You are looking at posts that were written in the month of October in the year 2008.
Posted on October 31st, 2008 by admin.
Categories: Ranting.
Observer
I want to welcome you aboard and tell you that I look forward to many
mort thoughtful posts from you.
Regards
Psychonomist
On Oct 31, 11:38 am, LePenseur wrote:
> Very good objection. The thought of a God created from ex nihilo does
> not exclude the universe being a brute fact. I strongly agree that
> infinite regress of designers is impossible which creates the need for
> an Uncaused Causer that is atemporal and just is. Doesn’t give any
> reason why the universe does not behave in the same manner. If the
> complexity of life can be explained by a designer, and a designer is
> far more complex than the designed object, whos to say that a Designer
> doesn’t have a Designer? Is it possible that there are more than one
> designers (avoided due to Occam’s Razor ~_~) ?
>
> On Oct 31, 11:24 am, Drafterman wrote:
>
> > On Oct 31, 12:24 pm, In Lite In Me wrote:
>
> > > I suppose we could start with…
>
> > > Origin of Life:
> > > Let us try to determine the most logical explanation for the
> > > existence
> > > of any matter at all rather than no matter given the evidence we all
> > > agree on. One might say, since we exist that is proof enough that
> > > God
> > > exists because something doesn’t come from nothing in our world.
> > > When
> > > I say God, I’m not sure of the image to portray, but understand I do
> > > not necessarily mean a personage like us. I simply mean a creator.
> > > Does this make sense to start with the assumption that we are
> > > created?
>
> > No. It does not make sense to start with the assumption that we are
> > created. Since we shouldn’t assume we are created, there is no need to
> > posit a creator.
>
> > The end!
>
> > P.S. If you think it irrational to say we were not created then
> > perhaps you need to reevaluate whether your creator was created. If
> > your creator was created too, then what created it and how do you
> > avoid an infinite regression. If your creator was not created then
> > clearly you do not have an objection against things that are not
> > created so why can’t the universe itself be uncreated?
>
> > > Colby- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
Posted on October 31st, 2008 by admin.
Categories: Ranting.
This is a fundamentalist position, seeing the world in black and
white. The fallacy of the excluded middle.
On Oct 30, 11:36 pm, Dev wrote:
> I wonder why debate. I really just want the pansy atheists to wake the
> fuck up and realize that this isn’t entirely a problem that can be
> solved with reason. Why the hell would you want to let the bad guys
> gain an advantage from being unreasonable? “Okay, I’m going to endorse
> the way of dealing with the bad guys that has no effect on them and
> get really, really self-righteous about it as if this is somehow not a
> different way of saying I approve of all the terrible consequences of
> what they do.” Sorry, not how it works. You can’t care about other
> people and oppose violence against the unreasonable–that’s completely
> untenable.
>
> On Oct 30, 9:11 pm, “Trance Gemini” wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Dev wrote:
>
> > > Right. Despite all the hypocrisy of Christians and their knowledge of
> > > the Bible, their behavior is very scriptural: nastiness is good,
> > > sanity is bad. If you have anything against rape or genocide or
> > > slavery or misogyny or racism, you hate theists. No way around that
> > > one.
>
> > Well exactly so when they say that stuff it is in fact a very Christian
> > thing to do.
>
> > Why debate? Just tell us to fuck off and that we’ll all burn in hell because
> > we refuse to acknowledge or believe in a delusional fairy tale.
>
> > > On Oct 30, 7:13 pm, “Trance Gemini” wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Dev wrote:
>
> > > > > The difference is this: who are the intelligent theists having theism
> > > > > being unfairly misrepresented by manny? Is there a single theist on
> > > > > this group who is not an embarrassment to theism?
>
> > > > I think they all represent theism very well.
>
> > > > To say they’re an embarrassment to theism is like saying someone is
> > > > unchristian when they’re mean to someone who disagrees with them or their
> > > > behavior..
>
> > > > I don’t think being mean is an unchristian act. In fact, I think (based
> > > on
> > > > direct personal experience) that being mean is a very Christian act and
> > > > quite consistent with their doctrine.
>
> > > > So my response to such behavior is not to tell them they’re being
> > > > Unchristian but tell them they’re behavior is very Christian.
>
> > > > However, there is an expected range of behavior. Some people fit in the
> > > > extremes and some fit in the middle.
>
> > > > To contrast this to
>
> > > > > the atheist embarrassments–Walt, bob, MEG, Bunta–they are
> > > > > embarrassments precisely because of how they side with theists.
>
> > > > > On Oct 30, 3:12 am, “Trance Gemini” wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Dev
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > This _is_ fun, manny.
>
> > > > > > > Okay, all: the meanest things I’ve ever said about theists. Exhibit
> > > A:
> > > > > > > manny. Refute?
>
> > > > > > > Anyone? Have I been too hard on theists? Are they really, really
> > > great
> > > > > > > and should we keep them?
>
> > > > > > Ah Yes. Daffy is a prime example and epitomizes Christian beliefs in
> > > a
> > > > > way
> > > > > > that only Daffy could.
>
> > > > > > I actually feel a little embarrassed for the theist side considering
> > > some
> > > > > of
> > > > > > the bright, shining examples of Christianity we have gracing our
> > > pages
> > > > > here.
>
> > > > > > We have some weird atheists too but it’s all relative really.
>
> > > > > > The weirdest most disliked atheists don’t actually hold a candle to
> > > the
> > > > > > Daffy’s on this site and we usually just dislike them because they
> > > hold
> > > > > > theist positions of some sort.
>
> > > > > > Then of course there’s IATC who either sounds deranged or plagiarizes
> > > his
> > > > > > posts.
>
> > > > > > Stoney has his own delightful and unique charm.
>
> > > > > > It does come in handy though when the more mid-range theists get all
> > > > > > self-righteous and holier than thou about how theism somehow makes
> > > them
> > > > > > better more moral people who behave well, to be able to present them
> > > with
> > > > > a
> > > > > > post by any of the above as well as sewer mouths on this site like
> > > 29Fan.
>
> > > > > > I’ve actually put a couple of posts in my Google Docs folder in GMail
> > > > > just
> > > > > > so that I can do a quick cut and paste and present it to some holier
> > > than
> > > > > > thou theist at an appropriate moment.
>
> > > > > > I feel like I’m doing my duty by ensuring that they don’t get too
> > > > > > “prideful”. ;-)
>
> > > > > > I think I’ll add this one to my collection.
>
> > > > > > > On Oct 29, 6:45 pm, manny wrote:
> > > > > > > > Well did you enjoy it? if not, why don’t you try to do it with
> > > your
> > > > > > > > sister, cause for you it’s normal,
> > > > > > > > and then when you finish with her, try your brother ask for a
> > > blow
> > > > > job
> > > > > > > > from him. How do you like that, my level
> > > > > > > > enjoy it. I know you are not atheist you’re a Jew, how hate
> > > jesus,
> > > > > > > > just like your encester before you HAHAHAHAHAH
> > > > > > > > and how about that old women, isn’t this fun? you’re defending a
> > > > > > > > Jew..
>
> > > > > > > > On 29 Oct, 03:01, Dev wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > I raped Jesus in a Port-o-Potty behind a porn store today, and
> > > He
> > > > > said
> > > > > > > > > to tell you He didn’t feel like saving you anymore because He’d
> > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > just shit blood and die.
>
> > > > > > > > > Just staying on their level, ladies and gents. Don’t want to
> > > > > > > > > _condescend_ or anything.
>
> > > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 7:19 pm, manny wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Well psycho, don’t look for anyone, cause you are, the great
> > > > > satan
> > > > > > > > > > Dave, knower of everything and anything
> > > > > > > > > > Great, Great, Satan Dave the psychopath..
>
> > > > > > > > > > On 28 Oct, 19:39, Psycho Dave
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > There are many great Americans whose names are household
> > > words,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > for whom a lot of admiration, praise, and honor is well
> > > earned.
> > > > > > > When
> > > > > > > > > > > we think about great American literature, names like
> > > William
> > > > > > > Faulkner,
> > > > > > > > > > > Robert Frost, Edgar Allen Poe, John Steinbeck, Mark Twain
> > > and
> > > > > > > Earnest
> > > > > > > > > > > Hemingway are instantly recognized, and seldom challenged
> > > for
> > > > > being
> > > > > > > > > > > included as “greats”.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > When we think of great American inventors and scientists,
> > > who
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > think of excluding people like Albert Einstein, Alexander
> > > > > Graham
> > > > > > > Bell,
> > > > > > > > > > > Ben Franklin, Thomas Edison, Francis Crick or James Watson?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > When we think of people whose work transformed the American
> > > > > social
> > > > > > > > > > > landscape for the better, we usually think of Susan B.
> > > Anthony,
> > > > > > > Martin
> > > > > > > > > > > Luther King, Elizabeth Cady stanton, Rosa Parks and Abraham
> > > > > > > Lincoln.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Many of these notable Americans aren’t merely famous, but
> > > have
> > > > > left
> > > > > > > > > > > important, positive, and indellible contributions to our
> > > > > histroy,
> > > > > > > > > > > welfare, and well being as Americans.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > What I’d like to know, is which people in American history,
> > > who
> > > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > > > > great, universally-recognized positive contributions to
> > > > > Literature,
> > > > > > > > > > > science, social justice, humanitarianism, etc, are
> > > EVANGELICAL
> > > > > > > > > > > FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Qualifications:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > (1) The contribution must be universally regarded by
> > > American
> > > > > > > history
> > > > > > > > > > > as being significant and contributing greatly to the
> > > betterment
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > America and/or the world — So much so that no history of
> > > > > American
> > > > > > > > > > > literature, science, social justice, politics,
> > > philanthropy,
> > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > excludes them.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > (2) They must be Evangelical Fundamentalist Christians –
> > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > Catholic, Not Eastern orthodox, not Christian Scientist,
> > > not
> > > > > > > Mormon.
> > > > > > > > > > > They must ascribe to the Christian Fundamentalist doctrines
> > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > creationism and biblical literalism. (I think this only
> > > goes
> > > > > back
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > the 1820’s)
>
> > > > > > > > > > > (3) They should be reasonably famous, and biographical info
> > > > > should
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > readily available on them when doing a search on the web.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > I have already done this for Great Americans who are
> > > Atheists.
>
> > >http://priscusforem.blogspot.com/2008/02/great-americans-who-were-ath.
> > > > > ..
>
> > > > > > > > > > > I know that right off, Martin Luther King is the first (and
> > > > > only)
> > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > to come to mind. I need help in finding others. I know
> > > plenty
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > Catholics and greats of other denominations that aren’t
> > > > > neccesarily
> > > > > > > > > > > Fundamentalists.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks!- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text — Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text — Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > –
> > > > > > Trance Gemini, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
>
> > > > > > “We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at
> > > our
> > > > > > peril, risk and hazard.” ~Voltaire, Dictionnaire
>
> …
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Posted on October 31st, 2008 by admin.
Categories: Ranting.
On Oct 31, 4:02 pm, LL wrote:
> On Oct 30, 6:52 pm, “Timothy 1:4a” wrote:
>
> > Talk to parents of Down Syndrome kids. A lot of them wouldn’t trade
> > for an average kid; they find theirs too lovable. And it’s not just
> > the parents. These kids are generally regarded as lovable by those who
> > get to know them.
>
> LL: They may be lovable, but they are also at risk. They die early,
> they almost all get a form of Alzheimer’s at an earlier age than non
> Down’s people, they suffer many health problems, they usually can
> never live on their own. I, for one, would not want to sentence a
> child of mine to a life like that if I had a choice before the child
> was born.
I agree. I know someone who decided to abort a Downs child and later
regretted it, but I still think they were right the first time.
> Timothy: Obviously, they are not loved for their intellectual
> qualities.
>
> LL: Nobody loves their kids for their intellectual qualities.
That’s another example that we do, and that we should, value other
things in addition to intellectual excellence. No one should be
dismissed just because they have a dumb idea.
I’m very bright - most of the atheists in this group are - but there
was a time in my life when I was one of the brightest and one of the
saddest people that I knew. By the time I got out of it I had learned
to value many other qualities in people… and care about them.
> ****************************************
>
> **************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 30, 8:19 pm, Dag Yo wrote:
>
> > > Interesting. I think perhaps I am not such a nice person with regard
> > > to such things as you.
>
> > > I would rather know such truths (which I find awe-inspiring anyway)
> > > myself, and I’m not bothered by telling others about such thing either
> > > for if the find it awe-inspiring it is a good thing, if they find it
> > > merely trivial it doesn’t do anything, and if they find that it
> > > decreases their quality of life I don’t much care because it’s too
> > > easy for me to think of them as fools for whom knowledge is something
> > > to be feared (and I lose respect for them anyway).
>
> > > On Oct 30, 2:53 pm, “Timothy 1:4a” wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 29, 8:36 pm, Dag Yo wrote:
>
> > > > > > But I’m the one who kicked off the discussion by warning LL that it
> > > > > > was possible to discourage people by teaching them, or half-teaching
> > > > > > them, that their actions are determined. I stand by that.
>
> > > > > Umm…well whats your point.
>
> > > > Just that determinism can be confused with fatalism, and fatalism is a
> > > > known discourager that tends to decrease quality of life.
>
> > > > If we think fatalism harms people, we should avoid making people
> > > > fatalistic.
>
> > > > > I’m sure there are plenty of things you
> > > > > can teach people (both true and false things) that will change their
> > > > > out-look for the better or worse. I’m sure there are people that that
> > > > > would be discouraged to learn that speciation occurs when the
> > > > > population of a single species gets split into two geographical
> > > > > location, but I fail to see the importance of whether or not anyone
> > > > > finds such things discouraging or even uplifting — the fact that it
> > > > > is true remains nonetheless.
>
> > > > > And the same is true for free-will. If someone finds the notion that
> > > > > they don’t have it discouraging then that’s a personal problem and I
> > > > > don’t see why anyone would need a warning about such things.
>
> > > > > Not that I can’t think of some things that, were they to be true i’d
> > > > > rather no know about it, but the workings of the universe certainly
> > > > > doesn’t belong in that category.
>
> > > > > On Oct 29, 4:12 pm, “Timothy 1:4a” wrote:
>
> > > > > > I also agree with that.
>
> > > > > > But I’m the one who kicked off the discussion by warning LL that it
> > > > > > was possible to discourage people by teaching them, or half-teaching
> > > > > > them, that their actions are determined. I stand by that.
>
> > > > > > You can change someone’s behavior by reminding them of something they
> > > > > > forgot; or by shooting a gun at them, even if you miss; or by
> > > > > > convincing them, perhaps without intending to do so, that their
> > > > > > decisions and plans are futile.
>
> > > > > > Words have power. If my words to LL help determine her response to
> > > > > > some naive poster, when she realizes said poster has been discouraged
> > > > > > by her philosophy, then my words will have accomplished something.
>
> > > > > > On Oct 29, 7:46 pm, Dag Yo wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > LL: Nah. They say that anyway. The point is we can’t consciously
> > > > > > > > > DECIDE what to think or say even if we’re given what you call a
> > > > > > > > > simplistic concept of determinism. That’s the point. Everyone’s
> > > > > > > > > thoughts, actions, and words are determined by UNconscious factors
> > > > > > > > > over which we have no control, not conscious ones. The above would
> > > > > > > > > imply conscious ones and some kind of independent control, which I
> > > > > > > > > don’t think we have.
>
> > > > > > > > > In other words, tell someone he has no control and he’ll do exactly
> > > > > > > > > what he would have done if he hadn’t been told that.
>
> > > > > > > > > *****************************************
>
> > > > > > > > No, not necessarily true. Your words can affect the outcome. If
> > > > > > > > someone believes you, it can be a very powerful change in their mental
> > > > > > > > state.
>
> > > > > > > Read LL’s reply to me. She isn’t saying that words can’t affect one’s
> > > > > > > mental state she’s saying that no one has any control over what what
> > > > > > > their brains are going to do. Or to quote her: “The point I was
> > > > > > > making is that we can’t stand outside our mental processes and
> > > > > > > independently decide on some action”.
>
> > > > > > > On Oct 29, 2:57 pm, “Timothy 1:4a” wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Oct 29, 2:06 am, LL wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Timothy 1:4a wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > If you give people a sophisticated concept of determinism, you only
> > > > > > > > > > help them. Maybe you remember my post about how a parent who believes
> > > > > > > > > > in determinism should do everything in its power to give its kids a
> > > > > > > > > > healthy attitude toward taking control of their own lives, basically
> > > > > > > > > > FORCING the kids to have a good life.
>
> > > > > > > > > > But if you give people a simplistic concept of determinism, they start
> > > > > > > > > > saying, “I couldn’t help it” and “It isn’t my fault” and “I can’t do
> > > > > > > > > > anything about the way I act.”
>
> > > > > > > > > LL: Nah. They say that anyway. The point is we can’t consciously
> > > > > > > > > DECIDE what to think or say even if we’re given what you call a
> > > > > > > > > simplistic concept of determinism. That’s the point. Everyone’s
> > > > > > > > > thoughts, actions, and words are determined by UNconscious factors
> > > > > > > > > over which we have no control, not conscious ones. The above would
> > > > > > > > > imply conscious ones and some kind of independent control, which I
> > > > > > > > > don’t think we have.
>
> > > > > > > > > In other words, tell someone he has no control and he’ll do exactly
> > > > > > > > > what he would have done if he hadn’t been told that.
>
> > > > > > > > > *****************************************
>
> > > > > > > > No, not necessarily true. Your words can affect the outcome. If
> > > > > > > > someone believes you, it can be a very powerful change in their mental
> > > > > > > > state.
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 2:13 pm, LL wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Timothy 1:4a wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > I don’t think I’m overlooking that and I still think I have a valid
> > > > > > > > > > > point. I have seen empowered, enthusiastic people and I have seen
> > > > > > > > > > > passive, discouraged people and as you know the difference is huge.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > LL: I don’t see the connection to determinism in these sentences.
> > > > > > > > > > > Maybe you wouldn’t mind explaining it to me.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > ********************************************
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 27, 1:46 am, LL wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > LL: I don’t call it PRE-determined. To me, that implies a pre-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > determiner. I say things are determined by unconscious factors–
> > > > > > > > > > > > > including experience, environment, and those factors change every
> > > > > > > > > > > > > moment.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that’s a good distinction.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > We don’t know what they are or how much influence they have on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > us. We all like to think we’re in control, and we will probably
> > > > > > > > > > > > > continue to think we are. Since that is the case, there isn’t much
> > > > > > > > > > > > > chance of finding ourselves thinking we shouldn’t try. Whether we try
> > > > > > > > > > > > > or not and whether we want to try or not are determined by other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > factors, not our conscious minds.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Timothy: Yes, I agree it can help our understanding to realize that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > someone
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > else is stuck in a predetermined rut, and make us feel less vindictive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > toward them. But even here we must be careful. If we all need a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > misbehaving person to improve their behavior, there have to be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > consequences - not necessarily punishment, but consequences - or they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > will not change.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > LL But you overlook the fact that we are determined to think there are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > consequences to misbehavior. When we think of it consciously, the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > decision to do so has already been made by our own unconscious
> > > > > > > > > > > > > factors. I look at it this way: We see things consciously as if it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > were on a tape delay. We don’t know it until it’s already happened.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Then we analyze it and assume we made the decision independently.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ******************************
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > I don’t think
>
> …
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -