  77. Walton says

    If you haven’t checked out Smilansky on the shallowness of compatibilism, by the way, I think you’ll appreciate the heck out of it.

    Thanks. That was really interesting, and directly on point. I’m not sure I’m completely convinced, though; my position is closer to what he terms “hard determinism”.

  78. jonmilne says

    I used to do that, too — attempt intellectual engagement with the clowns. I’m glad you’re taking that role here. While I hope you have better experiences than I, there is a good chance you’ll find what I found: folks like Raj don’t want the truth. They don’t want debate. They don’t want to explore their own ideas, however interesting or mundane.

    They want to pontificate. They want to proselytize. They want you to tell them their thoughts are brilliant and original and insightful, and you are enlightened.

    But I suspect you already know that, and are sincere in spite of Raj’s patent willful ignorance. In which case, you are a far more patient person than I.

    I understand how you feel about the extent of Raj’s dishonesty. I suppose to me I’ve been trying the intellectual approach because I remember that I too used to be religious. Heck, many Pharyngulites as well as many other FTB members used to. So we all showed signs of intellectual dishonesty when it came to our faith in God right?

    And yet I embraced secular rational reasoning, truly analysed my beliefs, and became an atheist. And you did. And many others here did. So I guess how I feel about it is that maybe I can do a good thing when I use intellect to try and sway members of the religious cults. So that I can give the same experience I had, the sense of freedom, where they aren’t constricted by Dark Age ideology and actually think outside the box.

    There are two threads on the Atheist Experience – one about Kent Hovind’s phone calls from jail, and the other about how Twitter has shown just how screwed up the religious mindset is – that I find just too heartbreaking to read all of the comments of. Because the theists that show there all display some variant of not understanding how empathy and compassion work without needing God, and the whole “humans suck surely we need salvation” thing. Those comments on those threads really strengthened my desire to educate people on how atheist, secular, rational and humanist issues ACTUALLY work. :)

    Jon

  79. jonmilne says

    Oh and that post was addressed at Nigelthebold, since it was his quote. Man do I hate it when I get lax about previewing posts and then make errors (rolls eyes) lol.

  80. Hurinomyces bruxellensis says

    Louis

    I learned TWO things today, both about beer. This is exceptionally rare! A Red Letter day!

    Thanks

    No problem.

    I’m an evangelical beer drinker; always happy to proselytize.

  81. Ogvorbis says

    Atheists like you define those theists… you cause them to exist.

    Those of you old enough to remember LPs, do you remember the sound of a record needle scraping all the way across an LP? That’s the sound that went through my mind.

  82. life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ says

    bigbear,

    Interesting reply, thanks! I’ll get back to you later — probably later today, USA time.

    +++++
    Walton,

    I’m not sure I’m completely convinced, though; my position is closer to what he terms “hard determinism”.

    If you mean his wonky attempt to mix compatibilism and hard determinism, yeah, I was not moved by that either. I just thought his criticisms of standard compatibilism were insightful.

  83. Louis says

    Wait…we atheists cause theists to exist?

    {Sniffs}

    I smell TROLLBAIT!!!!!!

    {Ignores the bait}

    Louis

  84. jonmilne says

    Raj:

    You are the other side, Brownian. Yan and Ying, or polar opposites, as it is commonly called

    If you’re going to cite a philosophical term, then at least get the fucking names right. It’s Yin and Yang, jeez louise at least do a Google search before you embarass yourself.

    And I still want you to address posts #8 and #11 that I have posted in this thread.

  85. Walton says

    Yeah but don’t frame this as though it’s particularly a problem with utilitarianism. As you noted, it’s a problem with every justice system ever.

    Yes, that’s true.

    And the alternative is to say to murderers “please don’t do that again” and then let them go.

    An important empirical question: how far does the existence of the threat of punishment for (certain) acts of violence actually reduce the occurrence of those acts of violence? And how far do the returns diminish as the severity of the threatened punishment increases?

    This is a genuine question, not a rhetorical one. It’s hard to tell. It’s hard to tell even what a punishment-free society would look like; certainly there are societies without a functioning criminal justice system, but I’m not aware of one in which there are no retributive mechanisms at all (though I’m not an anthropologist and I could simply be ignorant on that subject).

  86. says

    If you’re going to cite a philosophical term, then at least get the fucking names right. It’s Yin and Yang, jeez louise at least do a Google search before you embarass yourself.

    Sorry. Grumpy old man.

  87. says

    jonmilne:

    And yet I embraced secular rational reasoning, truly analysed my beliefs, and became an atheist. And you did.

    The latest theist belief I had, I gave up at around seven years old or so. A horse broke my leg (well, really the ground did), and I was in a cast that immobilized me from the waist down. My Sunday School teacher came by with a present: a Kool-Aid canteen, one of those you got by trading in box-tops. I was really touched by her kindness in coming out to the farm to give me this little gift and chat with me, and I realized as we talked that I didn’t believe a single thing she said about Jesus or God. (Not that she invoked them a lot — she really was there just to check up on me, I think.)

    I can look back now to some incidences preceding that time, and I realize I never really believed at all. What little belief I had was social.

    I can hardly call the process I went through “rational.” More just, none of the stories made sense. Which is a different thing entirely. I mean, I can’t make heads nor tails of quantum mechanics, but it’s rational.

    Those comments on those threads really strengthened my desire to educate people on how atheist, secular, rational and humanist issues ACTUALLY work.

    I definitely understand the impulse. I used to react very much the same way — attempt to engage everyone in the hopes of spreading more enlightened understanding of exactly what atheism is.

    I still try to engage pretty much everyone, to start off polite and civil. But the instant they stop responding to the things I say, and instead choose to interpret everything in some kind of straw-man version of atheism, I give up. Too many theists refuse the discussion.

    There are enough that respond honestly, though, and those I’ll do my best to represent.

    Aaaaanyway, as I said: I appreciate you taking on the role of the Civil Atheist. It’s an important role, one I used to assume proudly, many years ago. That frees me to be the humorous old curmudgeon. At least, I amuse myself.

  88. says

    And I still want you to address posts #8 and #11 that I have posted in this thread.

    Those post are just too long for me. My memory ain’t so great. I would have already forgotten the first half of your post even before finishing the second half.

  89. Louis says

    Jon Milne,

    And for all your efforts you got #117.

    Not only is Raj incapable of delivering a cogent reply, he is uninterested. If I had the time I’d feel quite sorry for him.

    I have appreciated your work if that helps.

    Louis

  90. says

    Those of you old enough to remember LPs, do you remember the sound of a record needle scraping all the way across an LP? That’s the sound that went through my mind.

    Yes. And this is exactly the reason why we are experiencing this communication gap. I was a teenager when CDs came out, or when they were invented. Even my father would have been a kid when people were listening to LPs.

  91. Ichthyic says

    Raj sez:

    I learned how to take extreme stupidity without reacting to it.

    that might be approaching fractally wrong.

    the stupid has become binary stars.

    I have to back away another angstrom unit.

  92. Ichthyic says

    I was a teenager when CDs came out

    that would have been what, early 80s?

    and you’re still living in your parents basement.

    *tsk*

  93. says

    that would have been what, early 80s?

    and you’re still living in your parents basement.

    No, early 90s. In early 80s, I was a little kid….literally.

  94. cm's changeable moniker says

    Rev BDC:

    there are a lot of people with beer “cellars” for aging beer

    If I had a cellar for aging beer it would contain no beer and I’d have a headache in the morning.

    (I’m not good at self-restraint.)

  95. says

    rajkumar:

    And this is exactly the reason why we are experiencing this communication gap.

    Uhm, no. First, people were still listening to LPs when CDs came out, so if you were a teenager, people were listening to LPs around that time.

    Second, you’re the reason we’re experiencing this communication gap. I have a child younger than you, and we suffer no such communication problem. She’s married now (as of a month or so ago), and I have no problem communicating with her husband. Friends have children that are currently teenagers, and I have no problem communicating with them.

    You refuse to communicate. You are intentionally obfuscating conversation. Your response at #119 pretty much proves this. Your refusal to actually engage in conversation is the problem.

    You’re not that much younger than me, Kiddo. I was in my very early 20s when CDs came out.

  96. Hurinomyces bruxellensis says

    Raj

    You are the other side, Brownian. Yan and Ying, or polar opposites, as it is commonly called. Get to know this and you’ll get a crystal clear understanding of why there are so many **irrational theists** in the world. Atheists like you define those theists… you cause them to exist.

    Its amusing to see you admitting that Brownian has such control over your beliefs Raj.

  97. says

    You’re not that much younger than me, Kiddo. I was in my very early 20s when CDs came out.

    And I guess this is precisely why we are speaking along the same lines. I was actually talking about some grumpy old men…

  98. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    45s, LP’s, 8-track tape, reel to reel tape, cassette tapes, cds, and now mp3 players. Been there, done that, still have some.

    Funny how Rajkumar can’t even get Yin and Yang right. That dates back to the ’60s when Eastern mysticism (read oriental stupidity for the gullible) invaded the hippy movement. Yawn, boring and wrong then, boring and wrong now. RK must not be very bright, as those aren’t big multisyllable words like nucleophilicity, that I deal with daily. No wonder he has trouble understanding what we write. We presume he can read above a third grade level.

  99. Ichthyic says

    Jon Milne,

    And for all your efforts you got #117.

    Not only is Raj incapable of delivering a cogent reply, he is uninterested. If I had the time I’d feel quite sorry for him.

    remember this.

    When you address the terminally stupid (like Raj), do recall that you should not expect a cogent response. You really are instead addressing onlookers, so tune your screeds accordingly. After all, the stupid will not pay any attention to how you word things anyway.

  100. Ichthyic says

    We presume he can read above a third grade level.

    hey, FWIW, I DID ask for elementary level science teachers to see if they could better communicate basic science principles to Raj in the last iteration.

  101. Ogvorbis says

    Sorry. Grumpy old man.

    Is there anyone who has been posting on The Zombie TZT Thread that Raj has not insulted?

    Anyone?

    Bueller?

  102. Amphiox says

    I learned how to take extreme stupidity without reacting to it

    Only the grossly intellectually dishonest accept extreme stupidity without reacting to it.

    You are the other side, Brownian. Yan and Ying, or polar opposites, as it is commonly called.

    That is Yin and Yang, fapwit. And they are NOT polar opposites.

    If you’re going to fap out Eastern Mysticism, at least make the effort to learn what that Eastern mysticism actually says.

    Atheists like you define those theists… you cause them to exist.

    Yin does NOT cause Yang to exist, nor does Yang “define” Yin, fapwit. If you’re going to fap out Eastern mysticism, at least make the effort to LEARN what that Eastern mysticism actually says and means.

    Unsurprising that the fapwit remains too intellectually dishonest to bother learning things. If it won’t bother to learn about science, why should we expect it to make the effort to learn about Taoism, rather than take the lazy and easy route of fapping out the pop-culture bastardization of it.

  103. Ichthyic says

    No, early 90s. In early 80s, I was a little kid….literally.

    meaning you don’t recall because you were a little kid.

    Strange that Raj thinks he can change history because of the way HE remembers things. Reality doesn’t work that way, so sorry.

    I also notice you haven’t denied you still live in your parent’s basement.

  104. jonmilne says

    Sorry. Grumpy old man.

    “Old man”? Dude, I’m 23. I recognise your posting style is no better than a barely literate primary schooler’s, but that doesn’t make me old when I comment on it. Heck, you’re probably OLDER than me.

    Those post are just too long for me. My memory ain’t so great. I would have already forgotten the first half of your post even before finishing the second half.

    Okay, I take it back about how you saying “Where did I define God?” as being your most retarded statement ever. THIS now wins the prize.

    Seriously, how can you forget any part of a post when all you need to do is copy and paste the entire posts that I made into the comment box, and then separate parts of the post with

    tags so that you can address them individually? Hell, right above the comment box are instructions that can show you how to do exactly that.

    Don’t you understand how you appear here? By continually refusing to address posts that thoroughly debunk the stuff that you have to have been saying, it shows a HUGE degree of intellectual dishonesty. Especially since you have requested that people go and read big long books that supposedly support your case, and at the same time also acting as if you are higher and mightier in your moral outlook than others here. If that was truly the case, you’d practice what you fucking preach, and actually address the comments that have been made that have torn apart the bullshit you’ve spouted.

    I’m making one more request for you to please actually answer my posts. Otherwise, you’ll expose yourself as the ultimate contradictory hypocrite.

  105. Ichthyic says

    CDs are early eighties. I know, because I wasn’t born when they came out.

    lol. perfect.

  106. Ichthyic says

    I have one question:

    Before Wikipedia, how did you manage to communicate with each other?

    I have a response:

    Before the Age of Aquarius, how did your dog mange to find bones in the backyard?

  107. says

    Yin does NOT cause Yang to exist, nor does Yang “define” Yin, fapwit. If you’re going to fap out Eastern mysticism, at least make the effort to LEARN what that Eastern mysticism actually says and means.

    Sure it does. I can prove it you right here right now, but promise first that you won’t escape through your usual escape hatch, and/or start trolling using your many alter egos.

  108. jonmilne says

    Ugh, try again…

    Sorry. Grumpy old man.

    “Old man”? Dude, I’m 23. I recognise your posting style is no better than a barely literate primary schooler’s, but that doesn’t make me old when I comment on it. Heck, you’re probably OLDER than me.

    Those post are just too long for me. My memory ain’t so great. I would have already forgotten the first half of your post even before finishing the second half.

    Okay, I take it back about how you saying “Where did I define God?” as being your most retarded statement ever. THIS now wins the prize.

    Seriously, how can you forget any part of a post when all you need to do is copy and paste the entire posts that I made into the comment box, and then separate parts of the post with blockquote tags so that you can address them individually? Hell, right above the comment box are instructions that can show you how to do exactly that.

    Don’t you understand how you appear here? By continually refusing to address posts that thoroughly debunk the stuff that you have to have been saying, it shows a HUGE degree of intellectual dishonesty. Especially since you have requested that people go and read big long books that supposedly support your case, and at the same time also acting as if you are higher and mightier in your moral outlook than others here. If that was truly the case, you’d practice what you fucking preach, and actually address the comments that have been made that have torn apart the bullshit you’ve spouted.

    I’m making one more request for you to please actually answer my posts. Otherwise, you’ll expose yourself as the ultimate contradictory hypocrite.

  109. Amphiox says

    My memory ain’t so great. I would have already forgotten the first half of your post even before finishing the second half.

    The TAKE NOTES of the first half, fapwit, and refer back to them when you need to as you read the second half.

    This is what INTELLECTUALLY HONEST people with memories that aren’t so great do if they want to engage HONESTLY in a discussion.

    Alternately, you can admit that your memory troubles prevent you from properly participating in the discussion, shut up, and leave, fapwit. And not come back until your memory improves.

  110. Ichthyic says

    I can prove it you right here right now, but promise first that you won’t escape through your usual escape hatch, and/or start trolling using your many alter egos.

    you can prove green is blue… blah blah inannity irrelevance stupidity… blah blah.

    yes we’ve heard of your amazing powers of reason before. They fail to impress, o wise one-who-lives-in-his-parent’s-basement.

  111. Amphiox says

    and/or start trolling using your many alter egos

    Trolling using sockpuppets is a serious offense on this blog, fapwit.

    Provide EVIDENCE of this accusation, RIGHT NOW, with quotes and IP ADDRESSES, or APOLOGIZE for SLANDERING ME, RIGHT NOW, fapwit.

  112. jonmilne says

    nigel the bold – 118

    Thank you for your kind words, although if my last post is any indication, I think I’m now swinging in the completely opposite direction of being civil – least with people who are the epitome of dishonesty like Raj.

    Louis – 121

    I’m still gonna try. It may be as futile as trying to stop Leeds United fans from doing Munich chants whenever they play Man Utd, but I still think it’s worth a go, even despite Raj’s turn for the insulting and hypocrisy against me now.

  113. says

    Those post are just too long for me. My memory ain’t so great. I would have already forgotten the first half of your post even before finishing the second half.

    Only one such as Rajkumar would be proud of his laziness and intellectual dishonesty. Ugh, Raj, you’re a fucking embarassment.

  114. says

    you can prove green is blue… blah blah inannity irrelevance stupidity… blah blah.

    yes we’ve heard of your amazing powers of reason before. They fail to impress, o wise one-who-lives-in-his-parent’s-basement.

    No I can’t prove green is blue. But I can surely prove how yin defines yang. It’s easy. It’s called RELATIVITY. And, Just FYI, it is not something that is exclusive to ‘Eastern Mysticism’.

  115. Louis says

    Rajkumar,

    Before Wiki? We had thins thing called “knowledge”. It came from “learning stuff” and “hard work” and “having a moderately high level functioning brain”. I realise these are foreign concepts to you, but I can draw you some excellent pictures in crayon and dribble to help you understand in a medium you are familiar with.

    Louis

  116. jonmilne says

    Aargh, quoting issues, jeez.

    Ugh, try again…

    Sorry. Grumpy old man.

    “Old man”? Dude, I’m 23. I recognise your posting style is no better than a barely literate primary schooler’s, but that doesn’t make me old when I comment on it. Heck, you’re probably OLDER than me.

    Those post are just too long for me. My memory ain’t so great. I would have already forgotten the first half of your post even before finishing the second half.

    Okay, I take it back about how you saying “Where did I define God?” as being your most retarded statement ever. THIS now wins the prize.

    Seriously, how can you forget any part of a post when all you need to do is copy and paste the entire posts that I made into the comment box, and then separate parts of the post with blockquote tags so that you can address them individually? Hell, right above the comment box are instructions that can show you how to do exactly that.

    Don’t you understand how you appear here? By continually refusing to address posts that thoroughly debunk the stuff that you have to have been saying, it shows a HUGE degree of intellectual dishonesty. Especially since you have requested that people go and read big long books that supposedly support your case, and at the same time also acting as if you are higher and mightier in your moral outlook than others here. If that was truly the case, you’d practice what you fucking preach, and actually address the comments that have been made that have torn apart the bullshit you’ve spouted.

    I’m making one more request for you to please actually answer my posts. Otherwise, you’ll expose yourself as the ultimate contradictory hypocrite.

    Address them Raj. Failure to do so will make you officially the biggest laughing stock hypocrite dishonest troll of the entirety of Freethought Blogs, and the biggest laughing stock hypocrite dishonest troll in the history of ANY secular atheist site.

  117. Amphiox says

    Provide EVIDENCE for your claims against me, FAPWIT, with examples and IP ADDRESSES, RIGHT NOW, or admit that you are LYING and are SLANDERING ME, and apologize, RIGHT NOW.

    Fapwit.

  118. Ichthyic says

    Trolling using sockpuppets is a serious offense on this blog, fapwit.

    by “alter egos” I do believe the raj considers those responding to him to actually have 3d personalities, as opposed to his flatline one. IOW, he perceives the fact that we respond at different levels to different parts of his stupidity to be as if we were multiple personalities; or, in his words: responding with many “alter egos”.

    He really IS a two dimensional personage. He finds it hard to imagine how a real brain that isn’t broken actually works.

    It’s actually quite remarkable when you think about it.

  119. Amphiox says

    The fapwit’s ignorance of Relativity appears to be as vast as its ignorance of boobs.

  120. Ichthyic says

    But I can surely prove how yin defines yang. It’s easy. It’s called RELATIVITY.

    exactly as predicted:

    response included inane irrelevancy right off the bat.

    go raj!

    you’re a cognitive psychologist’s wet dream.

  121. says

    Before Wiki? We had thins thing called “knowledge”. It came from “learning stuff” and “hard work” and “having a moderately high level functioning brain”. I realise these are foreign concepts to you, but I can draw you some excellent pictures in crayon and dribble to help you understand in a medium you are familiar with.

    Louise, I can write the same about myself too. It’s easy. As I said before, just punch a few keys, and voila! By all means, keep glorifying your puny little self if it gives you a high.

    If it were to ‘bright minds’ like you and your friends here, I am sure we’d still be burning women today for witch crafting, and things like cars, electricity, air planes, and medicines, would all be unheard of.

  122. Amphiox says

    He really IS a two dimensional personage. He finds it hard to imagine how a real brain that isn’t broken actually works.

    To call the fapwit two-dimensional is a grievous slander against helpless, innocent hypocubes, who’ve done nothing to deserve such an association.

  123. Amphiox says

    Provide EVIDENCE of your slander, fapwit, with IP ADDRESSES, RIGHT NOW, or admit you were LYING, fapwit. RIGHT NOW.

  124. says

    Amphiox

    No need for evidence. Your reaction is all what is needed. And I guess, now you and your alter egos are going to need some space to do your usual dirty work. So, I’ll leave. Happy trolling!

  125. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Before Wikipedia, how did you manage to communicate with each other?

    Look, ignorant fuckwit thinks wiki is away to communicate with each other, not a resource.

    Evidently it has never heard of other means for getting the news and information. Like newspapers, magazines, radio, tv, dictionaries, encyclopedias, libraries, books, atlases, etc. One wonders if its brain is filled with calcium hydroxyphosphate deposits.

  126. Ichthyic says

    Five bucks says Raj read “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” and got all mindblown.

  127. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    No need for evidence.

    With your lies and bullshit, you need to lead with evidence showing you aren’t a total and abject loser. Instead, you fap fuckwitted OPINION pretending it is anything other than nonsense.

  128. Louis says

    Raj,

    If it were to ‘bright minds’ like you and your friends here, I am sure we’d still be burning women today for witch crafting, and things like cars, electricity, air planes, and medicines, would all be unheard of.

    O RLY?

    Please do elaborate! I really want to read this explanation. Spare no details.

    Louis

  129. cm's changeable moniker says

    Before Wikipedia, how did you manage to communicate with each other?

    I seem to remember Usenet, listserv, and email.

    Letters to the Daily Telegraph, too.

  130. Ichthyic says

    What the devil is wrong with him.

    if the devil existed, he wouldn’t have anything to do with Raj.

    not enough material to work with.

  131. Ichthyic says

    I seem to remember Usenet, listserv, and email.

    surely you realize Raj just thinks he insulted us?

    the implication I got is he thinks all our knowledge comes from wiki, because at some point, someone here provided a link to it.

    the ignorance on display in Raj’s head is just astounding.

  132. Amphiox says

    Still no IP Addresses or quotes from the fapwit. Nor any apologies.

    I’ll take that as an admission of lying.

  133. says

    Ichthyic #169

    if the devil existed, he wouldn’t have anything to do with Raj.

    not enough material to work with.

    And with all the hoggling he does, clearly his hands are not idle.

    Nor are they particularly sanitary.

  134. Tony says

    Sure it does. I can prove it you right here right now, but promise first that you won’t escape through your usual escape hatch, and/or start trolling using your many alter egos.

    In the process of proving, I wonder if this person intends to cite any sources or if we’re just supposed to accept anything presented at face value…

  135. cm's changeable moniker says

    [Aside]

    Anyone remember those “household of the future” pieces from the 50s/60s/70s where technology would liberate us from drudgery and we’d use our copious free time to, I don’t know, read Chaucer, learn cello, grow bananas, or something?

    Turns out they came true, but we just got to bash dolts on the web instead.

    I want my future back.

    (Yes, I know I could turn off the computer. Shush!)

  136. says

    jonmilne:

    Thank you for your kind words, although if my last post is any indication, I think I’m now swinging in the completely opposite direction of being civil – least with people who are the epitome of dishonesty like Raj.

    That’s the key — the point in the discussion in which you decide the other person is open to actual discussion, or just wanting to preach and/or troll. It’s all a matter of how finely-tuned your sincere-o-meter. Too fine, and you get false positives. Not fine enough, and you end up spending time on people who are not worth the effort.

    All of us here are tuned differently. I’m becoming less patient as the years go by, and hardly give them the benefit of the doubt, as the odds are stacked heavily against them.

    But then, you’re barely over half my age. I suspect you’re not nearly as jaded as I. That’ll come with age, and at that point, you can respect and enjoy the new up-and-comers who have the patience to engage folks like raj.

  137. kemist, Dark Lord of the Sith says

    If it were to ‘bright minds’ like you and your friends here, I am sure we’d still be burning women today for witch crafting, and things like cars, electricity, air planes, and medicines, would all be unheard of.

    Whereas if it were left to minds like yours, I guess we’d be left wondering what’s the meaning of “greenness” while contemplating boobs.

    That’d help us design cars, drugs and airplanes, no doubt.

  138. Amphiox says

    And don’t forget, kemist, that it would JUST be contemplating, not touching, the boobs. Because contemplating is a yin activity, while touching is yang, and one must create the other, but polar opposites can never the twain meet. (And the raj has significant experience only in one of them).

    Hence no babies (but also no need for cars, drugs, or airplanes).

  139. says

    Whereas if it were left to minds like yours, I guess we’d be left wondering what’s the meaning of “greenness” while contemplating boobs.

    That’d help us design cars, drugs and airplanes, no doubt.

    What’s wrong with ‘contemplating’ boobs? It’ all part of human sexuality. Quite natural. Nothing more unusual than saying I love the colour purple, or I like music.

    This is true, Kesmit. A red/green colourblind person doesn’t know what the colour green looks like. Forget the science behind colour perception for a second. If I was a red/green colourblind person, and I asked you to explain and describe this colour so I could visualize it in my mind, how would you do that?

  140. The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa) says

    Jonmilne:

    Okay, I take it back about how you saying “Where did I define God?” as being your most retarded statement ever. THIS now wins the prize.

    You’re doing good, and I’m not personally offended by ‘retarded’, but watch the ableist stuff, please and thankyou.

  141. says

    rajkumar:

    And I guess this is precisely why we are speaking along the same lines. I was actually talking about some grumpy old men…

    No no no. You miss my point (and ignore most of my post).

    If you were a teen during the early ’90s, you’re only a decade younger than me. Your father would’ve grown up with the LP, and 8-tracks and later cassette tapes. You would’ve been a child during the final heyday of the LP, not your father. I certainly remember the scratch of the needle as it skittered across vinyl from my late teens, which would’ve made you almost 10.

    But then, I have a memory that spans more than half-a-post. That might explain it.

    There is no significant generation gap to excuse the lack of communication. There is no generation gap. You are not part of a generation with privileged information denied us old fogeys. There’s nothing special about your education that would impede communication with us old folks.

    You seem to write in fairly grammatical sentences. Your paragraphs (when you write in full paragraphs) seem to be fairly cohesive. This suggest the actual communication problem is you.

    In fact, it would seem to suggest one of these options:

    1) You have nothing to communicate, but insist on posting

    2) You don’t wish to communicate anything worthwhile, though you could

    3) You don’t know how to communicate full concepts or ideas

    4) You wish to communicate, but are afraid your ideas will be heartlessly dismantled and your feelings will be hurt

    5) You are here just to see what kind of reaction you can stir up

    Of those, I am only sympathetic to #3.

    There may be options I have not included. If so, I’m more than willing to entertain alternate options explaining why you are impeded communication. But to do that, you’d have to actually attempt to communicate.

     

    TL;DR (in case the preceding was too long to remember the beginning at the end): You’re not younger than many of us, so stop trying to use that as an excuse. You are the impediment to communication. Either you’re stupid, scared, or trolling.

  142. says

    rajkumar:

    If I was a red/green colourblind person, and I asked you to explain and describe this colour so I could visualize it in my mind, how would you do that?

    I was going to use that example in an earlier post, but decided against it.

    Instead, here’s a more important part of your post:

    Forget the science behind colour perception for a second.

    Why would you do that?

    Consider: the actual perception of the color green is a metaphysical statement. I can say, “You know how you can see different things in different brightnesses? I perceive three different brightnesses where you perceive only one. I can’t really describe those differences. I’m only describing my perception.”

    Now, that’s a pretty bold statement. One might be tempted to equate that with the perception of God, or ghosts, or UFOs.

    But.

    I can also say, “I can prove it.” (This would be epistemology, or “How we know things.”) And then I would use science to do so. After doing some experiments with the spectrometer and different shades of various colors that all look the same in black and white, I would be able to convince a colorblind person that I actually do perceive more of the spectrum than they.

    It’s really a trivial experiment.

    So when you say, “Forget the science for a moment,” you are attempting to eradicate the line between metaphysics and epistemology. You are trying to eliminate the dividing line between assertion and knowledge. Sure, it’s difficult to describe the color green. But at least we can explain there is a difference, demonstrate what the difference is, and show how we know there is a difference.

    And that’s a helluva lot.

  143. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    What’s wrong with ‘contemplating’ boobs? It’ all part of human sexuality.

    Gentlemen, which leaves you out, do it in private and surreptitiously. Only fuckwitted losers like you make a deal out of it.

    If I was a red/green colourblind person, and I asked you to explain and describe this colour so I could visualize it in my mind, how would you do that?

    It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t prove anything other than language is a product of the human experience. If you think it means anything else, cite the literature to back up your claim, and use language like “this is what I think, and this (link to said evidence) is the evidence to back it up”. Otherwise, all you have is a failure of language, nothing more, and definitely not the imaginary deity you are trying to place there. It says nothing at all about your lack of evidence for your imaginary deity, which is nothing but a delusion in your mind…Put up or shut the fuck up loser.

  144. cm's changeable moniker says

    (Notes in passing that Raj has yet to post in a language other than English.)

    *waves at CR*

  145. kemist, Dark Lord of the Sith says

    Forget the science behind colour perception for a second.

    Why would I do that.

    The only interesting thing that can be learned out of subjective experiences is how the brain works.

    The rest is just the idiotic ramblings of people who only think about things and never test their reasoning to see if it fits with the real world.

    If I was a red/green colourblind person, and I asked you to explain and describe this colour so I could visualize it in my mind, how would you do that?

    Beyond pointing to a spectrometer and proving that I can differentiate two wavelenghts that he cannot and that this machine, which has a better light detector than us both can also detects the difference ?

    Nothing.

    It’s pointless. It’s not his brain that’s defective, it’s his eyes.

  146. says

    kemist:

    Beyond pointing to a spectrometer and proving that I can differentiate two wavelenghts that he cannot and that this machine, which has a better light detector than us both can also detects the difference ?

    Nothing.

    Terrorist fist jab.

    Damn straight, my friend.

    See this, raj? We all pretty much have the same answer. It’s science that sets our knowledge apart from yours.

  147. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Where’s your evidence to back up your fuckwitted and silly question Rajkumar? One would think you are nothing but a reality bereft druggie without a coherent thought in what’s left of your mind. Put up or shut the fuck up with real evidence. I’ll even link to where to find it, so your only excuse is you tacitly ceding to us the argument.

  148. Amphiox says

    Another post from the fapwit, another post with no IP address to back up its slanderous accusations, another post without an apology for slandering.

    Another tacit admission of LYING.

    Fapfap.

  149. Amphiox says

    If I was a red/green colourblind person, and I asked you to explain and describe this colour so I could visualize it in my mind, how would you do that?

    Take one green card and one yellow card, point to the green one and say “this one is green”.

    Done, fapwit.

    The additional fact that the red/green colourblind person won’t be able to distinguish green from red is a separate issue and also irrelevant.

  150. says

    Why would I do that.

    For starters, you would, or could, do that because it has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the questions I have been asking you. However, if you are trying to impress your friends here, well, may be you have impressed them after all, because every time one of you parrots some information from Wikipedia, it leaves the rest of you highly impressed. Apparently!

    Beyond pointing to a spectrometer and proving that I can differentiate two wavelenghts that he cannot and that this machine, which has a better light detector than us both can also detects the difference ?

    That wouldn’t explain anything about the ‘greenness’ of the colour green — it would only explain how humans perceive colours. The same old high school science, and the same old Wikipedian arsenal. Your (so-called) high-tech scientific explanations won’t explain a thing about what the colour green actually looks like to those who can see it.

    To understand this better, I ask you the same question again. How about visualizing the colour ultra-violet? Can you visualize this colour by going the high school science of colour perception?

  151. says

    Gentlemen, which leaves you out, do it in private and surreptitiously. Only fuckwitted losers like you make a deal out of it.

    Gentlemen, who secretly watch porn, and publicly praise the breasts of their wives? No, I have got something that suits you better. Dirty Old Scoundrel. DOS.

  152. chigau (違う) says

    What color are the ‘go’ traffic lights in Japan?
    (Hint: same as Australia)
    What is that color called?

  153. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    No citations from Rajkumar. He tacitly agrees his evidenceless argument is bullshit. Nothing but lies and bullshit. He can change this by citing the literature at any time…or shutting the fuck up like the evidenceless loser it is…

  154. Amphiox says

    Two more posts. Still no IP addresses. Still no apologies.

    Two more admissions of LYING by the fapwit.

    And more worthless fapping about on pointless, useless, already debunked points.

    Fapfapfap.

  155. John Morales says

    The specimen bleats*: In early 80s, I was a little kid….literally.

    Presumably, now it’s literally a goat.

    (Ain’t the internet wonderful?

    On the internet, no-one knows that you’re a…

    Ah, never mind)

    * Literally, by its own claim. :)

  156. kemist, Dark Lord of the Sith says

    For starters, you would, or could, do that because it has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the questions I have been asking you.

    That’s ’cause your questions make no freaking sense. I told you that more than 100 posts ago. But appearently you insist on thinking your pointless philosophical masturbation has deep meaning.

    However, if you are trying to impress your friends here, well, may be you have impressed them after all, because every time one of you parrots some information from Wikipedia, it leaves the rest of you highly impressed. Apparently!

    Fapwikipediafap.

    Lalala I can’t hear you, because wikipedia, high school science, blabla.

    That wouldn’t explain anything about the ‘greenness’ of the colour green — it would only explain how humans perceive colours.

    “Greenness” only exists in human heads, you bottomless idiot.

    That’s been the point we’ve been trying to make since the very beginning, and that you refuse to address.

    “Greenness” is a product of our brains and has nothing to do with the true nature of anything except with the functionning of the brain. To think about it without addressing how the brain produces it is pointless mental masturbation that will never bring new useful knowledge since it has no link to the real world.

  157. FossilFishy (Lobed-finned Killer of Threads) says

    I awoke this morning with the memory of a young lady towards whom I had acted quite beastly almost twenty years ago. It wasn’t malice exactly, just the callow ineptitude of youth. That memory has soured my day in such a way that I wish I could somehow apologize and make amends. But then here comes Raj once again, riding a big old train ‘o stupid.

    That wouldn’t explain anything about the ‘greenness’ of the colour green

    I actually slapped my thigh as I laughed at that; I never do that!

    Sure, I still feel sad that the more enlightened me cannot go back and stop my idiot youthful self from being a such an asshole, but thanks to Raj I once again realise that at least I’m capable of learning.

  158. Hurinomyces bruxellensis says

    For starters, you would, or could, do that because it has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the questions I have been asking you.

    This is either a lie or a willful misunderstanding. The question if I remember is about whether we could detect god in some way without having a prior definition of him.

    The facts are that we:

    1) can measure things we can’t sense directly

    2) have discovered things well outside of our common experience (again with the electron example)

    3) have no evidence from any science that seems to be leading toward a god. The universe works just fine without that stupid thing.

    Stop your fucking obscurantism.

  159. says

    rajkumar:

    That wouldn’t explain anything about the ‘greenness’ of the colour green — it would only explain how humans perceive colours.

    And what is “greenness” but perception of a physical attribute?

    You talk as if there were something inherently unique about “greenness,” as if it were distinct from its spectrum. But that’s the point. We define green by our perception. Or we can define it by its spectrum. Either way works out the same.

    Your question is based in the supposition that our perception is not tied to the physical attributes that define the limits of “green.” It’s your supposition that is wrong, not the problem of defining “green.”

    There is no problem.

  160. says

    Y’know what I find funny?

    You ask a bunch of atheists about the problems of defining “green,” and you end up with essentially the same answer.

    You ask a hundred theist about the problems of defining “God,” and you end up with a hundred different answers.

    What’s that tell you?

  161. says

    rajkumar:

    The same old high school science, and the same old Wikipedian arsenal. Your (so-called) high-tech scientific explanations won’t explain a thing about what the colour green actually looks like to those who can see it.

    And?

    Trying to explain the experience of an orgasm won’t do it justice to someone who has never experienced it. Trying to explain the flavor of alligator won’t do it justice to anyone who has not tasted chicken.

    Big deal.

    These are all subjective experiences. Both of these are far harder to quantize than trying to explain the color green (which has an analog to anyone who can see in at least grey tones). And again: big deal.

    So, what’s your point? That there’s some sort of parallel between these things and the experience of God?

    If so, you have a long row to hoe. You have to identify the proper source of the feeling of divinity. For instance, it might just be the thought of a nipple in your mouth that makes your penis all tingly, and not the presence of God. Or maybe you’re fucking high as a NOAA weather balloon.

    The color “green” can be associated with great certainty to a certain spectrum. (You know that “science” you’d like us to ignore? Sorry, we can’t. It’s what allows us to be sure of our knowledge, such as what constitutes the color “green.”)

    In direct contrast, your perception of a god cannot be correlated with anything other than various mental states. The same kind of states that have been associated with other hallucinatory experiences.

    So forgive me if I don’t allow you to disregard science. It’s the bit that allows us to distinguish reality from fantasy, fact from fiction. If you wish to continue to believe only what you desire to believe, then feel free. But it’s quite disingenuous of you to think we should accept your fantasies as reality.

    Especially when the best defense you can muster has something to do with our inability to describe “green,” when in fact we can both describe it, and define it.

    Can you define “god?”

  162. Amphiox says

    “Greenness” is NOT a thing to be described, it is a quality used to describe things in reality – namely things that emit or reflect electromagnetic radiation of a certain range of wavelengths (or the radiation itself).

    It is NOT a reality to be or that can be described. It is a DESCRIPTION of reality.

    The fapwit’s perseveration in demanding a description of a descriptive term simply demonstrates that the fapwit doesn’t have functional language capacity, in ANY language, first, second, third, or eighteenth.

    It doesn’t know the difference between nouns and adjectives.

    Either that, or it is perpetrating just another one of its tired, dishonest “pranks”.

  163. Amphiox says

    Your (so-called) high-tech scientific explanations won’t explain a thing about what the colour green actually looks like to those who can see it.

    It doesn’t need to.

    To explain what the colour green looks like to those who can see it requires just one word. One word which, upon reading it, anyone who can see green will INSTANTLY know and understand exactly what green looks like, which is ALL that an explanation in human language is required to do.

    That one word is “green”.

    The fapwit is just wasting its and our time fapping about this ridiculously pitiful and worthless tangent.

  164. Snoof says

    Can you define “god?”

    Xe can, but he won’t. And xe acts like this proves something.

  165. Lyn M, Purveyor of Fine Aphorisms of Death says

    @ Ogvorbis #136

    Is there anyone who has been posting on The Zombie TZT Thread that Raj has not insulted?

    Anyone?

    He’s missed me so far. I’m thinking it’s because he realises that I am a woman, and then he thinks that means I have breasts, and then his teensy brain melts down and flows out his ears.

  166. says

    “Greenness” only exists in human heads, you bottomless idiot.

    That’s been the point we’ve been trying to make since the very beginning, and that you refuse to address.

    “Greenness” is a product of our brains and has nothing to do with the true nature of anything except with the functionning of the brain. To think about it without addressing how the brain produces it is pointless mental masturbation that will never bring new useful knowledge since it has no link to the real world.

    Yes. True. And once again, no one is concerned with how the human brain produces ‘greenness’. It’s a completely different discussion. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT in CAPITALS and bold.

    Now, we are concerned with this:

    First, a red/green colour blind person is someone who has never seen the colour green, and because the person has never seen the colour, he doesn’t know what ‘green’ looks like in its ‘original form’. To see the colour in its ‘original form’ means, seeing the colour with a normal colour vision.

    Now suppose such a person would like to know what the green colour looks like in its ‘original form’. Suppose you have a normal colour vision, and I am such a red/green colour blind person. I ask you to ‘describe’ this colour to me in any way you like — even using your high school science — so I am able to get a picture of what seeing this colour is like in its original form. How would you do that? Do you think you would be able to do that by telling me the wavelength of this colour, and a little bit about the colour spectrum from here and there?

    And, yes, my questions are not going to make any sense if you have no damn clue how to answer them. But I see, you are on the same frequency now as the rest of your group. Looks like you all have the same dictionary.

  167. Lyn M, Purveyor of Fine Aphorisms of Death says

    No need for evidence. Your reaction is all what is needed. And I guess, now you and your alter egos are going to need some space to do your usual dirty work. So, I’ll leave. Happy trolling!

    tl;dr = I know same as about god. You just have a limited mind.

  168. Brownian says

    <blockquoteTo see the colour in its ‘original form’ means, seeing the colour with a normal colour vision.

    You think that’s colour in its ‘original form’? What are you, simple?

    You said you came here to learn. This point has been explained to you numerous times. Again, the problem lies with you.

  169. says

    You said you came here to learn. This point has been explained to you numerous times. Again, the problem lies with you.

    OK. Point taken. Now, I’ll just wait for the answer… from Kismet the Dark Seth Lord

  170. theophontes 777 says

    @ raj the raving misogynist

    You are the other side, Brownian. Yan and Ying, or polar opposites, as it is commonly called.

    Oh Lordy, you are going to start dry humping Oriental Philosophy next?

    @ Ichthyic

    “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance”

    Summation in one sentence:

    Technology is here to stay, get used to it.

    Anyone?

    @ cm’s changeable moniker

    (Notes in passing that Raj has yet to post in a language other than English.)

    Good point. Reminds me of danielhaven pretending to be Afrikaans.

    @ Humpty-Dumpty

    Looks like you all have the same dictionary.

    LOL

  171. Ichthyic says

    you are going to start “dry humping” Oriental Philosophy next?

    yes, that’s exactly the right imagery.

  172. Ichthyic says

    Because contemplating is a yin activity, while touching is yang

    well, yan and ying, according to Raj, and of course, with THOSE one generates the other, so contemplation necessarily generates touching, and to touch the breast then forces you into contemplation… which forces you to touch… contemplate… touch…con…touch… *fizzle* *spark*

    *wheeeeeeezzzeeee*

  173. Hurinomyces bruxellensis says

    First, a red/green colour blind person is someone who has never seen the colour green, and because the person has never seen the colour, he doesn’t know what ‘green’ looks like in its ‘original form’. To see the colour in its ‘original form’ means, seeing the colour with a normal colour vision.

    How do you even know we experience the color green the same way? You are assuming that my sensation of green is the same as yours, but we can’t compare that directly. What I can do is name some sensation I get from looking at the grass so that we have a consistent word for it, and then investigate the physical phenomenon that causes that sensation. We can’t directly communicate our ‘original forms’ of green to each other any more than we can communicate them to my dad, who is colorblind.

    Your platonic form for the experience of green an invalid abstraction based on an unwarranted assumption. Its the physical phenomenon that is primary to what “green” is and not our sensory experience.

  174. says

    Or, put it differently, Kemist, the brain of a red/green colour blind person cannot generate ‘greenness’, because the input it is receiving from the eyes about colours is not complete. Now, do you know a way to make the brain of a red/green colour blind person generate ‘greenness’?

  175. Hurinomyces bruxellensis says

    I thought ‘mental masturbation’ wasn’t much appreciated here?

    Well then let me make my response shorter. Your ‘original form’ is meaningless. Its a neat trick we got from evolution to help us tell if the fruit is ripe.

    “Green” would still exist even if no one could see it, we just wouldn’t have a special name for it.

  176. Ichthyic says

    Now, do you know a way to make the brain of a red/green colour blind person generate ‘greenness’?

    you do realize that a color blind person still generates a grey value for the color they are not processing?

    oh wait, you haven’t a clue how any of this works, even at an elementary school level.

    carry on, Khan Noonian Singh.

  177. theophontes 777 says

    Dictionary (link to SMBC)

    Hurinomyces bruxellensis
    I thought ‘mental masturbation’ wasn’t much appreciated here?

    We were just discussing xtian mannerists upthread. Now raj_bigot steps into the same steaming cowpat.

    ….

    @ Hurinomyces bruxellensis

    Its the physical phenomenon that is primary to what “green” is and not our sensory experience.

    Exactly this. How our minds fuck with the phenomenon is our own concern. A troll getting jabbed with a sharp stick could perceive that as “green”.

  178. Ichthyic says

    A troll getting jabbed with a sharp stick could perceive that as “green”.

    indeed, not just a troll…

    synesthesia

    (I linked to the wiki on it just for Raj)

  179. Amphiox says

    Four more faps from the fapwit. No IP addresses to support its sockpuppetry accusation. No apologies for slander.

    Four more admissions of lying.

    Fapfap.

  180. Guy says

    Just lurking around and saw this
    “A red/green colourblind person doesn’t know what the colour green looks like.”

    this is not actually true. A red/green colourblind person is perfectly capable of seeing green and distinguishing it from other colours, just like she/he is able to see red. Even if you put a red object next to a green object they would be able to tell which is green and which is red.
    The problem for a red/green colourblind person comes when you take different shades of green and red and mix them together, then they are unable to see which is which.
    I know this because I am red/green colourblind.

    This does not actually take anything away from the point of the original post, just thought you may find that of interest (or not).

  181. theophontes 777 says

    Bible quote of the day:

    Mark 16: 17-18 reads, “And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.”

    And this is taken literally:

    “Anybody can do it that believes it,” Wolford said. “Jesus said, ‘These signs shall follow them which believe.’ This is a sign to show people that God has the power.”

    Until reality steps in:

    Serpent-Handling’ West Virginia Pastor Dies From Snake Bite

    TL;DR version :

    Serpent = 1 vs GAWD = 0

    If only more xtians had the courage to actually follow the babble!

  182. Amphiox says

    you do realize that a color blind person still generates a grey value for the color they are not processing?

    The three opsins in humans DON’T, point of fact, just register “red”, “green”, or “blue”, like some computer. Each one has a continuous and broad absorption spectrum. EACH ONE actually covers almost the entire visible spectrum, but they just have different peak response.

    The brain integrates the varying INTENSITY of the response from each of the cone opsins when stimulated by any particular wavelength of light, and produces the subjective sensation of color from this.

    http://www.unm.edu/~toolson/human_cone_response.htm

    As you can see, the “red” opsin actually peaks in YELLOW in humans, and is actually kind of pissy at detecting red wavelengths.

    And the one of the other opsins, and rod rhodopsin, which red-green colour blind people have, both actually PEAK in the green.

    Red green colour-blind people see colours the same way most mammals (except Old World Monkeys, Apes, and some New World Monkeys) do.

    They absolutely CAN see green, and CAN distinguish even shades of green.

    They can, in fact, distinguish green from practically EVERYTHING except certain shades of red, and vice versa.

  183. Amphiox says

    Note that the fapwit, in continuing to fap on about describing “greenness”, has deliberately ignored my comment about how green is NOT an object in reality to be described, but a DESCRIPTION of the properties of objects in reality.

    It is fundamentally dishonest to ask anyone to describe a description.

    It is even more fundamentally dishonest to ignore it when one is called out on it.

    But we already knew the fapwit was a pitiful intellectually dishonest liar.

    Fapfap.

  184. Amphiox says

    this is not actually true. A red/green colourblind person is perfectly capable of seeing green and distinguishing it from other colours, just like she/he is able to see red. Even if you put a red object next to a green object they would be able to tell which is green and which is red.
    The problem for a red/green colourblind person comes when you take different shades of green and red and mix them together, then they are unable to see which is which.

    I know this because I am red/green colourblind.

    The raj vs Reality, round 1984.

    Current score: Reality 1984, Raj 0.

  185. says

    “Green” would still exist even if no one could see it, we just wouldn’t have a special name for it.

    What exactly is wrong with you people? Why can’t you understand something so simple?

  186. says

    this is not actually true. A red/green colourblind person is perfectly capable of seeing green and distinguishing it from other colours, just like she/he is able to see red. Even if you put a red object next to a green object they would be able to tell which is green and which is red.
    The problem for a red/green colourblind person comes when you take different shades of green and red and mix them together, then they are unable to see which is which.
    I know this because I am red/green colourblind.

    The red/green colour blind person cannot see green as green would be seen by someone with normal colour vision. A red/green colour blind would see green as shades of yellow, blue, and red/brown. Sometimes even black. This is why red/green colour blind get very confused when they see yellow-green, blue-green, and murky green. The colour blind people I know of, for them, yellow-green is seen as pure yellow, blue green is seen as pure blue, and murky green is seen as red/brown or even black. Pure green, such as fresh grass, gets confused with colours like orange, light brown, and yellow.

  187. Guy says

    Bollocks!!!! don’t tell me what red/green colour blind people see colours as, I am colour blind. I’ve had this discussion with people before, they show me colours and ask me what they are, I answer and its the same colour they see. Its only when you take shades of colours and mix them with shades of other colours that a problem arises. Look at the standard colour blindness test, that what they do – mix up shades of colours and hide shapes in there.

  188. Lyn M, Purveyor of Fine Aphorisms of Death says

    Guy, Guy, Guy, don’t be upset. You just don’t understand that raj knows everything. So your reply is not going to be of use. Merely because it is factual in no way influences old raj there.

  189. Guy says

    whoops, bit of a blockquote fail. Meant to have this before what was posted

    The red/green colour blind person cannot see green as green would be seen by someone with normal colour vision. A red/green colour blind would see green as shades of yellow, blue, and red/brown. Sometimes even black. This is why red/green colour blind get very confused when they see yellow-green, blue-green, and murky green. The colour blind people I know of, for them, yellow-green is seen as pure yellow, blue green is seen as pure blue, and murky green is seen as red/brown or even black. Pure green, such as fresh grass, gets confused with colours like orange, light brown, and yellow.

  190. echidna says

    They can, in fact, distinguish green from practically EVERYTHING except certain shades of red, and vice versa.

    This is true for my red/green colour-blind husband, except that he also cannot distinguish some shades of green from greys of the same tone.

  191. Hurinomyces bruxellensis says

    What exactly is wrong with you people? Why can’t you understand something so simple?

    Because we care about the way reality actually works, rather than the way its supposed to work according to your weirdly distorted simplification. I understand what you are saying, I just dispute your assertion that it illustrates anything useful about reality.

    You are implying that our perception of green is of primary importance to our understanding of green, and that is false.

    You are assuming that all people who aren’t classified as color blind see green the same way, and that is unsubstantiated.

    There is even evidence that the way our first language deals with color effects the colors we are able to distinguish.

    If you look at the video I linked, you will see that members of the Himba tribe appear to develop a different perception of color than we have, based on the categories they have invented to classify it. That doesn’t change the fact that we all experience the same physical phenomenon of visible light.

  192. says

    Ichthyic:

    I’m betting you’d have problems keeping up with various species of small rodents.

    True. My rats could think circles around Misogyniraj all day long and into the night.

  193. Lyn M, Purveyor of Fine Aphorisms of Death says

    Waits with bated breath for raj to ‘splain everything OR say it was a joke OR change the subject

    Which will it be?

  194. Lyn M, Purveyor of Fine Aphorisms of Death says

    Oh dang! I forgot he might flounce! Again.

  195. echidna says

    I know this is old ground, but I’m sure it’s worth saying again.
    “Green” light is light of wavelength ~ 560–490 nm. Our perception of “green” will vary according to the ability of our eyes to perceive it, and subsequent processing that goes on inside the brain.

    If we were all blind, there would still be “green” light, and we would still be able to measure it with appropriate instruments, because it’s defined as something corresponding to a property of reality (to paraphrase Amphiox badly).

    Raj is trying to use the limitations of language and perception to invoke mysticism. It won’t work here.

  196. jonmilne says

    nigelthebold

    That’s the key — the point in the discussion in which you decide the other person is open to actual discussion, or just wanting to preach and/or troll. It’s all a matter of how finely-tuned your sincere-o-meter. Too fine, and you get false positives. Not fine enough, and you end up spending time on people who are not worth the effort.

    All of us here are tuned differently. I’m becoming less patient as the years go by, and hardly give them the benefit of the doubt, as the odds are stacked heavily against them.

    But then, you’re barely over half my age. I suspect you’re not nearly as jaded as I. That’ll come with age, and at that point, you can respect and enjoy the new up-and-comers who have the patience to engage folks like raj.

    Yeah, at this point I just feel like goading the guy into breaking a rule. Like saying to him “Hey Raj, that lovely Mr PZ Myers just told me to tell you that you’re allowed to post elsewhere on Pharyngula now. I know this because PZ is planning to create ‘Post of the Month’ and ‘Poster of the Month’ awards on his site, and I’m totally a shoo-in to win both of those awards so you can totally trust what I’m saying!”

    Admittedly, that’s not actually true, although it would be helluva funny if Raj took that as true and then started posting elsewhere on the site based on my word and then got banhammered for it.

    Although that said, I would like it if PZ did actually do “Post of the Month” and “Poster of the Month” awards for his site. Some healthy competition amongst us guys would be some pretty damn cool stuff.

  197. jonmilne says

    Laughing Coyote:

    <blockquoteYou’re doing good, and I’m not personally offended by ‘retarded’, but watch the ableist stuff, please and thankyou.

    Yeah, my bad on that. I’ll just refer to him as a Mind Blowingly Stupid Fapwit (TM) from now on. :)

  198. jonmilne says

    Amphiox:

    The raj vs Reality, round 1984.

    Current score: Reality 1984, Raj 0.

    If only Room 101 existed, then we could put Raj there… :)

  199. says

    Jonmilne:

    Although that said, I would like it if PZ did actually do “Post of the Month” and “Poster of the Month” awards for his site. Some healthy competition amongst us guys would be some pretty damn cool stuff.

    What, the Mollies aren’t enough?

  200. jonmilne says

    Raj, you’re still adapting a “higher and mightier” attitude with regards to your posts. Prove it. Practice what you preach. Actually address the posts that have been actively ripping apart what you have to say. For once in your life show some intellectual honesty.

    Post 8 of this thread reloaded:

    I really hate to be the one that’s going to end up doing the biggest pwnage of Raj yet again – I mean, not to blow my own trumpet, but I was the one who lead him into asking his most stupid question ever on this site, namely “Where did I define God?” – but on the other hand I’m a massive egotist and having a whole bunch of people praise me on ruthlessly I burned him last time has turned out to be a massively alluring factor in tempting me to massively pwn him again:

    Raj, with regards to this God that you’ve posited on this site, does it actually make ANY difference whatsoever whether we believe in it or not? Like, for instance, do you think that us non-believers will be doomed to an eternity in hell if we don’t believe, while thinking that believers like yourself will be granted with life in heaven? This is a hook of many of the mainstream religions in order to attract followers, which namely takes the form of what I like to call the “Reward/Punishment Gambit”. Speaking as an ex-Christian, I can testify to the basic effectiveness of this type of marketing from followers of any specific God: “Believe what we say and you will be rewarded with paradise, don’t believe in what we say and you’ll be tortured forever!”

    A simple “Yes” or “No” answer will be sufficient here, but either way you lose.

    If you don’t believe that there’s any real benefit to believing and drawback to not believing in your God, then there’s even less reason to both believe and worship your God since your God can’t do shit if we don’t do those things. Heck, it will make your God even lamer than the mainstream Gods, and that will be one heck of an achievement.

    If however you believe that we will get punished if we don’t believe, then you’ve contradicted yourself again and are therefore subject to another loss. See Raj, it was you who said to us that “it was by God’s own design” that we were supposedly made to be “limited in our understandings about God and how he works”. And yet if you think that your God is capable of rewarding/punishing people for believing/not believing in it, then you’ve added yet another definition to a seemingly “undefinable” God, namely that which can make judgments on humanity. Furthermore, it also makes your God if it exists a complete fucking morally corrupt asshole since it punishes people for not believing in it EVEN THOUGH IT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPPOSEDLY LIMITING PEOPLE’S MINDS SO THAT THEY WOULDN’T SEE EVIDENCE TO BELIEVE IN IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

  201. jonmilne says

    Post 11 of this thread reloaded:

    Where have I defined God? I have already said why and in which context I use the word God. Can’t repeat what I have already repeated 20 times.

    You defined him as something that couldn’t be defined, and where as a result minds trying to define him are limited in how they can do so. But that’s STILL A DEFINITION. If you TRULY couldn’t define God for us, you’d simply say “I don’t know” and admit you’re either ignorant or being simply disingenuous on the subject. Either way, you’ve self-contradicted yourself.

    >And, what do you mean by:

    “what precisely would be the point of having limitations placed on the human mind in order to understand God“.

    Here is what I said:

    “God CANNOT be defined or conceptualized. Not Possible. Or, let’s put it this way: Human minds have limitations placed upon them. The mind cannot understand God, and this is by God’s own design. **”

    The bolded parts answer your question by what I mean. What purpose does it serve for “God” to make it so that it’s creation can’t understand exactly what it is? When crafting a supposedly “intelligently designed” world, what benefit exactly would it serve to God to have its created people not comprehend it, and what benefit would it serve to the people to be ignorant of the meaning of the supposedly existent God to which you posit?

    The mind has limitations placed on it, and because of these limitations, the mind CANNOT understand God. No matter how hard you try. Now when I say the cannot ‘understand’ God, it means the mind cannot comprehend what God is, how God operates, and why God does what God does. Which means, your questions, which are questions originating from your mind, cannot be answered.

    My question was: What is the practicality of “limiting our minds” so that we “cannot understand God”? Nonetheless, even if one buys into the notion that your paragraph just there – rather than amounting to more obfuscation – is even remotely considerable as an actual answer to my question, we still have the problem that you’ve just self-contradicted yourself AGAIN.

    On the one hand, you claim our minds are so limited that we can’t comprehend God, and yet nonetheless this is a God that you claim to worship. Which means that if that’s truly the case, then despite the fact you have a human mind and therefore have all the “limitations” you talked about, you regardless still seem to UNDERSTAND and COMPREHEND your God of choice enough to WORSHIP it. But by your own logic, that’s simply not possible. There’s close to zero sense in worshipping any of the Gods that have been given certain definitions of characteristics by some of the more main-stream religious cults. There’s ABSOLUTE ZERO sense in worshipping something that you yourself claim that you as a human absolutely do not understand.

    Here is one example which I have given many times before. Can you use to mind to visualize something that you haven’t experienced with your sense before? For example, can you visualize the colour ultra-violet in its true form (not false colour)? Or, could you visualize or imagine existence without space and time? Can you imagine ‘what’ was ‘before’ the big bang?

    You add an addendum to your point on colour, namely about I how apparently I should not present you with any stuff on the science behind colour perception and the colour spectrum.

    What you’re pulling here is similar to something Ray Comfort did in his interview on the Atheist Experience, wherein Ray asked the AE hosts to give him evidence on evolution. I will display the link later on in my post, but what was particularly revealing about the exchange was that the hosts gave Ray some damn good evidence (namely to do with how the development of vaccines are aided, the great deal of transitional fossils, the DNA evidence, the observation of speciation in the lab including flies and bacteria) and Ray rejects all the evidence the hosts present based on his presuppositions despite it being perfectly valid.

    That’s what you’re doing here by rejecting the scientific explanations of how colour spectrums and perceptions actually work. They don’t fit with your world-view, so you disregard them, despite having nothing remotely decent resembling evidence to offer as an alternative explanation.

    As for what you say about the Big Bang, again I have to invoke the Ray Comfort/AE interview, namely the part where Ray asks the AE hosts “tell me what was in the beginning without saying I don’t know”. As RationalWiki points out: (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Feredir28/The_Atheist_Experience_debates_Ray_Comfort)

    Matt asks why can’t he say that? Ray proclaims that is ignorance and an atheist cannot have that. Matt corrects Ray and says yes you can because atheists are not proclaiming absolute certainty. Ray says Christians DO, and they know there is a creation an a creator. Matt repeats himself by telling Ray that he is just asserting that it is a creation, which is different from demonstrating that this knowledge is true.

    What Ray does here is basically saying I can label it as I wish because no one else can explain it to me. Ray is still simply asserting that everything is a creation without providing a shred of proof that it is the result of divine creation, and failure to explain it in a natural process does not mean his position wins by default. Ray claims to “know” that it is a creation, but if he cannot demonstrate it, then he does not know it.

    Without evidence, and proper application of the Scientific Process, you cannot just claim that your version of events is the truth. I’m sure I’m not the first person to say this to you, and I almost certainly won’t be the last, but the burden of proof is on YOU.

    And please, do some trimming and pruning on your future comments if it is possible.

    Sorry buddy, but to paraphrase a great mind, Richard Lenski when he was confronting Conservapedians on their similar level of ignorance and obfuscating and intellectual dishonesty that you’re displaying (especially since you disregarded the entire first half of my last post where I rip Scwartz to shreds):

    “I offer this lengthy reply because we are educators as well as scientists. It is my sincere hope that some readers might learn something from this exchange, even if you do not.”

  202. jonmilne says

    Caine:

    What, the Mollies aren’t enough?

    Ah, thanks, I wasn’t aware of their existence. Although that said it would still be nice if PZ did an “Individual Post of the Month” as part of the Mollies to add his already existent award recognising posters.

  203. Lyn M, Purveyor of Fine Aphorisms of Death says

    And please, do some trimming and pruning on your future comments if it is possible.

    Because you are making sense and I have run out of dodges.

  204. says

    Jonmilne:

    Although that said it would still be nice if PZ did an “Individual Post of the Month”

    I don’t think that’s necessary and it would pretty much be an impossible task. Lots of us provide links to various posts by someone we nominate, which is nice, but given how many outstanding posts can be spotted simply within a single thread, in a matter of hours, every single day…nah.

    Also, the OMs are decided by The Horde™, not PZ. Consider it…peer review. ;p

  205. theophontes 777 says

    @ jonmilne

    < a href=”” title=”” >
    is your friend . Right click on the date stamp of the post. “copy link location” to copy. Then place in the href brackets.

    Add title and comment and close with < /a >

    You get, for example, your comment at #11.

  206. theophontes 777 says

    @ Caine

    The Zollies would be a kind of Anti-Molly award for the incorrigibly ignorant. raj would be a likely candidate.

    (Imagine if raj put all that energy and tenacity into actually communicating, rather than expounding on imaginary sky-gods!)

  207. Louis says

    If I were contemplating some boobs and touching my yang, would I make more sense than the sound of one hand falling in a colour blind green forest?

    Louis

  208. Lyn M, Purveyor of Fine Aphorisms of Death says

    If I were contemplating some boobs and touching my yang, would I make more sense than the sound of one hand falling in a colour blind green forest?

    Louis

    Quoted for the … uh, the … you know … the thing.

  209. theophontes 777 says

    @ Louis

    A Glass of Beer:

    Louis, a Beer master during the Pharyngula era, received an impudent troll who came to inquire about Zen.

    {the scene: a small bar podium in a bamboo forest. neophyte rajkumar goes to meet master Louis}:

    Louis served beer. He poured his visitor’s glass full, and then kept on pouring.

    The troll watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. “It is overfull. No more will go in!”

    “Like this glass,” Louis said, “you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your glass?”

  210. says

    You are implying that our perception of green is of primary importance to our understanding of green, and that is false.

    You are assuming that all people who aren’t classified as color blind see green the same way, and that is unsubstantiated.

    A red/green colour blind cannot see green because his eyes do not have the complete hardware — his eyes cannot pick these wavelengths, and his brain doesn’t receive information about these wavelengths. On the other hand, a person who has a normal colour vision, also has the complete hardware in his eyes, so his eyes send complete information about colours to the brain. This is the difference between a red/green colour blind person, and someone who has a normal colour vision.

    Of course, not every colour blind, and not everyone with normal colour vision, would see colours in the exact same way. But, we can draw a line between how colour blinds see colours and how people with normal colour vision see colours, based on the fact that one group has eyes that can see the entire visible colour spectrum, and the other group has eyes that cannot see the entire visible spectrum.

    But no need to go into finer details. I gave this example to explain a very simple point, which is: Something we haven’t experienced with our sense before, we cannot imagine it.

    A red/green colour blind has not experienced the colour green, so he cannot imagine this colour.

  211. says

    Raj,

    So what? Seriously, who gives a fuck. The fact that there might be some things out there we can’t imagine at this moment is evidence for what exactly?

  212. theophontes 777 says

    @ pentatomid

    The fact that there might be some things out there we can’t imagine at this moment is evidence for what exactly?

    There is no lack of imagination from teh goddists. Only a pitying lack of evidence.

  213. Ichthyic says

    What exactly is wrong with you people? Why can’t you understand something so simple?

    you’ve never ever bothered to consider that it’s your concept that is flawed and simplistic, have you.

    did you ever look up what Dunning Kruger syndrome is?

    because you’re the fucking poster boy for it.

    they should pay you.

  214. says

    you’ve never ever bothered to consider that it’s your concept that is flawed and simplistic, have you.

    I can agree with the ‘simplistic’ part of your comment, because ‘simplistic’ doesn’t mean flawed. But isn’t it ironic that what you call ‘simplistic’, others in your group call it ‘mental masturbation’?

    Anyway, you haven’t yet pointed out (rationally) how do you see my concept as flawed?

  215. jonmilne says

    Hey Raj, I’ve just gotten an email from PZ Myers, thanking me for my wonderful contributions on this site, and since he’s busy right now he’s made me his personal messenger! Isn’t that cool?

    Anyways, my first duty as a messenger is to tell you that you’re allowed to post elsewhere on Pharyngula now. Any thread you want buddy, you can post in. I know this because PZ has personally revealed to me with emails that are so totally super-secret that I can’t show anyone else that I’m totally a shoo-in to win the May 2012 Mollie award for Poster of the Month so you can totally trust what I’m saying and I’ve totally got evidence to back it up but hey you just have to believe what I’m saying first!

  216. says

    Anyways, my first duty as a messenger is to tell you that you’re allowed to post elsewhere on Pharyngula now. Any thread you want buddy, you can post in. I know this because PZ has personally revealed to me with emails that are so totally super-secret that I can’t show anyone else that I’m totally a shoo-in to win the May 2012 Mollie award for Poster of the Month so you can totally trust what I’m saying and I’ve totally got evidence to back it up but hey you just have to believe what I’m saying first!

    That’s so nice of him and you. But I think it’s time to leave this blog. Just posting my final few messages. Sorry for not replying you, by the way.

  217. says

    And before I go, you are doing one hell of a lousy job acting like a 23 year old. It is very hard to hide who you really are.

  218. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Anyway, you haven’t yet pointed out (rationally) how do you see my concept as flawed?

    Your concept has been refuted seven ways from Sunday. You are too dumb to see you have no argument. Here’s your problem. You are all OPINION and bullshit. Try getting evidence to back up your arguments. Otherwise, you are admitting to us you are WRONG. And you are WRONG, and won’t ever be right without evidence….

  219. jonmilne says

    I assure you I am 23. I was born on the 5th of September 1988 in Rutherglen, Scotland. I lived up until the age in 8 in East Kilbride near Glasgow. I moved in 1997 to Wakefield, West Yorkshire in England where I have been living ever since. Furthermore, if Mr Myers were to present all the IPs of all the posters here, it would confirm that I am posting with a different geographical location. I could also if I so wished show you my birth certificate and other legal documents that would prove who I am.

    Also, Mr Myers just sent me another email to pass onto you. It says “Oh go on Raj, just post in any of the other threads to your heart’s content, nothing will happen, promise! Would Jon really lie to you when he’s been so civil and patient with you? Sincerely PZ Myers”

  220. says

    JonMilne, I still don’t believe you. But don’t worry too much about convincing me though. You are not going to win a medal from me for being the honest lad that you are trying to act you are. YOu just don’t sound like a 23 year old — not even close. More like 60+ give or take.

    Anyway, thanks so much again for sharing the info, but still not interested. I have written to my heart’s content already — all there was to be said here.

    I wish you good luck in your ‘future endeavours.’

  221. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I have written to my heart’s content already — all there was to be said here.

    Then your heart has zero intellectual content. NOTHING BUT BULLSHIT.

  222. jonmilne says

    If I had a webcam and a mic, I would also be able to engage in a Skype conversation with you, which would also prove that I’m certainly not 60 but I am in fact 23.

    Face it dude, I’m younger than you. I recognise that it’s a bitter pill to swallow that you just got your ass handed to you by someone half or at least two-thirds your age, but that’s the harsh reality buddy.

    Plus, in a website that is purely “text” orientated, how exactly can I “sound” like any age? Surely it’s “looking” like any age. If you’re judging by the way I write, then it’s simply the positive side-effect of having a damn good education and having English Literature and English Language being my favourite subjects in high school and getting good grades in them as a result. Just because I corrected you on a woeful spelling of a philosophical term does not make me “old”. Au contraire, it makes me educated.

    Besides, what are we to make of your grammar and incoherancy on this site? I can buy that you were around when LPs were first released, but the way you type makes me believe that you were probably home-schooled, which would explain a lot about why you are borderline illiterate and are seriously lacking in the applications of scientific, secular, and rational logics.

  223. says

    Then your heart has zero intellectual content. NOTHING BUT BULLSHIT.

    True. Intellect and logic are mind stuff, and they belongs to the mind, not the heart. Heart is the sign of love, warm feelings and emotions. Ever wonder why humans use heart as a sign of love?

  224. says

    Besides, what are we to make of your grammar and incoherancy on this site? I can buy that you were around when LPs were first released, but the way you type makes me believe that you were probably home-schooled, which would explain a lot about why you are borderline illiterate and are seriously lacking in the applications of scientific, secular, and rational logics.

    The difference between you and me is, dude, I am not trying to convince you. You are free to believe anything you want to believe about me. You, on the other hand, are trying so hard to convince me, as if your life depended on it. If I am wrong about you, then it is ME who is wrong, not you. So, don’t feel threatened about it. Just smile and brush it aside.

    It may be my last post. All depends on how Nerd responds to my last post to him.

  225. says

    Ever wonder why humans use heart as a sign of love?

    Because hearts are juicy and sweet and totally delicious? Especially when freshly ripped from a kitten’s ribcage.

  226. mikmik says

    Then your heart has zero intellectual content. NOTHING BUT BULLSHIT.

    I’d like to add, if I may be so bold, Nerd, that it’s a particularly inferior class of bullshit at that. Raj, You are not going to win a medal for being the dishonest lad that you are trying to act you are.
    The search for the next danielhaven continues.

  227. FossilFishy (Lobed-finned Killer of Threads) says

    Ever wonder why humans use heart as a sign of love?

    Oh Rajy, please don’t leave us! No one else makes me bark with laughter like you do. My wife gave me a pleased look after I reacted to the above line. She thinks that I work too much and that it’s making me humourless. For the sake of my marriage I emplore you to find it in your, er, heart to continue to fight the good fight here.

  228. jonmilne says

    True. Intellect and logic are mind stuff, and they belongs to the mind, not the heart. Heart is the sign of love, warm feelings and emotions. Ever wonder why humans use heart as a sign of love?

    Nope, your heart makes no decisions whatsoever about who you choose to love, have affection for and feel the drive to protect them. It’s all in the mind too, you dumb fuck.

    As for why the heart is used as a sign of love, it’s purely because a bunch of literary artists like Shakespeare started using the heart as a symbol of conveying that kind of feeling, then a whole bunch of other literary artists followed suit. And then we saw the invention of Valentine’s Day as a means to commercialise the whole love thing and cartoon hearts became a convenient symbol for Valentines Cards and presents to be plastered all over.

    Stop doing Karl Pilkington impressions. He at least manages to be funny and still has some degree of common sense and intellect and credibility. Whereas you’re nothing more than a Mind Blowingly Stupid Fapwit (TM) who has betrayed the civility and patience that I’ve showed you throughout the thread by refusing to answer my questions and just invoking ultra-lame excuses as to why you can’t, thereby blowing your entire credibility out of the water.

  229. Louis says

    Is Raj still going? He is truly the gift that keeps on giving.

    And I am using “gift” in the German sense.

    Louis

  230. mikmik says

    Oh, I’d like to nominate jonmilne for a medal from raj.
    Actually, raj, PZ always did like him best. jon always gets the biggest tankard of grog when we go digging for corpses, so maybe if you gave jonmilne that medal, it could go a long way towards proving your sincerity. Especially if it’s a big one made out of platinum and he gave little bits of it to me.

  231. jonmilne says

    The difference between you and me is, dude, I am not trying to convince you.

    So what, pray tell, are you still doing in this thread? Seriously, you’ve been in the TZT threads since what, the 3rd one? And our exchanges started at sometime around TZT 7 right? And during that time you continually repeatedly posted posts where you insist that THIS TIME you’re leaving, only for you to return more or less within 24-48 hours of having done so. If you’re going to leave, or actually respond to stuff, then fucking well EITHER DO ONE OR THE OTHER. Either respond to all the posts including mine that have debunked your crap in full like someone with some intellectual honesty, or forget about your stupid “Well let’s see how Nerd responds first” bullshit and just STOP FUCKING POSTING YOU LAMEASS KARL PILKINGTON WANNABE! Failure to do either of those things just confirms your current status as a Mind Blowingly Stupid Fapwit (TM).

  232. mikmik says

    Everything in this section always has to do with zombies and becoming undead, y’all ever notice that?

    I’ll show raj how to show you what I mean:

    In Egyptian mythology, the heart portion of the soul was weighed in a balance against the feather of Ma’at, symbolising truth, in the judgment of the dead in the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Egyptian sources do not actually reveal whether the heart had to be lighter than the feather for the deceased to pass into paradise—all depictions show only the weighing of the heart, not the actual results, heavier or lighter.

  233. says

    So what, pray tell, are you still doing in this thread? Seriously, you’ve been in the TZT threads since what, the 3rd one? And our exchanges started at sometime around TZT 7 right? And during that time you continually repeatedly posted posts where you insist that THIS TIME you’re leaving, only for you to return more or less within 24-48 hours of having done so. If you’re going to leave, or actually respond to stuff, then fucking well EITHER DO ONE OR THE OTHER. Either respond to all the posts including mine that have debunked your crap in full like someone with some intellectual honesty, or forget about your stupid “Well let’s see how Nerd responds first” bullshit and just STOP FUCKING POSTING YOU LAMEASS KARL PILKINGTON WANNABE! Failure to do either of those things just confirms your current status as a Mind Blowingly Stupid Fapwit (TM).

    Just before I go, still don’t believe you. Still don’t buy your crap. You are one grumpy old man.

  234. says

    And for this:

    “Oh Rajy, please don’t leave us! No one else makes me bark with laughter like you do.”

    It gets changed into:

    “”Oh Rajy, please don’t leave us! No one else makes me bark like you do.”

    I know. I have got a thing with dogs…

  235. Louis says

    Jon Milne,

    You do realise that by trolling you, Raj has just got you to reveal what appears to be relatively useful personal information, right?

    It might all be bullshit, but, dude, if it isn’t…

    …not smart.

    Louis

  236. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Heart is the sign of love, warm feelings and emotions.

    The only thing you love is yourself misogynist fuckwit. Your heart is full of shit.

    Just before I go, still don’t believe you. Still don’t buy your crap. You are one grumpy old man.

    You are saying you lost the rational argument, and must respond emotionally using your heart full of shit to being shown as the fuckwitted idjit you are.

  237. says

    The only thing you love is yourself misogynist fuckwit. Your heart is full of shit.

    At least, I don’t pretend to be a ‘gentleman’ who loves his wife so much that no other woman in the world holds any attraction for him … only to secretly masturbate twenty times a day, give or take, to cheap internet porn. Not to mention secret interactions with cheap hookers. You are truly the greatest defender of the feminist movement known to man.

    Bye Nerdy

  238. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    The only thing you love is yourself misogynist fuckwit. Your heart is full of shit.

    At least, I don’t pretend to be a ‘gentleman’ who loves his wife so much that no other woman in the world holds any attraction for him … only to secretly masturbate twenty times a day, give or take, to cheap internet porn. Not to mention secret interactions with cheap hookers. You are truly the greatest defender of the feminist movement known to man.

    Thanks for proving my point, oh useless, incompetent and incomprehensible one. You love yourself, and hate others who love and respect other people.

    Oh, and no emotions are found in the heart except through faulty language, which idjits like you use. They all come from the brain. Any semi-educated person knows that. Which leaves you where??

  239. FossilFishy (Lobed-finned Killer of Threads) says

    Oh frabjoulous day! The one and only knower of all things, the definer of the undefinable, explainer of the unexpainable, and most exalted lover of canines noticed me! Little old me, with my self esteem issues and my pesky devotion to evidential standards. I’m trying to fix that, I am!

    And with Raj to show the way, to lay before me his infinite understanding of all creation in that deep, moist, fecund way of his I’m sure that my salivation, er, I mean SALVATION is at hand. No longer will I have to settle for the crumbs that I must scrabble willy-nilly from beneath the lofty golden throne of the wisdom to which he so graciously, so noblely, has bestowed upon the undeserving hoard. No, now I shall receive the revelation, the veritable keys to the very quantum-foaminess really real reality, direct from the master’s own fingertips.

    So please oh wise one, oh see-er of the unseeable, oh most perfect jokester-seeker-revealer, please show me the way…(dare I ask it…yes, yes, I must, I MUST, he’s leaving, seize the carp before it’s too late)…please I beg you, humble, upon blended knee and with plaintiff, perfect piety: how can I be more like you!?

  240. Hurinomyces bruxellensis says

    But no need to go into finer details. I gave this example to explain a very simple point, which is: Something we haven’t experienced with our sense before, we cannot imagine it.

    So then I can’t imagine black holes, or radio waves, or neutrinos or the earth’s core, or a perfect circle, right? That’s interesting, because I’m pretty sure I actually can imagine all of those things, but according to you I shouldn’t be able to.

    Your argument is something like if I were to assert that planes can’t fly, because they don’t have any strings attached to them, and then try to defend it by saying that you can’t lift a rock without picking it up or tying a string to it. Then when everyone objects to that stupid analogy by talking about magnets and gunpowder and all the other things that might move a rock against gravity, I would say “No, No, No, no science please, this is very simple; you can’t lift a rock without tying a string to it.”

    One more time. Your assertion is false. Your analogy is stupid because it ignores everything about reality that you don’t like.

  241. jonmilne says

    On a non-Raj related note, how are people feeling now that Obama’s professed opinion about gay marriage seems to have swung public opinion in America towards legalisation of the practice?

    On the one hand, I would certainly like to think that Obama knew that would happen if he spoke out, but I certainly still do think he could engaged in a tad more activism on the subject than he actually did.

    Also, has anyone ever heard of the SCP Foundation? It’s a really cool website that’s set up like a super-secret agency that confiscates paranormal creatures and items. Check it out here: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/main and also check out the top rated pages here: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/top-rated-pages . I’m largely partial to the Keter-level articles, with SCPs 1000, 1983, 1322 and 231 being my favourites. That said, I also love 173, 294 and 2558-J too.

  242. Amphiox says

    Another series of fappings from the fapwit.

    Still no IP address to support its accusations of sockpuppetry.

    Still no apologies for slandering.

    Another series of admissions of LYING.

  243. Amphiox says

    The difference between you and me is, dude, I am not trying to convince you.

    Another blatant lie by the fapwit. Someone “not trying to convince” would not still be here, fapping away.

  244. Amphiox says

    A red/green colour blind cannot see green

    Says the fapwit EVEN AFTER A PERSON WHO IS ACTUALLY red-green colour blind outright told him that was not true.

    Pathetic lying fapwit.

    because his eyes do not have the complete hardware — his eyes cannot pick these wavelengths, and his brain doesn’t receive information about these wavelengths

    WRONG. As can easily be seen in the link I previously provided, a red-green colour blind person can EASILY pick up green wavelengths of light. ALL THREE of the opsins that red-green colour blind people still have will detect green light. TWO of them even PEAK their sensitivity in green light.

    In fact, based on those sensitivity curves, in all likelihood red-green colour blind people will perceive green shades as something very similar to what regular people do. It is RED that is the colour that will look very different from what regular people will see has red, and will instead look like shades of green and grey.

  245. Amphiox says

    Not to mention secret interactions with cheap hookers.

    A serious accusation, fapwit, seeing as solicitation of prostitutes is a crime in most jurisdictions.

    Provide EVIDENCE, admissible in a COURT OF LAW (as you have made a legal accusation), RIGHT NOW, or APOLOGIZE to NofR IMMEDIATELY.

    Or admit, IMMEDIATELY, that you are an unethical slimewad who bears false witness against his neighbour for kicks.

  246. Hurinomyces bruxellensis says

    only to secretly masturbate twenty times a day, give or take, to cheap internet porn. Not to mention secret interactions with cheap hookers. You are truly the greatest defender of the feminist movement known to man.

    Amphiox is exactly right about this statement.

    You should apologize to Nerd. Unless you have something to back this accusation up with (which I’m sure you don’t) it is libel.

    Be careful what you say about people. If you tell malicious lies about them they may have legal means to make you regret it.

  247. says

    Ever wonder why humans use heart as a sign of love?

    It used to be believed that the liver was the seat of human emotion and the heart the seat of reason. This is the sort of crap humans come up with before they figure things out. Then, people figure things out and get a little bit right! Well, most people. You wouldn’t be one of them.

    Oh, and this -> ♥ is not patterned after a human heart. It’s patterned after the shape of a woman’s ass when bent over. If you think about it for a couple of years, I’m sure you’ll get it.

  248. says

    I may be mistaken here, but I seem to recall raj, in an earlier incarnation of this thread, admitting that the subjective experience of his hypothesized greater universal intelligence would be indistinguishable from a simple biologically driven hallucination.

    He has also said that there would be no way to distinguish any deliberate actions of this supposed intelligence from the normal operations of the universe.

    Oh right yes, the great parsimony shout-off. I remember now.

    Then there was the whole bit about why do we call ourselves atheists when most of us accept a non-zero probability of a creator intelligence, and that we should instead call ourselves agnostics, which strikes me as some kind of poorly planned wedge strategy.

    And now we have raj admitting that he doesn’t even read posts of any notable length, so that unless an argument can be made in the form of a Fox news sound bite, it is functionally invisible to him.

    So to summarize (and to make my post longer and hence, only visible to the Illuminated Elite)- Raj would like us all to say we believe in a creator intelligence that will never have any meaningful impact on our lives or the course of history.

    Which to me raises the question why?

    Also: Fnord fnord fnord fnord

  249. says

    @Gnumann – It’s how you know you’re part of the Atheiluminati. Or you were pining for them, one of the two.

  250. A. R says

    After weeks of research* I have discovered the source of the Misognraj’s seemingly infinite supplies of stupid. He’s using a subspace trasceiver network to extract the combined stupid of every fundie, wooist, and bigot on the planet and funnel it here. Obviously he’s metering the flow, but imagine what would happen if he didn’t… [shudder]

    *(not really, I just came up with this shit)

  251. Cal says

    As a long time lurker, I think I may have puzzled out some of Raj’s comments about grumpy old men and multiple ego’s. He may actually think many of those commenting are PZ himself, and he at least thinks Jon is based on his comments # 268, 272, and 285.

    Other than that, I get the impression that he once heard something from an authority figure about how explaining god was like explaining green to a colorblind person and either he was high or contemplating boobs at the time but was struck by the simple argument and is unsure how to proceed since he never thought about it and most people have or can think about it when presented with the questiony. In fact, a quick search in the Google machine links to pages of answers to how this could be done, with one link pointing here to TZT. As someone who grew up very religious and actually served a (Mormon) mission, I recall how hard it was to deal with people who would not stick to the script. That is the impression I get from Raj, that you have deviated so far from his script that you have completely lost him. His simple question has a simple answer and you will not play along.

  252. A. R says

    chigau: Exactly! For all we know, the misogyny outbursts are caused when the MRAs contributing to his stupid collective come through a bit strongly… I HAVE IT! Raj and the stupid people are like the Borg! The subspace network is actually a giant hive mind of stupidity.

  253. Cal says

    Point from Raj: But no need to go into finer details. I gave this example to explain a very simple point, which is: Something we haven’t experienced with our sense before, we cannot imagine it

    I meant to call BS on this statement as well. Because clearly every fantasy and SciFi novel I have ever read would have been impossible since these events or even events like them could not have been perceived with our senses. We imagine stuff all the time that does not exist in reality and we have history showing us that this has been happening for as long as we have data and art.

  254. Brownian says

    As a long time lurker, I think I may have puzzled out some of Raj’s comments about grumpy old men and multiple ego’s. He may actually think many of those commenting are PZ himself, and he at least thinks Jon is based on his comments # 268, 272, and 285.

    Huh. So that’s why he thought I could ban him.

    Christ, what a moron.

  255. Ogvorbis says

    He may actually think many of those commenting are PZ himself, and he at least thinks Jon is based on his comments # 268, 272, and 285.

    This hypotheosis has been advanced before. Usually accompanied by accusations of hiveminditis.

    Glad you could unlurk, Ca.

  256. Ogvorbis says

    Crap. Sorry I murdered your ‘nym, Cal.

    Maybe you could change it to something easier to spell? :)

  257. cm's changeable moniker says

    Cal @#317, quoting Raj:

    Something we haven’t experienced with our sense before, we cannot imagine it

    Me too. I mean, I’ve never experienced beta decay, but I can imagine it. And I once had a job measuring it with a scintillometer, so I’m pretty sure it’s real.

    Raj, if you’re reading? Beta decay. About your level (and not Wikipedia).

  258. cm's changeable moniker says

    Guy @#226:

    A red/green colourblind person is perfectly capable of seeing green and distinguishing it from other colours, just like she/he is able to see red. Even if you put a red object next to a green object they would be able to tell which is green and which is red.
    The problem for a red/green colourblind person comes when you take different shades of green and red and mix them together, then they are unable to see which is which.
    I know this because I am red/green colourblind.

    Ah, gotcha. So you can perceive Jahweh and Allah, but when the pantheons of Norse and Greek gods start moshing they all look the same? ;-)

  259. kemist, Dark Lord of the Sith says

    But no need to go into finer details. I gave this example to explain a very simple point, which is: Something we haven’t experienced with our sense before, we cannot imagine it.

    Well, duh.

    And therefore your god, huh ?

    We’ve been telling you, with plenty of exemples, that this assertion pulled from your nether regions is completely false.

    And anyway, even if there was any truth to it, it wouldn’t advance your god idea one bit since all those exemples you gave are fundamentally different from it : they concern things which we know, from solid evidence, exist outside of people’s heads.

    When it’s evident to everybody with two functional brain cells where you’re driving to, why insist on taking everybody to the tourist trap on Mount Irrelevant ?

  260. Ichthyic says

    I can agree with the ‘simplistic’ part of your comment, because ‘simplistic’ doesn’t mean flawed.

    simple.

    simplistic.

    two different words.

    thus endeth today’s lesson.

  261. Ichthyic says

    *reads Cal @ 312*

    uh huh.

    uh huh.

    yup.

    huh.

    yeah, I think you have him wrapped up with a bow at this point.

  262. says

    We’ve been telling you, with plenty of exemples, that this assertion pulled from your nether regions is completely false.

    Kemist, you are all extremely lousy debaters, and far more lousy ‘scientists’.

    Plus, there are a few more things that I have noted about most of you:

    1)You sulk when you have nothing more to argue.
    2)Some of you split yourselves into many alter egos in order to troll
    3)Many of you attempt to glorify your puny selves with incredibly stupid boasts, nonsensical ravings, and other extremely stupid ego-inflating devices.
    4)Most of you live under the delusion and illusion of being a real scientist, and this includes you, too.

    Maybe I am wrong. But once you mind is made up about someone…? As you have made up your mind about me… Nothing can be done about it I guess. But in the end, who bloody cares about someone’s opinions?

    Now, it is your turn to speak to your heart’s content. I am done here, in every sense of the expression.

    Take Care

    Have fun!

  263. Ichthyic says

    Kemist, you are all extremely lousy debaters, and far more lousy ‘scientists’.

    thousands of posts, and you still haven’t figured out that what you think matters about as much as what my fish think.

    amazing.

    here, let me spell it out for you, again:

    you’re stupid.

    if you need further explanation, read # 312.

  264. kemist, Dark Lord of the Sith says

    Now, it is your turn to speak to your heart’s content. I am done here, in every sense of the expression.

    Is anyone keeping a score of the flounces anymore ?

  265. Louis says

    I’m a lousy scientist?

    Was that meant to offend me? Sweetie, you don’t even know what kind of scientist I am, let alone what kind of scientist I am. And even if you did, you’d have to get someone to help you with the long words.

    {Claps hands}

    New moron please!

    Louis

  266. Ichthyic says

    Is anyone keeping a score of the flounces anymore ?

    I threw my scorecard out days ago.

    ..and it was an 11×14 sized paper.

    I think Raj has singlehandedly redefined “flounce”, or we have to come up with a different descriptor.

  267. Ichthyic says

    anyone bring the flamethrower? It’s time for fire instead of headshots.

    as I stated ages ago, this thing isn’t a zombie.

    some sort of ghoul or something?

  268. kemist, Dark Lord of the Sith says

    I think Raj has singlehandedly redefined “flounce”, or we have to come up with a different descriptor.

    Flouncerific ?

    Flounstastic ?

  269. Cal says

    Since Raj has not experienced an actual flounce with his senses, he cannot imagine how to stick it…

  270. Louis says

    Cal wins the internet. We may now all retire to tend our gardens and die in the rose bushes.

    Louis

  271. Tony says

    some sort of ghoul or something?

    I don’t know. Ghouls are rather cute. At least those on Scooby Doo were. Plus they were far more entertaining than Raj.

  272. Lyn M, Purveyor of Fine Aphorisms of Death says

    1)You sulk when you have nothing more to argue.
    2)Some of you split yourselves into many alter egos in order to troll
    3)Many of you attempt to glorify your puny selves with incredibly stupid boasts, nonsensical ravings, and other extremely stupid ego-inflating devices.
    4)Most of you live under the delusion and illusion of being a real scientist, and this includes you, too.

    Do you suppose raj ever heard of the psychological concept of transference?

  273. Hurinomyces bruxellensis says

    Raj

    I am done here, in every sense of the expression.

    Therefore God.

  274. A. R says

    as I stated ages ago, this thing isn’t a zombie.

    some sort of ghoul or something?

    Nope, it’s a Borg drone. And flamethrowers and headshots will do you no good, they adapt too quickly. You need a phaser rifle with a fre

  275. A. R says

    as I stated ages ago, this thing isn’t a zombie.

    some sort of ghoul or something?

    Nope, it’s a Borg drone. And flamethrowers and headshots will do you no good, they adapt too quickly. You need a phaser rifle with a frequency modulator chip (I think that’s what they called it).

  276. Lyn M, Purveyor of Fine Aphorisms of Death says

    Perhaps raj has given us a clue as to what he does:

    1)You sulk when you have nothing more to argue.

    sulk out? Some combination of sulk and flounce? sounce?

  277. Louis says

    Lyn M,

    Do you suppose raj ever heard of the psychological concept of transference?

    If he has, he’ll call it a bad scientist, accuse it of sock puppetry, ask how it communicated before wikipedia and the stare at its tits until he sees god.

    Louis

    P.S. I think the only philosophical question Raj has genuinely answered beyond reasonable doubt is “what is the sound of one mind fapping?”.

  278. Lyn M, Purveyor of Fine Aphorisms of Death says

    @ AR

    Yep. Sort of a Hedy Lamarr phaser, which raj would immediately say proves god.

  279. Lyn M, Purveyor of Fine Aphorisms of Death says

    @ Louis

    Good point. And then he’ll change the subject and announce everyone is a grumpy old man.

  280. Tony says

    Ichthyic:

    I think Raj has invented the …

    Tigger Flounce.

    thanks ever so much for that! Between my roommate and I, we just listened to that sing a long as well as two from The Little Mermaid (I can’t believe I still remember many of the lyrics to “Under the Sea” and “Part of that world”).

  281. Louis says

    Chigau,

    I have enough trouble just being me. I haven’t the time or energy to be someone else! ;-)

    Louis

  282. Lyn M, Purveyor of Fine Aphorisms of Death says

    Well, this was a slice, but have to go to work.

    On the flounce, how about a gigaflounce? It will scale up, too.

  283. Ichthyic says

    You need a phaser rifle with a frequency modulator chip (I think that’s what they called it).

    no, they adjust to that too.

    don’t we have to kill the queen or something?

  284. Ichthyic says

    We may now all retire to tend our gardens and die in the rose bushes.

    but… all I have going right now is an herb garden…

    with nightshade and hemlock as weeds*.

    *no kidding, my inlaws were rather in a tizzy about it when they stopped by last wknd.

  285. antigodless says

    @ chigau (違う)

    You have very few words, but bring some focus and encouragement in them. You take a great interest in a range of topics. I am interested from which cultural heritage are you from? I can’t tell between Japanese, Korean, or Chinese. I am Interested in worldviews (I am married to an Indonesian), but would love to hear a little of your story one day? Maybe share your story?

  286. A. R says

    Ichthyic: I’m not sure, but I think a few photon torpedoes would do the job. (Also, your herb garden concerns me.)

    Louis: Hmm, but which roses? And in which bed?

  287. Cal says

    I know I am a late to the game, but can anyone point me to the end of the queue for Brownian?

  288. A. R says

    Cal: It’s near the door to TET. If you want, you can always join Teh Transdimensional Groop Secks With Louis singularity. Entrance is in the broom closet above the stairs to the dungeon.

  289. Ichthyic says

    Don’t go! We’ll be bored silly.

    no, GO!

    we need the distraction until fearless leader returns to close the gate on it.

  290. Ichthyic says

    I always enjoy a good singularity.

    yes, they do tend to attract, don’t they?

  291. Amphiox says

    Still slandering us with the sickpuppetry accusation, are you, fapwit?

    Every computer connects to the Internet with a unique IP Address, fapwit. If anyone creates alter egos, this is instantly obvious, with multiple pseudonyms all using the same IP address. The IP addresses are ALL visible to PZ, and he INSTANTLY banhammers sockpuppets.

    So back up your accusations with IP Addresses linked to pseudonyms IMMEDIATELY, or apologize for slandering us.

  292. Amphiox says

    Our opinion of you, fapwit, is continuously formed from the posts you make. Mine has changed CONSTANTLY. It continues to get lower and lower, which each new fap from you.

    I will change it back in the other direction when you CHANGE YOUR BEHAVIOR, APOLOGIZE for your slanders and other jerkasseries, and RETRACT every single one of your many, many shameless lies.

  293. cm's changeable moniker says

    Amphiox:

    Every computer connects to the Internet with a unique IP Address

    *ahem*

    Every device connected to a network has a (probabilistically) unique MAC address, it’s true, but, given NAT, not a unique IP address.

    (BTW, I think you’ve probably flogged the “rajkumar says I’m a sockpuppet, therefore slander” dead horse enough already.

    The parsimonious explanation is that he doesn’t understand “sockpuppet”. The slightly-less-parsimonious explanation is that he thinks you’re all PZ.

    And it would be libel anyway, not slander.)

  294. Menyambal --- Sambal's sockpuppet says

    Doesn’t understand “sockpuppet”?

    He may not use the term, but he’s long been harping on the idea that most of us are pretending to be something we aren’t–ersatz scientists, at least.

    Recently, he’s really hit the concept that some folks are logged in with false identities–what most of us call “sockpuppeting”.

    Of course, if he did call it “sockpuppeting”, he’d probably define it as some other damn thing.

  295. kemist, Dark Lord of the Sith says

    Which ones of you are the sock puppets?

    I don’t mind, if I can get googly eyes to see my illusory PhD.

  296. Amphiox says

    Recently, he’s really hit the concept that some folks are logged in with false identities–what most of us call “sockpuppeting”.

    He’s been using the term “alter egos”, in the plural.

    The parsimonious explanation is that he doesn’t understand “sockpuppet”.

    From the raj:

    Some of you split yourselves into many alter egos in order to troll

    He understands it better than he understands red-green colourblindness, at any rate.

  297. chigau (違う) says

    Caine
    Way back @39 Louis said that it’s my turn to play nice with a troll.
    I don’t think I have a choice.
    Louis wouldn’t lie to me.
    Would he?

  298. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Oh good, antigoodness is here. I do love me some witnessing. By which I mean witnessing their idiotic attempts at debate.

    True debate would mean the AGL (AIDL) could be wrong. I’ve never met a godbot/creobot who could be wrong. So AIDL preaches, but cannot debate….Whereas real and conclusive physical evidence stands a chance of changing many atheists minds. But the level of evidence required, equivalent to the eternally burning bush, appears well beyond what the delusional godbots can offer. Which is a picture of imaginary jebus in shower mold…

  299. says

    rajkumar:

    Plus, there are a few more things that I have noted about most of you:

    Again, you present a lot of assertions, with no evidence to back them up.

    Do you seriously think the whole, “You can’t imagine something you’ve not personally experienced” line of reasoning had any real merit? I mean, especially after we pretty much trounced it with, y’know, evidence. And examples. Many, many examples.

    Now it’d be nice if you’d present examples backing up all your assertions about our collective character. Because really, all it looks like from this end of the conversation is a case of hurt feelings.

  300. chigau (違う) says

    Besides

    I can’t tell between Japanese, Korean, or Chinese.

    is irresistible and
    .

    (I am married to an Indonesian)

    is intriguing (identified spouse’s ethnicity but not own ethnicity.)

  301. Lyn M, Purveyor of Fine Aphorisms of Death says

    @ amphiox

    He understands it better than he understands red-green colourblindness, at any rate.

    Like that’s hard.

  302. says

    raj:

    I’m kinda curious where you were going with the whole, “If you can’t experience it, you can’t imagine it” line of reasoning. Were you going to suggest that, since we can imagine God, we must have truly experienced God, and God must exist?

    (Yeah, I’m assuming raj can’t stick to the flounce.)

  303. Lyn M, Purveyor of Fine Aphorisms of Death says

    @ Amphiox 386

    Small steps.

    Very small steps.

    But … but I thought you can’t get smaller divisions than Planck’s constant permits.

  304. Snoof says

    @ nigelTheBold

    I’m kinda curious where you were going with the whole, “If you can’t experience it, you can’t imagine it” line of reasoning. Were you going to suggest that, since we can imagine God, we must have truly experienced God, and God must exist?

    No, it’s even stupider than that.

    It’s “you haven’t experienced God, therefore you can’t imagine it, therefore you can’t define it, therefore you can’t argue against it as a proposition”.

    That is, assuming rajkumar sticks to previous arguments.

  305. says

    Snoof:

    No, it’s even stupider than that.

    It’s “you haven’t experienced God, therefore you can’t imagine it, therefore you can’t define it, therefore you can’t argue against it as a proposition”.

    That is, assuming rajkumar sticks to previous arguments.

    Oh, fuck me running. Is that really what this was about? I mean, I have to admit, I’ve been skimming this thread, as I’ve been too busy for words these last few weeks. I’ve read as much of raj’s stuff as I could stomach, and saw some stuff defending his definition of God (even denying he defined or described God, when in fact he had, just not formally).

    But really. If that’s the line of thought raj was pursuing, my opinion of xes intellect just plummeted. And it’s not like it was perched atop a tall cliff to begin with. Your summation of the argument dug a hole, climbed back out, and pushed my opinion in.

  306. Menyambal --- Sambal's sockpuppet says

    Raj says, “You can’t imagine something you’ve not personally experienced.”

    I say he’s imagining something he’s not personally experienced, namely everything he thinks we are doing, feeling and pretending to be.

  307. Ichthyic says

    I don’t think I have a choice.
    Louis wouldn’t lie to me.
    Would he?

    is that a haiku?

  308. Ichthyic says

    Of course, if he did call it “sockpuppeting”, he’d probably define it as some other damn thing.

    probably involving a literal sock.

  309. theophontes 坏蛋 says

    I must confess that I cannot sockpuppet for physiological reasons. A picture of my attempt. WYSIWYG.

    @ chigau (違う)

    *cough*

    Did I ever tell you about my experiences witnessing in China?

  310. John Morales says

    [meta]

    Cal, you landed a 10 in your delurkance.

    (Fairly awesome)

    The value of TZT now includes dividends!

  311. 'Tis Himself says

    Yeah, I’m assuming raj can’t stick to the flounce.

    That’s a reasonable assumption based on past performance.

  312. Ogvorbis says

    I think Raj has singlehandedly redefined “flounce”, or we have to come up with a different descriptor.

    Pogoing?

  313. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Raj says, “You can’t imagine something you’ve not personally experienced.”

    He must not read science-fiction/fantasy. A whole genre of literature refutes his sorry thinking.

  314. Ogvorbis says

    The value of TZT now includes dividends!

    Which exchange is it listed on and what is the abreviation?

  315. Cal says

    I have to concede my newly won internet to you Ogvorbis because that was awesome… :)

  316. Amphiox says

    Lyn @387;

    Planck’s constant only applies to this, physical reality. The raj inhabits a different kind of universe, where all things are possible (but unimaginable).

    And indeed, the sub-planck capacity for intellectual growth MUST be the case, for it is the dynamic opposite that balances the fulcrum of the raj’s existence, the yin to the yang of the boundless infinity of its incompetence and dishonesty.

  317. Phalacrocorax, aus der Dritte Welt says

    This started as a reconstitution of antigodless’s flowchart of the creation, but it too rapidly became excessively bloated, silly and unflowchartlike for a “Why I am an atheist” thread. So I’m just going to toss it here instead and let the grues eat it.

    Sorry for the inconvenience.

    —-

    THE LEGEND OF GOD’S MYSTERY MAGIC ADVENTURE QUEST
    (120% BIBLICALLY ACCURATE!)

    Pilot Episode: Bere’s shit

    (John 1:1-2) It is very dark in here, for some strange meanings of “here.” God hardly can see anything. Yet he finds within himself a sniny something called The Word.

    (John 1:3) God examines The Word and figures out that it can be used to create things.

    (Gen 1:1) God uses The Word to create the Heavens and the Earth. It is still not clear what those concepts mean.

    (Gen 1:2) God tries to inspect his creation, but it is still dark all around. His toes touch something moist and cold underneath him. Oops… Perhaps he created Water instead of the Earth after all.

    (Gen 1:3) God discovers he is capable of speaking. That’s funny, as there was nobody around he could talk to. Or was there? He couldn’t really recall… Anyway, God orders The Word to create Photons. His command is promptly obeyed.

    (Gen 1:4-5) God is pleased, but he sees that it is too bright now. To solve the problem, he orders light and darkness to alternate. It was not the best solution for the problem, but it would work for the moment.

    (Gen 1:6-7) With the new light, God inspects his environment. As he suspected, it was full of water where there should be the Earth. God wonders how its molecules could hold together before there were photons to intermediate the electromagnetic force, but decides to shrug this mystery off till later. There were more pressing problems now. For example, the Heavens looked awfully empty. Seeing nothing around to fill them with, God decides to put some of the water up there. With all the power of his omnipotence, God kicks a good bunch of water into the skies, roaring while he does it.

    (Gen 1:8) Whoa! That was fun! Time really flies when you engage in pointless violence.

    (Gen 1:9) After making sure the Heavens wouldn’t fall back on his head, God looks at the waters beneath. They surely don’t seem as scary now as they had before. Actually, God can even sense there’s something big and flat at their bottom. After a better look, he sees that it is the Earth! The Earth was under the water all this time! God takes a brief moment to consider if The Word may be malfunctioning, what with creating empty heavens and unwarranted layers concealing the ground, but, presently, he orders the waters to step aside.

    (Gen 1:10) Seeing the new dry ground makes God so happy that he decides to name it “land.” He feels rather silly, as there’s clearly no one around for him to communicate. Nevertheless, he decides to spare a portion of the water in a corner (it may come handy later) and to call it “sea”.

    (Gen 1:11-12) The “land” certainly looked like a great play field, so God decides to use it to experiment with The Word. He gets distracted creating lots of different organisms on it, but then suddenly…

    (Gen 1:13) everything goes dark!

    (Gen 1:14-15) God notices the lights are still going on and off, as he had not ordered them to stop. As soon as the next morning breaks, he notices the photons are not coming from any direction in particular. To fix their odd behavior, he re-arranges them in two shiny lumps and a series of little spots to keep things visible even when it was night. It was not a perfect solution, he admitted, but at least it was better than before.

    (Gen 1:16-18) As the land was already too crowded with plants, God placed his new lights in the sky. Surprisingly, they didn’t sink in the waters of the Heavens, just floated around.

    (Gen 1:19) God decides that it was a good thing if the lights continued to alternate, so he wouldn’t lose track of time. Of course, he did not remember creating time in the first place, but as it was already here there was no point in ignoring it.

    (Gen 1:20-21) Seeing that the air and the seas were now too empty in comparison with the Heavens and the Earth, God proceeds to use The Word to fill them with creatures.

    (Gen 1:22-23) God is so pleased with his new feathered and scaly friends that he hugs every single one of them.

    (Gen 1:24-25) Looking back at the land, he decides that plants were boring and not such a good idea in the first place, and starts to fill it with land animals. He rejoices on his new furry friends and hugs them as well.

    (Gen 1:26-27) Upon realizing that he had to have arms to hug everybody, God examines himself. Even though he didn’t recall creating his body either, he notices that he is one good-looking fellow. It was a shame that there weren’t any more things like him. With a command of “Let us make mankind in our image”, The Word creates a gazillion new human beings. They weren’t exact replicas of him, but they were good enough for God. Mankind questions him about what he meant by “us”, but God simply shrugs off. He was not sure, but it sounded appropriate at the moment.

    (Gen 1:28-31) Mankind shrug, too. They look around and see all this happy plants and animals. They tell God that they surely look tasty and ask what they should do with them. God replies that they can rip, burn and kill them if they liked, as he could always make more with The Word. The animals are not pleased.

    (Gen 2:1-2) Satisfied, God concludes that his creation of the Heavens and the Earth, whatever it was meant by such words, is complete. Only then did he notice how tiresome this whole ordeal has been. He retreats into his holy bed, not noticing how strange it was that an all-powerful being required rest.

    (Gen 2:3) Unable to sleep with all the noise humans were doing while throwing their wild party of slaughter and havoc, God orders all of them to take a break and be quiet till next day. They grudgingly abide. Satisfied, God closes his eyes and has sweet dreams…

    . . .

    (Gen 2:4-5) It is very dark in here. Hardly anything can be seen. God opens his eyelids only to find barren land stretching in all directions. God blinks and rubs his eyes. He can’t believe it, but part of his creation is gone. Where is the sea, the plants, the animals and the humans? Was all that a hallucination? Or perhaps a dream? He inspects his pockets and finds a new item shoved into one of them. It is a card written in crayon. It reads “Hello! My name is YHWH.” God looks desperately over his shoulders for who could have left this message, but there´s obviously nobody in sight. He takes a deep breath and tries to calm himself down. Perhaps his name was YHWH all the time, and he merely left a message for himself. Of course, he knew he’d forget it and left himself a note. It was a reasonable explanation.

    (Gen 2:6) God looks around again and notices this time the ground is rather soaked. He decides to leave all this creation business behind, as he was not sure what happened with his previous creatures. Perhaps excessive use had depleted the power of The Word. Perhaps The Word was evil. He doesn’t care anymore and instead sits on the mud and starts playing with it. Yay, that is fun!

    (Gen 2:7) With the mud, God makes a replica of one of the humans he thought he had created before. It was much more fun to create clay creatures than real ones, he thought. They couldn’t possibly do anything annoying such as noisy parties or outright bizarre such as mysteriously disappearing. However, there seems to be something odd about this statue. God leans closer to its eyes. God blinks. The clay man blinks back, saying “hi.” God screams in terror.

    … Behind a nearby rock, a slim reptilian creature operates a radio. “Our plan is working, Tezcatlipoca. He thinks he’s the only god and that he created the universe. Now it’s time to release the real weird stuff.”

    And so the Bible was written. Amen.

  318. Phalacrocorax, aus der Dritte Welt says

    It was better in the original Klingon.

    That was Klingon? Damn, Google translate said it was Arapaho and I believed it.

  319. John Morales says

    <pokes>

    Hey, Rajawretched:

    By the power I have over you, I demand you cringe abjectly and abstain from any method of masturbation whatsoever until sunset arrives*.

    * Yes, your local sunset!

  320. John Morales says

    chigau, you doubt my power?!

    (I evinced unto it my desire for it to stop masturbating for a time, and it’s obediently complying. After sunset, we’ll see…)

  321. chigau (違う) says

    John Morales
    Not the old used-up raj.
    The antigodless one from the other thread.
    It spoke to me here at #362.
    I await another manifestation.

  322. John Morales says

    chigau, heh.

    (I’m using Admiral Nelson’s telescope method, in a broad sense. ;) )

    But yes, looks like my poking is eliciting no response.

  323. Lyn M, Purveyor of Fine Aphorisms of Death says

    @ Amphiox #404

    And indeed, the sub-planck capacity for intellectual growth MUST be the case

    Ooooookay. I guess you have made your point. I accept the sub-Planck steps in rajfapspace.

    So it’s going to take awhile before we can actually see the step, no?

  324. Amphiox says

    So it’s going to take awhile before we can actually see the step, no?

    It is something that can only be imagined.

  325. John Morales says

    I note that the crepuscule has advanced into nightfall and beyond, in certain longitudes.

    (Let no-one doubt my power over the specimen)

  326. Ichthyic says

    Pinin’ for the fjords?

    of course!

    beautiful plumage the misoraj has, eh?

  327. theophontes (坏蛋) says

    @ Ichthyic

    beautiful plumage the misoraj has, eh?

    If it was not nailed to its perch… Oh wait! That’s not misoraj, that’s jeeebus.

  328. cm's changeable moniker says

    I say put 40,000 volts through it and see what happens.

    voom!

    Interesting. Not the result I expected.

    *makes note in lab book*

  329. A. R says

    Hmm, it would appear the Raj’s link with the collective has been temporarily broken, given the lack of incredulous stupidity on the thread recently.

  330. kemist, Dark Lord of the Sith says

    Interesting. Not the result I expected.

    *makes note in lab book*

    I say let’s keep testing till we run out of cake.

    But there’s no sense crying
    Over every mistake.
    You just keep on trying
    Till you run out of cake.
    And the science gets done.
    And you make a neat gun
    For the people who are
    Still alive.

  331. says

    Want to talk about something not food?

    Hey, Chigau. The weather here finally warmed up and the sun is out, it’s summer! I sat in the sun for a bit today, now I’m trying to be a good needle slave and get some work done. Would it be bad if I asked how your tomatoes are doing?

  332. chigau (違う) says

    Caine
    Thanks for the reminder, I haven’t watered today.
    Tomatoes are OK, just a bit slow.
    Haven’t planted potatoes yet. It may be too late.

  333. A. R says

    chigau: That would depend on the variety (i.e. maincrop or early). I got mine in about a week after Jeebus on a stick day.

  334. theophontes (坏蛋) says

    I left my plants in over the winter. It never gets cold enough here for them to die completely. But aside from the spearmint, they are not very happy plants. In fact the mint is quite miserable. The chilli plant was murdered by a rodent last season and its pot has been overgrown by weeds.

    *sniff*

  335. John Morales says

    I remember when the Rajamuffin first appeared, all puffed-up posturing and feisty braggadocio.

    (Need MOAR specimens)

  336. theophontes (坏蛋) says

    @ John

    all puffed-up posturing and feisty braggadocio.

    Yeah, his vacuous arguments dried up and he degenerated into a common or garden troll.

    MOAR

    We could try advertising…

  337. Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle says

    Yep there are even people with beer cellars.

    In fact there are a lot of people with beer “cellars” for aging beer, me included.

    Me too!

    I didn’t know y’all were talking BEER over here! There’s nothing on earth more interesting to talk about than BEER!

  338. theophontes (坏蛋) says

    re: zombieplants

    I tear it down I tear it down
    And then its born again

    Linky.

    (The interesting part is that the video was shot in Tardiville, the state capitol of TZT.)

  339. Gnumann says

    Re. trolls, illithid is still twitching over here.

    Yuck! Do we have a definite on wheter it’s hyperon or not yet?

  340. cm's changeable moniker says

    Crossing over from TFT, @David M:

    I plan to dissect the entire drama

    I have my own abstract written. Would be interesting to compare.

  341. David Marjanović says

    I have my own abstract written. Would be interesting to compare.

    Heh.

  342. Louis says

    Since this is now the Official Meen™ Thread and TET is fluffy and contains pillows:

    Fuck everything and everyone.

    That is all.

    Love

    Louis

  343. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    1. Fie on all of you.
    2. I never felt safe posting my favorite recipes in TET, because they are not good. However, the now-broadened and by-the-dumpster-next-to-the-grease-trap vibe of TZT seems an appropriate venue for discussing one of my favorite lunch recipes.
    Egg Salad Burrito
    a. Place a plain flour tortilla on really more plastic wrap then you need. Decide that this is wasteful, and try to use the serrated edge of the plastic wrap box to sever, like, one third of the plastic wrap that you have already dispensed. Do not for a second consider what use the severed third will be to anyone.
    b. Fucking that up, you will now have one piece of plastic wrap that is too small to be good for anything and one that is so stretched, that you doubt its integrity. Go back to step “a”, and repeat the process until your guilt at wasting plastic wrap is not so strong as your rage at failing even the simplest fucking task. Then move on to step “c”.
    c. Ok. Now, I hope someone in your house has made hard-boiled eggs because if not you are shit out of luck. Peel one hard-boiled egg, being sure to tear off a good quarter of the egg-white with the shell, exposing the greenish yoke. Maybe the yolk looks disgusting now, but we’ll fix that in step “d”. Remove exactly as much of the shell from the largest intact piece as you are completely unwilling to ingest.
    d. Place the decroded shell-free-ish egg on the burrito and mash the shit out of it with a fork. Then mash in some pickle relish* and a squirt of mayonnaise. Dress with exactly as much hot sauce is required to either hide the greenish yolk-tinge or at least make it look festive. Oh, yeah. Add lots of salt and pepper.
    e. Fail to wrap the tortilla around the mess you made of it so that the egg salad squirts out the top and sides. Bonus if you can manage to fold the tortilla so that it splits, allowing egg salad to sort of spread disgustingly on the plastic wrap below it.
    f. Do your best to wrap this clusterfuck that you made for lunch with the plastic wrap, but don’t count on it holding, because like some kind of cheap asshole, you always buy the cheapest, shittiest plastic wrap on the planet.
    g. Reproach yourself for even bothering. Don’t plan to eat lunch with anyone, unless you want a lot of comments about how sub-par your lunch is.
    *I prefer dill-pickle relish with everything.

  344. Aratina Cage says

    @Louis
    Horrible idea. Considering all Teh Zombies lumbering about, I think the correct answer is that the foot is gamey. ;)

    @Antiochus Epiphanes

    I never felt safe posting my favorite recipes in TET, because they are not good.

    It’s funny because it’s true. But what good is a mouthwatering recipe like yours doing on TZT without a good long squirt of catsup on top?

  345. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    But what good is a mouthwatering recipe like yours doing on TZT without a good long squirt of catsup on top?

    *growls*

    ketchup!

    But you are completely correct. It goes good with just about anything. I was saving up this masterpiece, but here goes.

    Cold Hot-dog with Warm Ketchup

    a. Garnish an uncooked hotdog with ketchup from packets in the junk drawer.

  346. consciousness razor says

    Antiochus, TZT isn’t the appropriate place for posting recipes, unless they include lots of brains. Maybe the Food Network’s website would accept your submissions if you told them you are the Seleucid king.

  347. chigau (違う) says

    We can post recipes here.
    Baked Beans
    open tin of beans
    eat
    (spoon optional)

  348. consciousness razor says

    You get the ones with hunks of brains in them, right? Hard to find a good brand. Most of them never put very many in there.

  349. chigau (違う) says

    They usually have a chunk of whiteish something.
    Is that the brainz?

  350. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    CR:

    Antiochus, TZT isn’t the appropriate place for posting recipes, unless they include lots of brains.

    Fair enough.

    Let’s replace this:

    …Reproach yourself for even bothering. Don’t plan to eat lunch with anyone, unless you want a lot of comments about how sub-par your lunch is.

    with this

    h. Join friends or colleagues for lunch, but leave the egg salad burrito in your backpack. You won’t be needing it. Crack open one of their skulls, exposing the grayish matter within. Maybe brains looks disgusting now, but we’ll fix that in step “i”.
    i. Mash the shit out of the exposed brain with a fork. Then mash in some pickle relish*, and a squirt each of mayonnaise and ketchup. Dress with hot sauce or not. Eat without self-awareness.

    ————————————-

    Maybe the Food Network’s website would accept your submissions if you told them you are the Seleucid king.

    My naïf: I first employed that strategy more than 12 years ago. They quickly went from snide little “Thanks for your submission, but unfortunately…” type form letters to a general restraining order. And cancellation of my subscription to their magazine, reactionary snobs. The Seleucids haven’t had much respect since the whole “Roman Conquest” debacle.

  351. consciousness razor says

    Thank you, Antiochus. I can accept that substitution. Seems like a lot of prep work in steps a.-f., but I’ll have to try it out.

    My naïf: I first employed that strategy more than 12 years ago.

    Sorry, I didn’t realize. What fuckers. Don’t despair, though. I’m sure one of these days, the Seleucids will back and better than ever. Then Food Network can be razed to the ground.

  352. cm's changeable moniker says

    David M, it’s only in my head, so if you were serious, don’t go all, you know, thorough or anything!

    (For the record, ChasCP would have supplied the title and the “question we set out to explore”. The rest would just be context, evidence, or exegesis.)

  353. Aratina Cage says

    I can’t wait to hear where ChasCP falls on the catsup←→ketchup divide. Catsup: it’s what’s for innards.

  354. mikmik says

    consciousness razor

    Antiochus, TZT isn’t the appropriate place for posting recipes, unless they include lots of brains.

    Y’know, it was Britain creating all the fuss in March of 1996 that we had to stop including brains in our processed meat. Now, our wieners don’t have any nutritional value at all!
    That’s why I buy the chicken hot dogs exclusively – they taste worse, and they might have some nutrition in them.

    Antiochus Epiphanes

    i. Mash the shit out of the exposed brain with a fork.

    I can never remember, is that called the curds or the whey?

  355. A. R says

    Ichthyic: If you want, I think I still have a few industrial grade log scale irony meters in one of the cargo bays of the LOLstar. There might be a godbot poker in there too.

  356. Ichthyic says

    There might be a godbot poker in there too.

    yeah, mine’s kinda dull from overuse, come to think of it.

    *looks askance*

    how much?

  357. A. R says

    Ichthyic: That depends on how many I have. I’ll look… {A. R beams up to LOLstar [don't you judge me for mixing my SciFi up), comes back with a giant crate of godbot pokers, and crates of irony meters and stupid shields.] Looks like I stocked up when Danielhaven was here, come and get them everyone, they’re free! Don’t forget to take a stupid shield and a log scale irony meter, you never know what levels of stupid a godbot can unleash when poked enough, and I don’t want injuries from parts flying off of exploding standard issue irony meters.

  358. A. R says

    Ichthyic: If it’ll make you feel better, I’ll take 100 bars of gold-pressed latinum for the lot. Or you can help me annihilate the godbot.

  359. consciousness razor says

    If you zoom in on it a lot, it looks like you can even see a little distortion from Venus’ atmosphere, but I don’t know. That might just be an artifact from the camera.

  360. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    Aratina, 469:

    I’m willing to wager adventurously on teh “ketchup” side.

  361. says

    nigel swoops in, and sonorously orates thusly:

    Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious summer by this sun of… Hey! Egg salad burritos! Why, yes I shall.

    By the by, what have y’all done with the trolls? Except for the cedarbrained illithid misogynistically spouting drivel on some stale thread, it seems quiet around these parts.

    …York. And then something about clouds.

  362. Ichthyic says

    By the by, what have y’all done with the trolls?

    well, PZ was SUPPOSED to be minding the gates, but he took off for some fictional place called “iceland” (yeah, as if there’s someplace made of ice phhht), and left the damn gate open.

    they escaped.

  363. Aratina Cage says

    @Antiochus Epiphanes
    What’s important is whether catsup or ketchup was applied first to tomato ketchup. :D (That’s the only way forward for catsup I fear, because I think you are probably right about that.) I prefer catsup for TZT because it reminds me of the anti-Caturday posts.

  364. cm's changeable moniker says

    Over on the Real Scientists thread, this:

    So either you cannot read for understanding worth beans, Illithid, or you are lying, yet again.

    … which is kinda resonant. Pitbull, sit down here?

    There’s room for many (if we’re honest).

  365. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    Aratina: Point eruditely made*. I prefer “ketchup” because that’s what Heinz makes.

    *I mean, fie!

  366. Phalacrocorax, aus der Dritte Welt says

    *squawk*

    I thought I was having some sort of hallucination. First, I saw a series of dano’s comments celebrating the victory of guvnor Walker. But, as soon as I reloaded the page, the posts were all gone! Every single one of them. I checked the news, and saw that it was the depressing truth: Walker was bound to win. So, what were those vanishing messages? My imagination? But how could they be accurate if I didn’t remember the recall election was today? Prescience? A message from the afterlife?

    Full of dread, I decided to check the dungeon and realized that the awful truth lay on the latter option. As I saw those fateful words engraved in moss-covered stone, I knew I’d never forget them. dano was gone! Forever! And we never got the chance to play with him here!

    *sobs*

  367. ibyea says

    Wait, how the heck did Gov Walker survive a recall election? Who were the idiots who voted for him, and why would they be stupid enough to vote for him if they saw what he was doing against the unions?

  368. John Morales says

    Hey, Jadehawk.

    I remember you wrote “anyway, I don’t want to hang around the stupid, quarantined trolls, but TET is becoming increasingly less useful for discussion, too.”

    As you can see, the latest specimen has ceased to react to stimulus, and we are bereft for the nonce.

    (This makes zombie hunger grow, and as it does, so does the irritation — then, what everyone is waiting for: Cannibalistic Zombie Carnage Ensues!)

  369. John Morales says

    theophontes, meh.

    I’ll check out the time-lapse composites in due course.

    (This need for immediacy and shared excitement is for… um, other people)

  370. says

    As you can see, the latest specimen has ceased to react to stimulus, and we are bereft for the nonce.

    (This makes zombie hunger grow, and as it does, so does the irritation — then, what everyone is waiting for: Cannibalistic Zombie Carnage Ensues!)

    that’s my hope

  371. John Morales says

    All I can say is that, were not PZ a Poopyhead, we’d have Pirate Mode back.

    (Everything sounds more interesting yet detached in piratical cant, and levity can’t be underestimated)

  372. theophontes (坏蛋) says

    @ John M.

    This need for immediacy and shared excitement is for… um, other people.

    Too late anyway. Elvis has left the building. Venus has left the transit.