51. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240346 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 11:29 am

"Science incontrovertibly shows that you shouldn't have sex with your relatives, and I am sure that I need not to explain why."

Yes, you need explain; science does not say anything so simple.

One can describe what incest causes, but there is a hidden or assumed premise:

1) Continued sibling incest can lead to various medical problems. This idea is supported by science, though not not all incest is bad, but only continued sibling incest.
2) We ought not intentionally cause such medical problems in offspring. Science cannot tell us that those medical conditions are bad. We may all agree that they are, but this is an assumption.
3) Therefore one ought not engage in continued sibling incest.

Science informed the above argument, but science alone could not make it. Some criteria had to exist outside of science for premise two. The very concept of something being "bad" is a moral judgement. Premise two presupposes the existence of a moral code. Using this argument to show that a moral code can come from science is circular at best.

52. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240340 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 11:21 am

"that humanity's search for this absolute morality is evidence of god's existence."

There's a complete non-sequitur if I ever heard one. But of course thats what Lewis was best at.

It is not unreasonable to propose that humanity's search for absolute morality is evidence of the desire for the existence of a god. But that's quite different. However, I personally do not search for absolute morality, nor do I desire a god.

53. Secularists have a right to maintain their ethos

Comment #240319 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 10:47 am

"an uncritical acceptance which would never be accorded religious faith"

Awe hell. I need to go back to bed, I clearly did not wake up to reality today.

54. MythBuster Adam Savage: 3 Ways to Fix U.S. Science Education

Comment #240318 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 10:44 am

Yes phiwilli, some students will be into science no matter how badly it is presented, and some will be against it no matter how well it is presented. But good teaching is looking for two things:

1) get those undecided or apathetic kids in the middle to take an interest, and
2) allow the interested students to achieve more.

I like you was interested in science regardless, but I often wonder how much more I could have achieved if the information was presented well. How much more could our society achieve? These are not empty questions, we are fighting the clock on many diseases, every year a cure for aids or cancer is delayed that many more people die. We need students not simply to make it through, we need them to achieve their full potential.

55. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240306 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 10:11 am

"Science cannot help us, for it is only ever descriptive..."

Science cannot give us the "answers" or a moral code. But I'd say it can certainly help though I don't imagine you meant to imply that science couldn't help at all.

Understanding physiology and embryonic development has contributed to the discussion on the morality of abortion. Such studies to not give any answers, but they serve to inform the decision and often eliminate the black-and-white status of life versus non-life.

56. Animal Intelligence and the Evolution of the Human Mind

Comment #240295 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 9:50 am

"to rejoin the debate rather late..."

Wow. I hadn't read the whole thread to realize that we had someone posting under the name John Locke. I thought MPhil was making reference to the actual philosopher....

57. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240284 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 9:12 am

Decius,

I have to disagree with you about the findings of evolutionary psychology, and I'd appreciate if it you could provide a source for the claim that evolutionary psychology has been having success in describing a moral system we ought to subscribe to.

In addition to that the last couple pages have had is/ought fallacies plastered about without any notice. Yes our brains have evolved to consider certain things right or wrong, or good or evil. But that is no reason to willfully adopt and expand on those evolved preferences. Evolutionary psychology HAS certainly demonstrated a lot of the preferences and decision making strategies of the human mind that in fact lead us to a WRONG conclusion more often than not; if anyone doubts this I can cite a library of references on this. So even if our brains are "wired" to have certain morals that says nothing about the correctness or virtue of said morals.

Secondly, even if I were to concede the ludicrous idea that our evolved moral standards were perfect that certainly does not lead to objective or absolute morals. Our intelligence is an evolved characteristic, but not everyones' intelligence is identical. We each have evolved moral preferences and many of them will be similar to other peoples, but not all of them. Additionally as I pointed out earlier evolution is not goal oriented process, it is absurd to claim that we are evolving to a state of absolute objective morals unless you also think there is some deity or outside force guiding evolution, which is nonsense and I wish that could go without saying.

58. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240115 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 10:51 pm

"I'm afraid that America will fall behind"

Will? Unfortunately we're past that. America DID fall behind.

59. Animal Intelligence and the Evolution of the Human Mind

Comment #240113 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 10:42 pm

EDIT: The following is in response to Kraut's post that seems to have vanished.

That one is factual I agree. Perhaps I was too harsh and I apologize. There were other statements in that same post however that I can easily falsify.

The human ability to thrive is shared however with what we consider to be the most vile of viruses and parasites. I hardly see it as something to brag about.

One critique: If our abilities developed "beyond the purely survival" level what was the source of this development? If design was added to the system what was the source? As far as I know natural selection is the only source of apparent design in the universe and the statement that our cognitive abilities developed for purposes beyond survival (I'm assuming you also meant beyond reproduction as well) implies that natural selection (or sexual selection) were not the causes of these abilities.

"The ability to formulate abstract concepts - the "future" is one of them, the capability of problem solving first in thinking through, of conceptualising processes and then altering those is afaik exclusively human."

This is the one that really set me off, as it is plainly false as demonstrated most recently on this site in reference to the work of Nicky Clayton at Cambridge.

Then in your last line: "This gives us a superiority..."

Frankly that just does not follow from anything in your post.

60. Animal Intelligence and the Evolution of the Human Mind

Comment #240107 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 10:23 pm

"I was not talking about intrinsic value or anything - simply about cognition, conceptualization, intelligence, mentality."

In that case I find myself in complete agreement with both of your posts. To reiterate my line that you quoted: "I do not disagree," but I wanted to raise awareness on what I see as a concern.

Many people who write as you did, or read what you wrote, make the jump from the unique abilities of humans to the value judgement of human superiority. This is troubling, and I see it as a potential cause of many problems in society.

Anyhow, it seems we are in agreement, thats no fun, some moron needs to come pick a fight or there is nothing to debate. :o)

As far as the "wonders of being a bee" I was taking some poetic license and speaking somewhat metaphorically. I don't know if they are capable of anything similar to wonder, though I cannot rule it out. They do have drives and motivations even if they do not conceptualize them. Neither I nor any other human nor other animal for that matter needs to understand or conceptualize sex to enjoy the act. In fact most if not all pleasurable experiences evolved to be pleasurable for the very fact that they achieved some goal or fulfilled some drive. The bees are just as capable of that.

61. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240100 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 10:12 pm

I do think the job application analogy is useful.

But when you look at your hiring process and realize the last guy who was hired and had his contract renewed ran the company into the ground.... well, maybe the application review criteria should be revised.

All that of course is unless you really are in the minority of one or two americans who actually still thinks Bush was a good choice.

62. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240096 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 10:08 pm

Yes experience could be a valuable thing. But it could also be a bad thing.

Personally I'm tired of the professional politicians. It is said that lawyers are good at one thing: Lying. Well politicians are good at two things: lying, and fucking over the public.

I'd say the less experience someone has with that the better.

I'm not an Obama supporter (though at the moment he seems to be the lesser of two evils) but rather I'm playing devils advocate.

63. It's no wonder evangelical atheists need to shout so loud

Comment #240094 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 10:05 pm

There is a bit more to the irony than that.

A theist referring to atheist dogma as an insult is like an italian calling someone a whop as an insult.

64. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240089 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 9:59 pm

"If this website must be a commentary on the United States political atmosphere it should at least be unbiased and objective. "

Well this article just happens to be about McCain. There have been other threads that were quite unabashedly bashing Obama.

I'd say this site as a whole is quite unbiased and objective; that doesn't mean every critique of one candidate must be paired with an equally harsh critique of the other.

65. Animal Intelligence and the Evolution of the Human Mind

Comment #240084 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 9:55 pm

"Furthermore - let me ask - do you [think] a bee needs to cognitively, consciously "work out", conceptualize how to dance? "

No, but neither do I see that as a detractor of their ability. Quite the opposite in fact, they can do more with less.

If the question is merely a measure of cognition and conceptualization ability then I would say humans do come out on top. My point is about the inherent value judgements that cognition and conceptualization are the most meaningful criteria. Why should they be? Don't get me wrong, I think they are wonderful characteristics and one of the joys of being human but they are just one quality among many.

Athletes by their nature value athletic ability, academics by their nature value book learning, and artists by their nature value creativity. Few would accept the arrogance of an athlete who thought his athletic ability put him above academics and artists, and similarly few would accept the arrogance of an academic who thought their knowledge put him above other members of society, and again similar for the artist.

Yet people do not notice the arrogance in saying that it is our ability to study and learn, paint and create, and engage in olympic events that puts us above the animals that do not engage in such activities.

The athlete may pride himself in his athletic ability but nothing more that he has not earned. The artist can pride himself in his creativity but nothing more that he has not earned. We humans can pride ourselves in that which we are good at such as language, conceptualization, and cognition without claiming superiority we have not earned.

The athlete due to his lack of education may not even know about the wonders of science of which he is ignorant, would he then be justified in claiming he was the best in every measure he was aware of? All of us who have engaged in academic pursuits have found that the more we learn the more we find we have yet to learn, so it is not unthinkable that the most uneducated of people would be the least aware of their own ignorance.

We humans, due to our lack of experiencing the life of a bee may not be aware of the wonders of being bee. Even if we are the best in every measure that we can fathom, which we certainly are not, we would still not be justified in our all-encompassing arrogance.

In conclusion, yes we have the potentially unique and amazing capabilities of cognition and conceptualization and in that we should have pride. But there our pride should end. Our traits are not justification for our placing ourselves above any other organisms.

I understand that people may feel good in setting themselves above and apart from the rest of the world, it is a similar good feeling the theist draws from knowing they are a "child of god." The feel-good effect is as similar as the lack of a basis for such belief, and I find that it is much more wondrous and much more inspiring of good feelings to realize we are part of the tree of life, not the peak of it; we are part of the universe, not the masters of it.

Much as psychologists and criminal justice specialists have known for years that there is a high correlation between cruelty to animals and violent crime, I suspect there is a correlation between those who wish to place themselves above animals and those who have contempt for their fellow man. It is a false dichotomy to think we must either be better than animals or we cannot have pride at all just as it is a false dichotomy to think either my country must be better than others or I cannot have any pride in my nationality at all.

Also we need not feel superior to value human life over animal life. This is relevant as a common objection I hear when I claim humans are not superior to animals is along the lines of:

"So if it was between a human dying and a gerbil dying you would not see a difference?"

Of course I see a difference. I am human and I value human life above a gerbils life (in most cases). But I do not need to set human life as objectively superior to gerbil life to make that conclusion. Humans are social animals which means our fellow man is a valuable resource to us, gerbils are not so valuable of a resource. That discrepancy means that we will place a higher value on human life. Again this is not however because we are objectively superior in any way. I admit my in-group membership in the human race and I admit my desire to protect that human race, not because we are "better", but because I am a member of "we".

Pride can exist without arrogance. If we fail to achieve such a state I suspect it will lead to many other failings.

66. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240066 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 8:31 pm

Broshiesq,

Did you forget to take your meds?

I don't know what your problem is, but in any case: Fuck off.

You have a lot of nerve calling me chauvinistic when you penned the line:

I thought it was women who were supposed to be the more predictable gender.

67. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240063 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 8:25 pm

Scratch that, the second version changes the subject of the sentence. I suppose it should be as follows:

Creationists are not things such that one should be afraid of them.

Ah, its much clearer now. I suspect this verbose expansion would make the complex sentences you speak of more clear.

Wait....

I suspect this verbose expansion would make those things of which you speak when you speak of complex sentence more clear.

68. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240060 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 8:16 pm

Laurie, creationists are nothing to be afraid of.

Wait, damn it, I suppose I have to say: afraid of creationists is nothing to be.

Really, is the second version more clear?

69. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240058 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 8:14 pm

Well this is a bit outside my field, but every linguist I've read states that the rule is just a hold over from latin and makes most english sentences harder to understand.

70. Animal Intelligence and the Evolution of the Human Mind

Comment #240055 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 8:06 pm

Ahh, so because I didn't share your asinine and unfounded hatred for someone neither of us know you assume I would not be well read or interested in any legitimate subjects?

I do believe that says more about you than about me.

71. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240052 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 8:00 pm

I think Joe Pesci in "With Honors" had a better reply than Winston Churchill to such criticisms:

Joe: "Which door do I leave from?"
Professor: "Here at Harvard we do not end a sentence with a preposition."
Joe: "Okay. Which door do I leave from ASSHOLE?!"

Only curmudgeon prescriptivist grammarians who studied more latin than any other subject support such a foolish rule. A majority of modern English grammar books have dropped that nonsense.

Edit: I should say American English grammar books. I wouldn't put it past the Brits to still dwell on such rules.

72. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240046 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 7:55 pm

"J Mac, the success with which you were blessed in not ending your sentence like I did, I must admit, was pretty funny. "

Broshiesq, if you would actually like to appear witty I have a piece of advice: Read a book!

If my line seemed original you are clearly out of touch as it is a classic line of Winston Churchill's. I felt guilty for using it without credit or reference, but then I realized any moron would recognize the reference. Apparently I was wrong, not ANY moron.

73. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240044 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 7:52 pm

Vesehiisi,

If you were just responding to the title of the article you have a good point which can be sent on to the authors. It seemed you were defending Palin against all her critics here. I'd be critical of her whether or not she was pushing for ID to be taught.

74. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240040 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 7:49 pm

"what an dick you are for commenting on the supposed looks of a female political candidate!"

I admit I'm a shallow malaka and a dick. Now can you admit you have some repressed sexual issues to deal with? Clearly you are angry and seeking attention to compensate for your lack of ability to attract a partner. Go hang out at a bar... when they get drunk enough SOMEONE will end up hitting on even you.

75. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240036 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 7:42 pm

I'm not sure if I posted it on another thread yet or not. But it might be easiest just to agree to teach creation and get it over with.

Really, how long would it take to read the first 3 pages of Genesis? 2, 3 minutes tops. Then the teacher could say "Ok kids, that was the biblical creation story. Now lets learn about evolution...."

76. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240032 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 7:37 pm

Broshiesq I believe was making a desperate attempt to be witty. But that wit is shit, and it is the type of shit up with which I shall not put!

77. Animal Intelligence and the Evolution of the Human Mind

Comment #240030 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 7:34 pm

Kraut I'd love to respond to your post, but I cant, as it is not based in reality. Almost everything which attempts to be factual in your post is simply false.

78. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240028 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 7:32 pm

"I'd bet, sight unseen, she (or any runner-up in a state beaty pageant) was fuckin hotter than any woman any of you dumbasses on this site (RD excluded of course) ever got the time of day from."

Um.... you are on this site. Do I sense some latent hostility from someone who can't get the attention of the opposite sex?

As far as this being a site for logical evidence based discussion, well I have a few pieces of ass... I mean evidence to present:

One of my exes won a pageant. And several women I've dated have been more than runners up in such activities.

I think you underestimate just how shallow I am :o)

79. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240021 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 7:12 pm

Has a scientist ever ran for president?

(Honest question, I'm not well versed in history)

I'd like to see someone other than a professional politician running for office for once.

80. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240019 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 7:06 pm

Vesihiisi,

The fact that she is not campaigning for ID to be put in schools is besides the point. She's is disconnected from reality.

At best your point is like Woody Allen's commentary on the restaurant with food that tastes horrible, and in such small portions.

81. MythBuster Adam Savage: 3 Ways to Fix U.S. Science Education

Comment #240014 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 6:56 pm

2-3,2-3-4,4-3

I guess I didn't need the first definition.

82. MythBuster Adam Savage: 3 Ways to Fix U.S. Science Education

Comment #240013 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 6:55 pm

Well lets see.

I know it's based on 4 meanings of Buffalo.

1) The city in New York: noun
2) Reference to people (or animals) from that city: adjective
3) The animal: noun
4) An act of charging at someone or something: verb

83. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240010 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 6:50 pm

"Polar bears by a mile in both looks and brains."

Damn species discrimination, they must not have let the bears in the competition. They probably couldn't get them to wear those fancy clothes.

They obviously don't have the right to bear bare bears.

(sorry, couldn't resist after that other thread)

84. MythBuster Adam Savage: 3 Ways to Fix U.S. Science Education

Comment #240007 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 6:45 pm

They're their there-there there.

Actually its a grammatically complete and logically sensible (though odd) sentence. No more odd though than Pinker's "Buffalo buffalo, buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo buffalo."

My odd sentence means that a group of people ARE their own comfort in a given place.

85. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240002 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 6:39 pm

"She was once runner up in the Miss Alaska beauty contest"

Oh there's a criterion for public office "not as ugly as a polar bear."

Yeah, thats great.

86. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #239999 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 6:34 pm

Sounds like a real mind-fuck to me.

87. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #239994 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 6:28 pm

"Intelligent behavior does not mean intelligent design."

Actually there seems to be an inverse relationship in those who subscribe to it.

88. Animal Intelligence and the Evolution of the Human Mind

Comment #239988 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 6:09 pm

Well said as always MPhil, but there remains a point which I hate to see taken for granted:

John Locke is correct - equality will be established if we see animals conducting experiments about fundamental particles, expressing thoughts about the applicability of mathematical equations to problems in the world, or even just when they manage to conceptualize and communicate such propositions as expressed in "That new film by (x) has some really great actors and a fascinating story - you should go see it."

89. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #239983 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 5:51 pm

"All ID is saying is that certain natural observations are better explained when we consider intelligent causes than when we consider only random causes."

That statement shows not only a complete ignorance of darwinian evolution, but also of the ID mythology that is fighting to be taught in schools.

As far as your speculation about "thinking DNA" it is absurd. It is not an unknown that would surprise us if it came to be true, rather it is a known false. There is a difference. That said even if it wasn't a known false, if it was just an unknown and unimaginable we don't teach wishful thinking in schools. The "thinking DNA" idea would be taught when and only when there was some shred of evidence for it.

We don't teach things that MIGHT BE in some possible future, we teach what there is evidence for.

While the opening of your post caught my attention, and I look forward to checking out those links as the speciesist idea they refute is especially repugnant to me, the remainder of your post was complete nonsense.

90. Animal Intelligence and the Evolution of the Human Mind

Comment #239975 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 4:53 pm

I have not found time to read much of his work, though it is on my list (which is quite long) and based on what I have read I would certainly consider myself a fan.

I am curious as to why that surprises you. Are there things I've said on here that would lead you to believe otherwise?

91. It's no wonder evangelical atheists need to shout so loud

Comment #239962 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 4:12 pm

HA!

I'm not sure if we'd be justified in claiming Plato as an atheist or not, but he was certainly not a religious fanatic. Where did that come from?

92. Animal Intelligence and the Evolution of the Human Mind

Comment #239956 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 3:57 pm

"baptizing dolphins? How do you, exactly, do that?"

Well, they're already in the water. Some moronic priest will undoubtedly bless the ocean.

93. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239950 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 3:46 pm

"Answer the question seriously, if that's even possible for you."

It is not possible. Not when you ignore the questions of others repeatedly. You expect everyone to bow to your inquiry yet you will not give anyone else a shred of respect in responding to their arguments.

If this is the results of your "objective morality" it is more flawed than I originally thought. It is not only your views that are disturbing but your behavior as well.

94. Animal Intelligence and the Evolution of the Human Mind

Comment #239938 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 3:20 pm

Good point TalkyMeat

It is the inherent, implied, or reader-derived value judgements of such work that I find disturbing. Though I thought this article was excellent it did leave a lot of vague terminology that could be used out of context.

I suppose here is a good a place as any to plug one of my favorite quotes:

We patronize them for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate of having taken form so far below ourselves. And therin we err. For no animal shall be measured by man. In a world older and more complete than ours, they move finished and complete, gifted with extensions of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren, they are not underlings; they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth.

95. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239932 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 3:11 pm

Is gang rape wrong?

Hmmm, it depends. See there is not a moral absolute as I can think of one example that would not be wrong, but rather it'd would be absolutely hilarious. That is if you were the victim and the perpetrators were a herd of buffalo.

96. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239923 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 3:00 pm

"Now do you see why my blood seethes when confronted with relativists? "

Um, where are the relativists?

Holy crap, can we drop your false dichotomy already?! I've tried to be polite, I've pointed it out. I've demonstrated the flaws in your logic; yet you insist on claiming that anyone who does not agree with you is a relativist and that amounts to being a rapist.

In that case I'm done. You're really fucked in the head. I hope that some day something will knock you off your high horse.

97. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239916 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 2:50 pm

"Honestly, what is so difficult about this concept?"

Everything. There is nothing in your last two posts that I can even read. It has the coherence of a Wooter post. There are words jumbled together in what look like sentences, and many of those words relative to morality or emotionality, but I cannot understand what you are trying to say.

I could respond:

Beach balls are life extending and gerbils are bad for justice in french fried turnips. Nazi germany was a place with beach balls disallowing gerbils and acting to cause misery to many bananas. And because of these bananas we have fruit flies on the gerbils. Therefore there is no objective morality.

But instead of leaving my response as such I will respond to an earlier post that I could understand:

I still haven't heard from MPhil how, if there are no moral absolutes, he can claim that there's a moral difference between an academy and a concentration camp. Because to sate that there was would be to state a moral absolute.

You first have to prove why suffering and death are obejctively, absolutely bad and that which is beneficial to human life absolutely, objectively good.

An open admission that, from MPhil's moral perspective, there is no difference between suffering and happiness, no difference between the academy and the concentration camp, no difference between freedom and slavery, no difference between life and death. It has always been my conviction that people who simper stuff like this should discover the difference on their own hide - as they may yet.

Aaaarrrrrggggg - how can you have a reading comprehension below a first-grader?

Although, I think you just wanted to understand it this way (although no sane person would understand what I wrote that way). Just shows how full of spite you are.

98. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239905 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 2:32 pm

I think there is a misunderstanding here. Fanusi uses the words "absolute" and "objective" morality in a way different from what theists do, See the exchanges between him, Mphil and myself earlier.

99. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239903 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 2:29 pm

"Pain and misery are signs of death"

I don't agree with most of the assertions in that paragraph. Many of them are vague equivocations, and others are false. Pain is advantageous as it allows one to react to and escape a condition that is doing damage to the body.

The fact that you call it a "simple choice" implies that there are other choices does it not? You CHOOSE to hold your views as objective absolutes. I do not so choose.

100. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239900 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 2:25 pm

"Let Diacanu be banned, thus raising both the level of discourse and average IQ on these boards. Ho-ho.

Now you can either laugh at that, or decline to do so, proving my point that there are two sets of rules in operation here."

I didn't laugh. Though I didn't see this as uncalled for or unreasonable as you did not try to use it as support for your position rather you were just sharing your view of a fellow poster.

I also didn't laugh at all of Diacanu's insults towards you, but he is free to make them. I did laugh at the angora sweater comment though. I find skillful use of wit entertaining, regardless of whether it is directed at someone I agree with or disagree with.