You are looking at posts that were written in the month of June in the year 2008.
Posted on June 30th, 2008 by admin.
Categories: Ranting.
On Jun 28, 9:10 pm, Drafterman wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2:16 pm, Alan Wostenberg wrote:
>
> > On Jun 28, 4:45 am, Drafterman wrote:
>
> > > The point is to discover the world as it is, not as some dusty old
> > > book tells me how it is.
>
> > And how shall I discover the world as it it is? To set upon that good
> > goal, is to have a prior belief that the world is the kind of thing
> > that is knowable. Nobody sets out to discover “I wonder if the world
> > is knowable?”. That the world is knowable is a faith postulate, for
> > the atheist. Not so, for the Christian.
>
> Actually it is not a faith postulate. Rather it is the only acceptable
> outcome.
> If the world is knowable, then we can attempt to know it.
> If the world is not knowable, then we wouldn’t know that it is not
> knowable, since knowing that it is not knowable requires us to know
> something about it.
> Ergo, the world is knowable.
D, I can’t put my finger on what’s wrnog. Maybe you can. Let’s s/world/
God:
The point is to discover God as he is.
If God is knowable, we can attempt to know Him.
If God is not knowable, then we would not know He is not knowabe,
since knowing that He is not knowable requires is to know something
about Him.
Ergo, God is knowable.
The statement “the point is to discover God as he is” is equivalent to
the statement “the point is to know the world as it is”. If one is
valid, so is the other. Your thoughts?
I’d like to step back a bit. To Nik’s original “what is the point of
your belief or lack of”, you answered “The point is…”. But can any
atheist answer for all atheists? While Christians do say the point is
to know and love God, there is no X for which all atheists would agree
“the point is X”. Hence, the true atheist must admit there is no
point. Life is pointless.
Posted on June 30th, 2008 by admin.
Categories: Ranting.
Keith - Well, that surprised me ( but perhaps no-one else, I’m not
glued to this crap like some of you), the “Ambassador from Hell”,
scourge of Dev, and slinger of unwitty insults without end, is gay?
Damn! I used to like gay people, too, but now I know that you are one
of them I’ll have to tar them all with the same brush and declare them
all to be (sore) assholes…. like any good bible-believing Christian
would.
On Jun 30, 11:52 pm, “Keith MacNevins” wrote:
> As a young man I recall going to an internist to discuss some health issues.
> I was quite intrigued when the doctor expressed his opinion to me that it
> was by choice that I was gay. After discussing it further and asking him
> whether he chose to be straight, I have been fascinated ever since with his
> take on the subject. He believes that homosexuality is “fun,” and that is
> the reason why some men prefer it. Also, that it is entirely narcissistic (a
> form of self-love and self-indulgence). Well, I do not agree with the
> doctor, but I thought it was worth bringing that up for comment.
>
> On 6/30/08, Drafterman wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Is that guy serious? We’re gay because of
> > pharmacies? How the hell does that explain homosexuality in
> > antquitity?
>
> > I mean it’s fucking addressed by the Bible, you can’t exactly blame it
> > on CVS.
>
> > On Jun 30, 4:58 pm, MEG wrote:
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa/browse_thread/thread/…
>
> > > On Jun 15, 7:11 pm, tln…@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > > > From: BlueSci
>
> > > > Date: Sun, Jun 15, 10:58 am, tln…@bellsouth.net wrote:>
> > Homosexuality
> > > > > == 1 of 3 ==
> > > > > Date: Sun, Jun 15 2008 8:41 am
> > > > > From: tln…@bellsouth.net>>The problem with Christianity is that
> > you have two
>
> > > > schools. One school believes in Predestination (you are pre damned to
> > hell),
> > > > and the other school believes that all men can be saved by the hearing
> > of the
> > > > gospel.
>
> > > > How do you know either is right?
> > > > If the predestination folks are right – you’ll end up in heaven whether
> > you want to or not. And no your friends will not all be there. If the
> > other school who believe that all men have to make up their own minds is
> > right, then you can go to hell for not accepting the free gift being handed
> > to you. ..thea
>
> > > > > >>The school that believes that all can be saved, has had its voice
> > silenced
>
> > > > by the other school as being false.> >>However, God does not condemn us
> > to hell, Jesus so loved each of us that HE
>
> > > > died to make a sacrifice for us so that we could live in heaven with
> > HIM
> > > > forever.Jesus does not condemn us because once we believe that God
> > raised Jesus
> > > > from the dead our sins are no more, past, present, and future. AND
> > SINCE WHEN
> > > > IS ANYONE OF US WITHOUT SIN!!!! ONLY ONE SIN IS WORSE THAN ALL THE
> > OTHERS — and that is to not believe that there is a GOD who loves us.
>
> > > > Worse than murder or rape? (Oh wait…the bible doesn’t list rape as
> > > > a sin.) I dunno, I think I’d rather spend eternity in hell with
> > > > atheists than in heaven with rapists and murderers.
> > > > For myself, I will accept the free gift because it will be all eternity
> > – for ever, that I will live in light. The problem is hell is going to be
> > in you. You will not be with other people like you – you will be alone in
> > your hellish state. Hell is a place of darkness - like living in a cold
> > black hole in the universe – all by your lonesome….thea- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> –
> Ambassador From Hell
> KeithAll rights reserved
Posted on June 30th, 2008 by admin.
Categories: Ranting.
On Jun 30, 10:24Â pm, Neil Kelsey wrote:
> On Jun 30, 7:12Â pm, Walt wrote:
>
> > On Jun 30, 12:40Â pm, rappoccio wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 29, 11:11Â pm, Walt wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 29, 9:30Â pm, rappoccio wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 29, 7:56Â pm, Walt wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 29, 5:17Â pm, rappoccio wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 29, 2:54 am, Walt wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 28, 11:28 pm, rappoccio wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > It seems that Walt has a problem with two things:
>
> > > > > > > > > 1) Starting new threads for the same stupid analogies that aren’t any
> > > > > > > > > different than his previous stupid analogies.
>
> > > > > > > > > 2) That the anti-theist argument is not a slippery slope argument.
>
> > > > > > > > > Definition of the slippery slope argument from Wikipedia:
>
> > > > > > > > > “In debate or rhetoric, the slippery slope is one of the classical
> > > > > > > > > informal fallacies. It suggests that an action will initiate a chain
> > > > > > > > > of events culminating in an undesirable event later without
> > > > > > > > > establishing or quantifying the relevant contingencies. The argument
> > > > > > > > > is sometimes referred to as the thin end of the wedge or the camel’s
> > > > > > > > > nose. While the term sees a broader pragmatic usage, especially
> > > > > > > > > outside of the context of logic, rhetoric and philosophy, the term
> > > > > > > > > specifically refers to a fallacious argument. Arguments that provide a
> > > > > > > > > well-supported chain of contingencies are not slippery slope
> > > > > > > > > arguments. The term “slippery slope” is often used synonymically with
> > > > > > > > > continuum fallacy, in that it assumes there is no gray area and there
> > > > > > > > > must be a definite transition at a certain point from category A to
> > > > > > > > > category B.”
>
> > > > > > > > > Not a single anti-theist is making the argument that theism is a
> > > > > > > > > slippery slope down which eventual bad things will occur. They are
> > > > > > > > > claiming that it is a bad thing to begin with. No slippery slope. It’s
> > > > > > > > > already on the bottom.
>
> > > > > > > > > The argument, yet again, goes like this:
>
> > > > > > > > > Basing some decisions on “dogmatic religious faith” justifies basing
> > > > > > > > > ANY decision on “dogmatic religious faith”. Regardless of the outcome,
> > > > > > > > > the basis of decision on dogmatic religious faith is unfounded.
> > > > > > > > > Therefore bad actions from such bases are no worse justified than good
> > > > > > > > > actions from such bases.
>
> > > > > > > > > Now let’s see if Walt can get it right for once.
>
> > > > > > > > The article you quote indicates there is an
> > > > > > > > alternate meaning for slippery slope, which
> > > > > > > > they call “continuum fallacy”
>
> > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy
>
> > > > > > > > This is the meaning I am using. Â Particular
> > > > > > > > theist beliefs are on a continuum from evil
> > > > > > > > to benign to good, as determined by secular
> > > > > > > > morality. Â You correctly point out there is
> > > > > > > > nothing that prevents a theist belief from
> > > > > > > > being extremely evil. Â You conclude that,
> > > > > > > > therefore, all religious beliefs must be
> > > > > > > > considered extremely evil. Â That is
> > > > > > > > a continuum fallacy/slippery slope. I
> > > > > > > > personally don’t consider this type
> > > > > > > > to slippery slope to be a true fallacy,
> > > > > > > > just a very weak argument.
>
> > > > > > > > You anti-theists are at some level aware
> > > > > > > > you are only showing a very minimal level
> > > > > > > > of general riskiness to theist belief. So
> > > > > > > > you argue there is no reason to tolerate
> > > > > > > > any level of risk because all theist
> > > > > > > > belief is useless. Â But as far as I
> > > > > > > > have seen, that tactic always leads
> > > > > > > > to the circular argument that I
> > > > > > > > refer to as the anti-theist merry-go-
> > > > > > > > round.
>
> > > > > > > There’s no continuum fallacy either. We think basing decisions on
> > > > > > > dogmatic assertions already, before doing anything, gives credence to
> > > > > > > immoral action and is in and of itself wrong.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > I disagree.
>
> > > > > The fact that you disagree doesn’t make your analogy or your statement
> > > > > that it’s a slippery slope argument correct. In fact, since it’s our
> > > > > argument to begin with, your disagreement is absolutely unimportant.
>
> > > > > > The concept of a theist belief does
> > > > > > not require any compliance of the thiest
> > > > > > belief to rational secular morality.
>
> > > > > Indeed it doesn’t. Yet all of them justify all of the others.
> > > > > Therefore the moderates give an umbrella to the lunatics.
>
> > > > > > This complete ambiguity allows for a
> > > > > > continuum of theist beliefs with
> > > > > > very good direct results
>
> > > > > You’re dense, Walt. Seriously. Brick-wall dense. Or totally dishonest.
> > > > > I can’t decide.
>
> > > > > We’ve stated A HUNDRED TIMES that it doesn’t matter what the outcome
> > > > > is. WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SOMETIMES PEOPLE DO GOOD THINGS BECAUSE OF
> > > > > THEISM. That doesn’t make the stupid reasons less stupid or that we
> > > > > should challenge them less.
>
> > > > > You’re trying desperately to make an argument for us that we don’t
> > > > > agree with. This isn’t the “Continuum fallacy”. We are not talking
> > > > > about the outcomes. We’re talking about the justifications. In terms
> > > > > of the justifications, they are ALREADY BAD. No slippery slope. No
> > > > > judgment of degrees of badness. All equally bad. Why you can’t
> > > > > understand this is beyond me.
>
> > > > > Why is it that you can’t understand this?
>
> > > > > > (as evaluated
> > > > > > by rational secular morality) to those
> > > > > > with very evil direct results. Â It is a
> > > > > > valid point to say that eliminating all
> > > > > > theist belief eliminates the evil
> > > > > > results. Â It also eliminates the good
> > > > > > results.
>
> > > > > And yet, we aren’t bothered by this. Why? Because people can do good
> > > > > things for rational reasons as well as they can for irrational ones.
>
> > > > > > Â You argue that the good
> > > > > > results can be obtained without
> > > > > > theism, but I don’t think we can be
> > > > > > sure of this.
>
> > > > > I don’t really care about your opinion on the matter.
>
> > > > > > Â I think this weak
> > > > > > argument from ambiguity is not
> > > > > > reason enough to condemn a theist
> > > > > > belief system that:
>
> > > > > There is no argument from ambiguity except in your ill-formed own
> > > > > arguments. We aren’t making the arguments you pretend we’re making.
>
> > > > > I’m very close to the discontinuation of our discourse, Walt, because
> > > > > you’re a dishonest debater. You refuse to address the arguments we’re
> > > > > making and instead raise countless red herrings.
>
> > > > > So I’ll let you have the last word. If your last words happen to
> > > > > respond to the arguments in question, I’ll respond. If not, buh-bye.
>
> > > > Good religious belief lends justification to evil religious
> > > > belief only in the sense that it says it’s OK to have
> > > > religious beliefs. Â
>
> > > You finally got it! I’m impressed! As promised, I will reply.
>
> > Yes I’ve always agreed with this. Â I don’t see
> > why you find this fact so conclusive.
>
> > > > The existence of the US government
> > > > lends justification to the existence of the military
> > > > government of Burma in the same sense, that it says
> > > > it’s OK to have a government.
> > > >Â Not a conclusive
> > > > argument that we should have no government.
>
> > > Except that the justification for both are different, so this, as
> > > usual, is a red herring argument.
>
> > > The justification for a democracy is that the will of the people is
> > > represented and they collectively decide to have a stable and
> > > partially regulated lifestyle (laws, etc). The justification of
> > > military dictatorship is that it is present to give power to few at
> > > the expense of the many.
>
> > Military governments do provide some services to the populace.
> > When there ceases to be a small net benefit to the majority, they
> > are overthrown. Â It can be said that there is much more
> > justification for the US Government than the Burmese Government.
> > The justification for the Burmese Government is so
> > inadequate, the small bit of justification it gets because
> > there are no anarchies is insignificant.
>
> > Human beings want things (to stay alive, to
> > eat ice cream, etc.). Â Rational secular morality
> > is the game-theory-based mutual respect we
> > have for each other’s wants. Â The purpose
> > is for each individual to maximize the
> > expected value of the net satisfaction
> > of their wants. Â Any time we don’t respect
> > peoples desires, there is an evil aspect
> > to it. Â In many cases, like with the
> > desire to commit crimes, the desire
> > itself represents a greater disrespect
> > for the wants of others. Â So there is
> > a net benefit to not respecting it. Â Many
> > people want to hold benign theist beliefs.
> > If you don’t respect that, there is an
> > evil aspect to doing so.
>
> Can you define “evil” for me? I tend to dismiss it as a throwaway
> Biblical word that explains nothing.
Evil here means going against rational
secular morality.
>Â The offseting
> > benefit, preventing the lending of
> > creedence to malignent beliefs, seems
> > very weak. Â I agree it’s a logical
> > possibitlity, but I don’t see where
> > you’ve given evidence of the it really
> > happening. Â So I have to think that
> > anti-theism is a net evil under rational
> > secular morality.
>
> > Most religious belief systems are primarily good but
> > have a signigicant qualtity of evil beliefs. Â Islam
> > and Catholicism are good examples. Â In these cases,
> > we can contribute to resolving the problem with
> > these sorts of arguments:
>
> > 1) Â Communication from God is ambiguous at
> > best. Â God’s brain is not really accessable to
> > you, you’re stuck with using your own.
> > 2) Â The central command of your faith is
> > reciprocity.
> > 3) Â If God wanted thoughtless obedience,
> > there would be no people, only dogs. Â The
> > fact that you have intelligence is a big
> > hint you are probably supposed to use it.
> > The other …
>
> > read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -