This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comments by Eosimias

Go to: The Magic of Reality (FT review)

Eosimias's Avatar Jump to comment 25 by Eosimias

I picked up the book this weekend and read it -- and Got it signed by Richard today. (Yay me!)

It was excellent. I learned a lot more than I thought I would from this "kids' book."

Sun, 02 Oct 2011 22:19:33 UTC | #877217

Go to: An audience with Koko the 'talking' gorilla

Eosimias's Avatar Jump to comment 19 by Eosimias

The comments under the linked article are very disappointing.

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 16:42:30 UTC | #875032

Go to: Peer pressure? It's hardwired into our brains

Eosimias's Avatar Jump to comment 19 by Eosimias

Is that the internet pedant version of "well you're a stupid-head"?

You seem to be better at insults than you are at rational discourse (but that's not to say you're good at insults).

And hey, here's a question for you: If I were to say that New Orleans was festive during Mardi Gras, would you jump down my throat for claiming to know the emotional state of the city?

Sat, 17 Sep 2011 01:50:32 UTC | #871817

Go to: Peer pressure? It's hardwired into our brains

Eosimias's Avatar Jump to comment 17 by Eosimias

No, war is brought when one nation attacks another. The end. It's not hard to understand, at all.

Then I suppose the Civil War wasn't a war.

Again, AQ is not, was not a nation, for the reading impaired.

No kidding?

It wasn't sarcasm, you are just hedging.

Yes it was.

I would have listened to the most intelligent people, who were routinely ignored and continue to be ignored. First and foremost, I wouldn't make the wild assumption that I know more than those people. Just the same as a scientist would allow the most qualified person in any particular field, speak on the topic, which they aren't fully competent to speak on. It's subtle, maybe that's why you dislike it so much. It isn't a knee-jerk reaction, like grabbing the wheel and driving us off a fucking cliff, or attacking the wrong country.

You still haven't described the course of action America should have taken.

Remember, we attacked Iraq in the wake of 9/11 and not Afghanistan and Pakistan? Again, subtle points.....

We didn't attack Afghanistan after 9/11? Are you sure?

I expressed my disdain for anyone who thinks they could capture and comprehend the state of a City the size of NY, yes those people are ALL stupid and I ridicule them all, you included.

No, you just made a really sarcastic comment about my statement about the overall tone of the city being somber that weekend (which it was).

No, you would need to have supernatural powers, that's why I think the notion is stupid. I'm pretty sure no one is reading what you are saying and nodding their heads. Continue if you must, but you're only going to make things worse for yourself.

I always get a good laugh from internet pedants such as yourself. Keep it up.

Fri, 16 Sep 2011 19:09:25 UTC | #871664

Go to: Defending science authors online

Eosimias's Avatar Jump to comment 17 by Eosimias

Comment 15 by (R)evolutionist :

I'm unsure whether the OP is talking about taking legal action or simply writing our own reviews and voting ourselves to protect the good books and abandon the bad ones

Simply writing our own reviews.

Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:58:33 UTC | #870839

Go to: Peer pressure? It's hardwired into our brains

Eosimias's Avatar Jump to comment 14 by Eosimias

Comment 13 by xsjadolateralus

Yes, there was no Alqaedastan to attack, so war was not the solution. Simple as that.

The war was brought to us when our nation was attacked.

You don't wage war on individuals....... That's the entire point. (Compared to a country, AQ is an individual)

Really? I thought Al Qaeda was a large terrorist network whose leader was ordering attacks on our country from Taliban-controlled parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. I guess I'm just naive and ignorant that way.

Who, really, WHO is advocating/advocated doing "nothing"? I wanna meet these individuals. Like Yahweh, I don't think they exist.

That was a bit of sarcasm on my part. Judging by your attempt at sarcasm, I'm guessing subtlety is lost on you.

So what are you advocating? What should America have done?

You're in NY right now? Oh, well, gee..... I guess what you say is more credible than what anyone else says............. I wasn't aware you could observe an entire city and it's people from the ground, either. That's a new one. As if you have an accurate notion of how the entire city of New York is behaving. (end sarcasm)

Well you didn't seem to have a problem with the someone presuming to know how the whole nation was behaving and making the absurd claim that America was celebrating on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

I don't need to fly over New York and see into everyone's apartments to have some sense of the overall atmosphere of the city this weekend.

Mon, 12 Sep 2011 16:13:14 UTC | #869841

Go to: Peer pressure? It's hardwired into our brains

Eosimias's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by Eosimias

Comment 3 by Roedy

The USA attacked and occupied two nations in revenge for 9/11 even though President Bush says either nation was involved in the attacks. Normally this should cause some cognitive dissonance. It doesn't. Americans are beating their breasts this weekend, celebrating their virtue in the attacks.

Well I'm afraid there was no nation of Alqaedastan to attack. I guess we just shouldn't have done anything, then.

Oh, and I'm in New York City right now. Nobody here is beating their breasts or celebrating anything. The tone is actually quite somber.

Sun, 11 Sep 2011 22:56:01 UTC | #869499

Go to: Defending science authors online

Eosimias's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by Eosimias

Comment 11 by Starcrash :

I've written funny comments denigrating the bible and other Christian products on that site, and it would be hypocritical of me to wag a finger at people who do it to Dawkins.

What I'm saying is that the rational should have a voice on the website, as the irrational aren't too shy to have theirs.

Sun, 11 Sep 2011 22:50:12 UTC | #869497

Go to: Schrodinger's cat is probably dead

Eosimias's Avatar Jump to comment 85 by Eosimias

Whatever happened in that box, after 76 years that cat is most certainly dead.

Sun, 11 Sep 2011 20:38:17 UTC | #869466

Go to: Defending science authors online

Eosimias's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by Eosimias

Comment 4 by aquilacane :

I'm not for shutting down a persons right to free speech but I will argue that if the books being published have advice or claims revolving around healthcare and that advise is not grounded in scientific fact, then you have a criminal situation and the books should be banned at a level higher that Amazon. If Amazon were to continue selling those books, then you have a case against them. They are in the business of making money, not smart people.

I agree, but legal action isn't likely to go anywhere.

It's weird -- if someone were to practice medicine without a license, they'd get in some serious legal trouble. But you can write a book, say... telling parents not to vaccinate their children, and you're in the clear (making money, no less)!

They hide behind free speech. What I'm advocating is turning free speech against them.

Sun, 11 Sep 2011 17:26:25 UTC | #869428

Go to: Defending science authors online

Eosimias's Avatar Jump to comment 6 by Eosimias

Comment 2 by danconquer :

Personally - as someone who never uses pseudonyms or false avatars online - I don't really understand why anonymity is so common online compared to other mediums where people ordinarily enjoy the recognition of being publicly acknowledged. What are people afraid of?

Well I just like making up cool names for myself. Why use my boring old name when I can be Eosimias? I go by LeeHoFooks on Amazon. 10 points if you get the reference. (Google is cheating.)

Sun, 11 Sep 2011 17:22:35 UTC | #869426

Go to: Defending science authors online

Eosimias's Avatar Jump to comment 5 by Eosimias

Comment 1 by asyouwere :

I am naive enough to have never considered that some folks would actually take the time to create fake accounts on Amazon to enhance the appeal of a book or degrade the review of another. Then I read "Kent Hovind" above and cupped my chin with a blinding glimpse of the obvious.

It's pretty obvious when you take a close look, isn't it? Hovind's stupid lecture series has received these absolutely glowing reviews from accounts that don't have any other reviews. They seemed to have popped up out of nowhere to praise Hovind and thank him for showing them the truth. One "reviewer" claims that her children have seen the entire 18 hour series 300 hundred times over the course of 5 years. When I pointed out the mathematical unlikelihood of that, she just stuck to her story.

I wrote a negative review for the series (having seen plenty of it on YouTube), and similar sock puppets have popped in to down-vote and criticize it.

Sun, 11 Sep 2011 17:20:33 UTC | #869424

Go to: African fossils put new spin on human origins story

Eosimias's Avatar Jump to comment 19 by Eosimias

Comment 6 by JuJu

What! Still no aquatic ape, were running out of places for it to hide. Oh well.

That was an intentional jab at the AAH theorist out there, and you know who you are. Does that make me a troll or something?

Well all their bones are underwater, silly. Duh!

Don't you know that humans are the only primates that can hold their breath?

Oh wait... never mind.

Sat, 10 Sep 2011 20:50:33 UTC | #869211

Go to: September 11, 2011

Eosimias's Avatar Jump to comment 97 by Eosimias

Comment 7 by Robert Howard :

PS. I don't want to appear nihilistic, and this is probably a different argument, but the current population of earth is, what, almost seven billion and rising? What would it be if we had never invented religion?

A lot smaller. Overpopulation is largely due to the religious rejection of birth control.

Sat, 10 Sep 2011 20:43:57 UTC | #869210

Go to: Advice for a newly enlightened soldier

Eosimias's Avatar Jump to comment 32 by Eosimias

I've learned that all you can do is be honest. Most people in America have a very skewed perspective on what atheism is. (That you hate God, or that you are certain there is no God.) I explain to people who ask that I don't see any evidence for the existence of God, and that I can not make myself believe.

What part of Afghanistan are you in? I'm a veteran of Afghanistan myself (USMC).

Sat, 10 Sep 2011 19:55:08 UTC | #869206

Go to: Guerilla Skepticism and Wikipedia

Eosimias's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by Eosimias

Comment 1 by skiles1

Another fine example of Guerrilla Skepticism (or guerilla scepticism) can be found in the KJV Bible reviews on Professor Jerry Coyne posted something on it, like a month back, on WEIT. Some of the reviews are hilarious!

I think Amazon book reviews are all too often overlooked as an important place to defend skepticism and secularism. As is the case all over the internet, religious nuts and science deniers don't mind using dishonest means to further their views (or at least smear ours) on Amazon. They 1-star books they obviously haven't read and use sock puppets to write multiple reviews and down-vote those they don't like. A good example of this can be seen in the reviews of "Dr." Kent Hovind's DVD series. Note the "reviewer" who claims to have seen the 18-hour series hundreds of times. Also note how sparse the profiles of the positive "reviewers" are.

Millions of people use Amazon, and I think it's important that the rational have a voice there. We certainly shouldn't play their dishonest games, but I think we should be sure to write reviews of our own to give good science writing the praise it deserves and to call out charlatans for what they are.

Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:27:26 UTC | #864074

Go to: How many species are there? My latest for the New York Times

Eosimias's Avatar Jump to comment 4 by Eosimias

Comment 3 by DavidMcC

However many species there are at the moment, one thing we can probably count on is that most of them are beetles! ;)

According to E. O. Wilson, the most abundant type of animal (by far) is the nematode worm. While many thousands of species of nematodes are known, he estimates the total number at around 1.5 million.

And, of course, there's much more to life on Earth than animals.

Thu, 25 Aug 2011 07:53:22 UTC | #864035

Go to: We Are Atheism Campaign

Eosimias's Avatar Jump to comment 50 by Eosimias

Comment 45 by Red Dog

I certainly don't disagree with those last statements. This is why I think we need a threaded discussion capability. If people could see all our comments together it would be obvious how you have changed your position without acknowledging that you are doing so.

I did no such thing. My point was -- and remains still -- what I said in my first post:

"Therefore, atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity -- rather than necessarily being the assertion that there is no God. I think most people who lack belief refer to themselves as agnostic, not knowing that you can be both atheist and agnostic."

(Emphasis on "necessarily" not in original.)

You started out but saying that people who claim atheism is more than just lack of belief in a God (i.e. an affirmative belief that there is no God) are wrong based on the component parts of the word itself "a" and "theism" I pointed out that's clearly wrong that words aren't just the sum of their component parts with the example "pedophile" certainly doesn't mean someone who loves children.

While piecing together Greek or Latin components to make English words may have its flaws (Or can you think of a better word than "child lover" for someone who wants to have sex with children?), a-theist is pretty straightforward. If you're not a theist, you're an atheist. The word can encompass a broad range of nonbelievers in God.

Then you went on to claim that most atheists including Dawkins don't have an affirmative belief that there is no God.

No I didn't. My point was that most don't claim to know for sure.

Now again you essentially ignore my reply. "Its just Dawkins personal opinion"? As opposed to what?

As opposed to people who simply lack belief in a deity.

Yes, of course atheism means you don't believe in God and of course the term and the unorganized group of us includes people with a vast divergence of opinion. If that is what you originally meant then sorry I guess I really misunderstood your original post but it sure seemed like you started with a far stronger position.

You apparently misunderstood my position, which was just that "atheism" defines a broader range of stances than what many people think.

Also, your position now seems frankly kind of obvious, sort of like saying water is wet. Its not clear to me why you would even bother saying it.

I bothered saying it because most people seem to think atheism necessarily means the opinion that there is certainly no god. My point about Dawkins and his place on the scale (which you could easily look up, by the way) is that even most atheist spokespeople don't claim any certainty.

Thu, 25 Aug 2011 07:03:49 UTC | #864027

Go to: We Are Atheism Campaign

Eosimias's Avatar Jump to comment 40 by Eosimias

Comment 13 by Red Dog

I don't know what scale you are referencing. But chapter four of The God Delusion is titled "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God". Keeping in mind that Dawkins is a scientist and hence would also say things like "why evolution/relativity are almost certainly true" that seems pretty strong/positive/affirmative to me.

Yes, that's Dawkins' personal opinion. However, that doesn't define atheism. My point was that there is a range of disbelief -- from de facto atheists who simply lack belief, to those who say they "know" there is no god.

I don't know why it's so hard for you to accept that someone who doesn't believe in a god is, by definition, an atheist.

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 19:05:44 UTC | #863456

Go to: Is “epigenetics” a revolution in evolution?

Eosimias's Avatar Jump to comment 18 by Eosimias

Well I'm glad Glenn Beck is no longer on TV. I can just imagine him getting out the chalk board and changing epigenics to eugenics. Next thing you know, Nazis are re-imagined as atheists.

Oh, wait... That's already happened.

Mon, 22 Aug 2011 21:29:50 UTC | #863297

Go to: We Are Atheism Campaign

Eosimias's Avatar Jump to comment 11 by Eosimias

The way atheism is used in the works of Dawkins, Harris, etc. and what most people on this site and elsewhere mean by it is not just a neutral lack of belief in any God but an affirmative belief that there is no God.

That's simply not true. Most atheists recognize weak/negative atheism vs strong/positive atheism. Someone who does not believe in a god can not be a theist and is therefore not (AKA "a") theistic.

Even Dawkins puts himself at a 6 (out of 7) on the positive atheism scale.

Mon, 22 Aug 2011 21:25:20 UTC | #863295

Go to: We Are Atheism Campaign

Eosimias's Avatar Jump to comment 3 by Eosimias

I think one of the most important things we need to do is correct people when they misrepresent atheism.

For one, few people seem to even know the definition of the word. (Many dictionaries are even wrong about this!) "A" means "without." "Theism" means "belief in a deity." Therefore, atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity -- rather than necessarily being the assertion that there is no God. I think most people who lack belief refer to themselves as agnostic, not knowing that you can be both atheist and agnostic. (There are also agnostic theists. Agnosticism isn't some kind of a middle ground between religion and nonreligion.)

Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:48:16 UTC | #863234

Go to: 'Drowned' boy reveals the psychology of miracles

Eosimias's Avatar Jump to comment 13 by Eosimias

Doctors do all the work, and this God guy takes all the credit.

Sat, 20 Aug 2011 09:38:22 UTC | #862680

Go to: United Nations Affirms the Human Right to Blaspheme

Eosimias's Avatar Jump to comment 53 by Eosimias

*prophet (not profit)

My incredulity affected my spelling ability.

Once again -- that was a joke, right?

Fri, 19 Aug 2011 09:56:47 UTC | #862419

Go to: United Nations Affirms the Human Right to Blaspheme

Eosimias's Avatar Jump to comment 52 by Eosimias

Comment 36 by Vicktor

Muhammad - by marrying this young girl and three years later only consummating the marriage - must have looked like a saint indeed. I don't think we can judge him by relatively modern Western standards.

You're joking, right? I mean, really... this must be some kind of a twisted joke.

There is absolutely no time, place, or context in which raping a 9-year-old girl is OK.

There are jungle tribes still in existence today where girls are pregnant at 10 or 11.

Name them.

We atheists should stop flogging this dead horse.

Yeah. Nevermind the billion + people who take a pedophile for a profit. We're just beating a dead horse.

Once again, I hope you're kidding.

Fri, 19 Aug 2011 08:30:03 UTC | #862409

Go to: United Nations Affirms the Human Right to Blaspheme

Eosimias's Avatar Jump to comment 31 by Eosimias

Comment 28 by Vorlund

I understand she was twelve but not's let split hairs. Mohammed was a middle aged man at the time and Aisha was a child both mentally and physically that makes him a paedophile. Muslims take note - he was inter alia a paedophile.

She was 6 when they "married," and 9 when he raped her.

What I find especially disturbing is that she is the most celebrated of his wives.

Wed, 17 Aug 2011 08:40:02 UTC | #861766

Go to: Another 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God

Eosimias's Avatar Jump to comment 21 by Eosimias

Comment 7 by rod-the-farmer

I wonder how many religious types will watch this and say to their family "See ! I TOLD you getting an education would make you an atheist ! If you finish high school, that's enough. Stay away from college and university."

When expert consensus disagrees with your own views, blame a conspiracy!

Damn those huckster climatologists, those atheist professors, and that liberal media!

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 06:48:19 UTC | #861544

Go to: There are only atheists in foxholes.

Eosimias's Avatar Jump to comment 94 by Eosimias

Comment 92 by Armydude

Something to notice here is that several muslim fighters in at least Afghanistan don't wear body armor for the reason given above. They are quite careless fighters in other respects as well, I saw one vid of a fellow standing straight up in a barrage of bullets only stopped by the scary incident of his magazine being hit and struck off his ak-47.

Yes, many "over there" have a very fatalistic attitude that probably hasn't been seen in Christianity since the Enlightenment. There are, of course, exceptions among contemporary Christians. My mother knows a family in SouthEast Texas that refused to evacuate from a hurricane. The reason given was "God will watch out for us." This same family doesn't believe in vaccinations. ("My kids never get sick!")

I'm sure you're very familiar with the phrase insha'Allah. For those who don't know, it means "God's will," and it frustrates US servicemembers working with Muslim troops to no end. Why were you late to training? "Insha'Allah; my car ran out of gas." Why didn't you bring more ammunition on patrol? "Insha'Allah this is all I had with me." (And so on.)

Mon, 15 Aug 2011 20:49:48 UTC | #861441

Go to: [Update 9/13]-OCT 1&2 BOOK TOUR DETAILS - US Book Tour Schedule

Eosimias's Avatar Jump to comment 24 by Eosimias

Yeah, how is that going to work? I'll be in NYC, too.

Sun, 14 Aug 2011 10:22:22 UTC | #860924

Go to: Sorry Deniers, the Oceans are Still Warming as Predicted

Eosimias's Avatar Jump to comment 19 by Eosimias

Comment 18 by Joolz

I am a skeptic about anthropogenic global warming and will probably remain one until I die (unless my death is a direct consequence of something that has been predicted by the global warmongers - and then I won't care).

So you've resigned yourself to not accept something? That's not skepticism. That's denial. "Global warmongers?" Right.

Regardless of what we do or don't do, humanity may or may not live for another few thousand years. After that chances are that an extinction event will happen anyway.

Eventually, yes...

I don't care, and why do you (generic you) care anyway?

About the future of humanity? Seriously? You don't care about the future of humanity, and you have to ask us why we do?

If AGW is real and we end up wiping the planet of its current animal population then what is the real problem?

You just answered your own question.

Evolution will continue and something else will probably, eventually believe itself to be at the top of the next foodchain. Even if nothing evolved, so what? This pretty ball of rock and oceans will continue on its seemingly never ending journey around the sun until the sun burns out.

Oh how bleak. You're so deep and existential. (You don't happen to wear black nail polish, do you?) Nothing matters -- but you signed on here to leave this comment anyway, didn't you?

I won't even touch your rambling, idiotic paragraph about population. I hope you're not an atheist or an American, but I'm embarrassed of you either way. Go crawl back under your rock, and remember not to vote.

Sun, 14 Aug 2011 09:27:11 UTC | #860917