1901. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191168 by Diacanu on June 10, 2008 at 10:08 am

(Continuing from post 261)

(Browser locked up, needed rebooting, easier to make a sequel, then have people miss an edit after this long)

Now, the need to hang onto these religious ideas in the face of everything, that comes down to ego, but I can't exactly nail down why that's different from the scientific worldview, in that since I've fully adopted it, I don't mind being proven wrong, or if we find new evidence that alters a theory.

Maybe ego really is the factor.

I know that as a deist, I felt like I knew something everyone else didn't, and that I was tapped into the universe because of it.

You get an ego rush like that, of COURSE you'll think the other side is boring, and "soulless", and unenlightened, and drab, and hopeless, and thus fight against it as a worldview.

Christians must have it worse, they think that cosmic high is a PERSONAL force that has things to say to them via their little magic books.

It's like being in Hogwarts, they're so fucking special.

Really hard to let go of that, I guess.
Especially, again, if you see the other side as boring and drab and hopeless.

I think we really need to hammer home that's not only not the case, but the exact opposite.

Science is so much more awsome and transcendant than any of their fairy tales.

I don't know why we can't get that throught to them.

I think it's because of religion co-opting scientific discovery.

I've pointed out the disgusting hypocrisy of this elsewhere.

They were perfectly happy to have bones in their noses, and bang rocks together, and deny the possibility if things like cells and microbes, and then when there was no denying it "oh, how fantastic god is, how complex his creation!".

I think we need to sharpen arguments against this.

1902. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191142 by Diacanu on June 10, 2008 at 9:34 am

Re: post 258.

I gotta admit, I did virtually the same cherry picking when I went through my deism phase.
Fought for that shit like a demon.
But, at least deism has its own built in antivirus, in that it's a path of logic, and enough evidence can jar it loose.
I dunno what it's like to be invested in the whole Jesus/hellfire thing.
It never took with me.
*Shrug*

But yeah, from someone who's tasted a diluted strain of the religion thing, they are cherry picking, they can't deny it.
I've been inside it.
And it's just plain raw stubborn denial that allows them to defend it to the hilt.
I dunno how you break through it, it's a big wall of ego.
Humans despise being wrong.

1903. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190965 by Diacanu on June 10, 2008 at 2:21 am

qster-

God does not exist as described in religious texts

Then you believe in a Deist god, and for all the good a Deist god does, he may as well not exist.

Likewise, your aliens who hide all evidence of their existence.

Things that hide all evidence of themselves perfectly resemble things that aren't there in the first place.

I don't trouble myself with magical things that may be hiding.
It'd be like supposing my food comes to life and dances when I close the fridge door, and they always magically stop when I open it again, and I can never ever in a million years catch them.
Fuck it, let 'em dance then.
I'll just eat the little bastards anyway.
Meaningless to speculate on outside of fantasy fiction.

You don't need a 'Scientist' to help you use your imagination.

Imaginary friends are of no use to me, I am an adult.

1904. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190847 by Diacanu on June 9, 2008 at 5:56 pm

Ascaphus-

None of 'em have faith, IMHO.

If faith were enough, they wouldn't need to debate atheists, and if personal faith were enough, they wouldn't so desperately try to clone their memes into the next generation.

1905. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190841 by Diacanu on June 9, 2008 at 5:40 pm

alan baylis @ post 6848-

Thanks, man.
:)

Glad to see I'm having an impact on someone, even if it's not Timothy P. himself.

1906. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190746 by Diacanu on June 9, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Styrer-

Thanks.
:)

1907. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190743 by Diacanu on June 9, 2008 at 1:34 pm

EvidenceOnly-
Don't forget Thomas Paine's master work, "The Age Of Reason", which destroys the Bible section by section.

1908. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190714 by Diacanu on June 9, 2008 at 12:42 pm

WilliamP-

The only thing that could salvage this article would be a punchline.

...just then, Postelnik's intestine leapt up through his neck, and strangled his brain, saving the universe.

1909. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190647 by Diacanu on June 9, 2008 at 10:26 am

millsm-

So, essentially, you're saying it sucks like an Electrolux?
;)

1910. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190613 by Diacanu on June 9, 2008 at 9:42 am

aprilmb-

Who the heck would use this guy's services to create a successful business? Don't you actually need logic to be effective?

...you're kidding me, right?

Haven't you watched a TV commercial in the past 30 years, or an infomercial in the past 20??

Marketing is the martial arts of dishonesty.

1911. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190609 by Diacanu on June 9, 2008 at 9:38 am

DavidJGrossman-

Why do people publish such obvious nonsense?

Hmm, the obviousness of the nonsense makes me wonder if the publishers are secretly agents for our side who deliberatly propped this guy up for our firing squad.

1912. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190576 by Diacanu on June 9, 2008 at 9:08 am

Peacebeuponme-

ROTFL!! Pefect! Couldn't have said it better.

1913. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190552 by Diacanu on June 9, 2008 at 8:50 am

The simplest proof (yet one that no atheist has ever been able to counter effectively) is that a universe of this size and magnitude does not somehow build itself, just as a set of encyclopedias doesn't write itself or form randomly from the spill of a massive inkblot.

Argument from design; failing right out of the gate here.

No one in their right mind would claim...

Argument from personal incredulity.
Bored already.

While there are complex proofs of the Divine,...

Ah, here we go, finally something interesting.

some dating back...

Ah...same old dusty theological shit....

*Skims past tired design arguments*

that all somehow came about randomly through evolution,...

Evolution by natural selection isn't random.
*Yawn*

I have yet to meet an atheist who can make even a feeble argument to counter any of these points,...

Liar.

The anthropic argument

Utter crap.

The cosmological argument

Asscrap.

the teleological argument,

Bullshittery.

The atheist would also do well to read Anthony Flew's latest book,

A hoax, and exploitation of a dying old man.
I'm sickened now.

But all of these reasons, in reality, are unnecessary. The youngest school child can tell you that a building does not build itself and that, by extension, neither does a universe.

And the youngest school child will also ask "who made God?", and he'll never recieve an answer.
Or if he does, he'll get a bullshit one.

*Skips throught to the end as I'm genuinely nausiated now*

Ah, the author is a marketing asshole, there's a shocker.

1914. Couple charged in Norway over genital mutilation of daughters

Comment #190524 by Diacanu on June 9, 2008 at 8:24 am

RamziD-

But listen to what some of you are implying. From your comments, I basically heard that the solution would be to ban muslim immigration into western societies. This is because islam can never be compatible with the west. Sorry, but I do not agree with you on this.

You didn't hear me say it.

If muslim immigrants all assimilated as well as the ones in Dearborne Michigan, I'd have no problem.

It's the European ones who want to practice Shariah who need to either shape up, or stay home.

Can't follow a country's laws, don't go there.

1915. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #190512 by Diacanu on June 9, 2008 at 8:09 am

Ah, no wonder this thread is jumping, that horrible bug-eyed toad Robertson is back.

1916. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190497 by Diacanu on June 9, 2008 at 7:47 am

How many pages of Timmy Xavier so far? 20? More?

And in the end, it's still just a bunch of "I can't believe in the ToE!! I just can't!! I WON'T!! *grinds knuckles into tear ducts*".

Well, that, and arrogantly presented bullshittery.

There's never going to be a snapping out of it, this creationist (bowel) movement is gonna go down all the way blubbering and swinging, and crying out for the God who is not there.
Sad.

1917. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190303 by Diacanu on June 8, 2008 at 7:06 pm

So, Timmy Xavier Piper is a young earth creationist to boot.

So, how about flat earth theory?
What's the cut off point for bullshit here?

1918. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190298 by Diacanu on June 8, 2008 at 6:41 pm

phasmigigas-

the creationsist WANTS creation to be true because its simply means that if it is true then its more likey that they will live with jesus when they die and be around forever enjoying thoughts just like we do now.

That, and they need Hitler to be in Hell for life to make sense to them.
I've seen Dennis Prager admit as much.

I don't need him to be in Hell, I'm just relieved he's dead, and hope I never have to live through horrors like the holocaust victims did.

1919. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190259 by Diacanu on June 8, 2008 at 4:25 pm

Txpiper, you're never going to offer anything but the argument from incredulity.

No matter how many times you re-frame your incredulity, it will not ever be a new argument.

Bring something else to the table.
Anything.
Please.

Or else, please, go away.

1920. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190253 by Diacanu on June 8, 2008 at 4:15 pm

txpiper-

The last thing that would occur to an establishment geologist/paleontologist would be the whole paradigm is wrong.

Ah, so it's a big worldwide conspiracy.

Yes, and they really should. That is a reasonable, rational conclusion to draw.

Really? including the example he gave of the sun being pulled across the sky by a chariot??

And despite the problem of infinite regress I pointed out?

Oh, that's right, I'm invisible to you.

Why not just ignore everyone, and leave then?

1921. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190212 by Diacanu on June 8, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Oh, and..

txpiper-

Purpose and intent don't just imply or suggest the need for an organizing agent. They demand it.

And the designer likewise demands a designer, and so on, or it's no answer at all.

And infinite regress is illogical, and thus no answer at all.

Evolution by natural selection busts us out of this logic loop, and happens to be true.

1922. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190209 by Diacanu on June 8, 2008 at 2:27 pm

txpiper-

I don't understand why I should have to point out that there is something more than chemical processes going on.

What do you think this is, and how can we test for it?

What happens with replication enzymes is completely different. There are starts and stops. There is some kind of deliberation occurring.

Merely your anthropomorphising the process.

Every step in this process indicates purpose

Purpose, purpose, you're addicted to this word.

A raindrop falling isn't following a "purpose", it's doing what raindrops do.

and something approximating intellect.

Anthropomorphism.

It is not realistic to think...

Argument from incredulity still.

1923. Couple charged in Norway over genital mutilation of daughters

Comment #190112 by Diacanu on June 8, 2008 at 12:01 pm

Ugh, we gotta sift apart some concepts that clearly melt together too easily in some people's minds.

First of all, as has been stated, Islam is not a race.

Second, Islam, like all religions, gives a false picture of the nature of the universe, and life.

Therefore, it is a faulty wordview.

One could easily say, an inferior one.

Barbaric culture that springs forth from such a worldview is itself inferior.
Inferior at bringing happiness, safety, and prosperity to its people.

And such barbarity is inseperable from the religion that sprung it.

Therefore, Islam, at least in its undiluted fundamentalist form, is an inferior culture.

Does that mean the people within it are inferior?
No, they're the sad dupes of a delusion.

But, even within that delusion, grown people are free moral agents and those who have practiced barbarity have made their moral choices, and will face my judgement.

And coming back around, a culture that produces such a disproportionate amount of such people, is inferior.

It's loaded language given history, but anything else is imprecise and/or dishonest.

It'd be bigotry if I said muslims as individuals were inferior, and then on top of that I attached prescriptive behavior to such a judgement.

Generic bigotry, mind you, not racism.

I mean, let's at first get our language clear here.

The discourse can only be as good as the framing of our ideas.

1924. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190104 by Diacanu on June 8, 2008 at 11:37 am

Dr. Benway-

Well, wouldn't you then have to sift out if it was really Yahweh, and not a brain function activated by religious belief, or an alien named Ya Way who picked up the brainwave transmissions, and sent some luck rays back to earth?

1925. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190102 by Diacanu on June 8, 2008 at 11:30 am

GordonYKWong-

Fair enough. :)

1926. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190086 by Diacanu on June 8, 2008 at 10:59 am

GordonYKWong-

Your efforts are heroic, but I fear you're teaching quantum mechanics to a kitten.

1927. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190080 by Diacanu on June 8, 2008 at 10:47 am

(Continuing from post 6790)

Now, this seems to be the creationist strategy.

1. Nitpick at evolution until it crumbles.

2. Failing this, get it out of schools with wedge arguments, bullying, false-victimhood/persecution, and sneakily placed officials, then it'll just go away.
This is dishonest, but dammit, anything in the name of Jesus is righteous!

3. Having succeeded at 1 and/or 2, claim "evolution was just a faith".
Thus, it follows all faith is equal, thus christianity is on an even keel with evolution, then, we bump it to the head of the line with some cleverly chosen scripture passages, and BAM! We have our world back! Yayyy, Jesus!

4. Having gotten control over society's imagination again, rewrite history, cast evolution in the darkest light possible, intimidate and persecute as needed.
This'll buy us a few more decades.

5. Intelligent design? What was that? I don't see it in the history books. Just these lovely illustrations of the crucifiction.
Wheeee!!!

Now, the endgame is delusional, but the only half-logical possible imagined outcome of the shit we've seen them try, and the arguemnts we've seen them make.

And having seen bits of 1,2,and 3 already happen, it pretty much admits to not being science.

1928. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190075 by Diacanu on June 8, 2008 at 10:29 am

Okay, txpiper, here's what your side has to do playing by science's rules.

1. Scientifically prove the existence/presence of God.
Make a prediction, construct an expiriment, and have the expiriment prove the prediction, subject it to peer review.

2. Keep in mind, this would only prove the existence of a Deist God, now you have a mountain of work cut out for you to attach this presence in the universe to any of the revealed religions.
Scripture passages won't cut it here, the validity of scripture needs to be proven with that pesky thing called evidence.

3. Whatever the result of 2, you gotta go with it, or be a laughed at as a hypocrite forever.
No fair finding out God is Allah, and staying a christian "just cuz I wanna so ner!".

If christianity comes through all that unscathed, then you'll have something.
All you've got right now is a book of myths, and personal faith.
Hey, go ahead and have fun with that, but if you wanna prop it up on stage in the marketplace of ideas for debate, be prepared for ridicule, and don't play the martyr when it comes.

1929. Albinos, Long Shunned, Face Threat in Tanzania

Comment #190067 by Diacanu on June 8, 2008 at 10:09 am

Wow, where to even start...

1930. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189968 by Diacanu on June 8, 2008 at 12:53 am

Oh, shit, I missed that bit...

txpiper sharted forth-

it is no more impressive to you than salt dissolving in water or an ice crystal forming.

Oh, do fuck off.

No, life is fucking impressive.
It's awe inspiring to the point of tears.
And guess what shows us how beautiful it all is?
SCIENCE, motherfucker!

If it were up to the bronze age douchebags who wrote your precious Bible, we'd still think the earth was flat, and the heart was the seat of consciousness.

And DNA? Forget it. Their puny minds would've refused the posibility of things invisible to the naked eye.
Except spooks.
They thought disease was caused by demons.
Right in the Bible.

Yet you religious assholes dare co-opt the wonders of scientific discovery?
Revolting.

Go beat two rocks together, and put a bone in your nose.
That's about where we'd be with religion alone, and the lifestyle you belong in if you had an intellectually honest cell in your miserable carcass.

1931. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189858 by Diacanu on June 7, 2008 at 11:29 am

SharonMcT-

The World Wildlife Fund has wrestlers? Cool. :)

Dignified wrestlers! Smoking jackets, pipes, copies of Keates, a real classy outfit.

1932. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189796 by Diacanu on June 7, 2008 at 9:38 am

*Diacanu and Reverend Dark hold up their tag team champion belts and roar at the crowd as txpiper bleeds and sobs in the corner*

1933. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189790 by Diacanu on June 7, 2008 at 9:26 am

txpiper-

why should I try to explain the supporting evidence for the flood? I know what you will do. You will make up your own flood version,

...wow, you're just a sad paranoid fuck aincha?

Your brain is fucking destroyed by this shit.

and then disbelieve that.

Hey, here's an experiment that might impress me.

Build Noah's ark, fill it up with all the animals of the word.

Go ahead, you could get the funding, religion suckers billions of dollars out of credulous cretins.

Christians the world over are obviously itching like a tourrets patient to shut us atheists up.

Build Noah's ark.
Get all the animals in there.
All of 'em.
Two of each.
Every species.

Shouldn't be too hard.
Heck, I'll bet God'll make it like a TARDIS inside.

The same thing would happen with prophecy. You would either ignore or dismiss obvious, supernatural breaches of time as coincidence or something else.

Well, if they're such obvious events, the evidence should bite us on the ass, and involve clear non-pretzeled readings of non-obscurantist texts, right?

Go on, present this obvious evidence.

Surely you posess it, and aren't bullshitting us.

There are things you don't permit yourself to acknowledge, or even entertain.

I'll entertain notions that have evidence to back them up.

You're right, I don't permit myself to entertain notions that have no evidence.
I wouldn't get anything done.
I'd be entertaining notions of fairies, unicorns, fucking Leprechauns, ghosts, Bigfoots, Yetis, Mothmen, shit, just going through the whole list would eat up my fucking day.

You got evidence of your Jewish fairy tales, cough it up, otherwise, fuck off.

1934. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189783 by Diacanu on June 7, 2008 at 9:10 am

txpiper-

Yes I am, but it isn't a matter of standing or defending.

Because you can't, because you're a fucking coward.

I explained why I don't feel like I should get off into theological matters, which I noted and you quoted below.

It was bullshit then, it's bullshit now.

But there are also practical reasons for not wanting to do so.

You'll get your ass handed to you.

That horse is already out of the barn I'm afraid.

One is about time,

Oh, yes, you christians always magically become so fucking busy when it's convenient.

You'll write novel length posts all fucking night, but when it's time to pony up evidence "ohhh, I dooon't haaave the tiiime".

which I only have a limited spare amount of to waste.

Full of shit, enema, pillbox, you know the drill.

Another has to do with how people process information.

You mean with logic, which fucking magic doesn't fit into the framework of?

If you aren't willing to, or can't rationally manage the data,

Oh, please do present rational data to back up magic.

there is no point in presenting it,

Because there IS no rational data to back up magic?

and what I see here is consistent ideological filtering.

With logic?

Yeah, that logic shit is pesky innit?

Lemme guess, to process magic, my mind has to be in some "special", state, right?

That warm and fluffy trippy prayer state that just can't be explained.

Well, sorry, even that's subject to rational inquiry.

If we allow for warm fluffy trippy prayer states, then we have to allow for acid trips, schizophrenic voices, and just plain drunken benders.

This is what I mean. You guys just react on the basis of whether you like facts or not,

Fucking present some!!

not whether they are factual.

What facts!?!?
That magic exists?!!?
You never present evidence, asshole!
And nitpicking evolution doesn't cut it!

It isn't about science at all.

Magic?
No, magic isn't science, I agree.

You will believe anything, no matter how asinine,

Like Noah's Ark, the anti-christ, and the invisble designer which you utterly refuse to name, or offer evidence for?

as long as your materialist comfort zone stays intact.

You know what'd break me out of my comfort zone?

Proof of magic.

Go on, do it.
Cough it up.

1935. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189773 by Diacanu on June 7, 2008 at 8:39 am

Diacanu-

Dudes, check it out,

?!!?!?!?

Since when do I talk like the guy from The Big Lebowski??

"Is that freedom rock?? Well tuuuurn iiit uuup maaaan!!!".

:P

1936. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189769 by Diacanu on June 7, 2008 at 8:26 am

Diacanu @ post 1272-

That brings up a spinoff question that's floated in the back of my mind for awhile.

What's the degree of gayness if a guy consumes another man's semen if it dribbles second hand out of a vagina rather than directly from the penis?

I've seen otherwise macho guys admit to this practice.

It repulses me at a gut-reaction level, and it seems a bit hypocritical to me for someone to be a homophobe and engage in such acts, but...*shrug* what do I know?

I open the floor.
Discuss.

Quetzalcoatl @ post 1274-

Diacanu-

there seems to be a degree of gayness there, perhaps it's their opportunity to do something they're too repressed/afraid/repulsed to do "directly".

I find the whole idea quite gross, but that's just my gut reaction.

al-rawandi @ post 1276-

Diacanu,

That was even a little gross for me.


I don't know if it is gay, but it is pretty gross. If a male friend did that I would stop hanging out with him because he is a whacked sicko, not because he is "gay".

Dudes, check it out, it's in the bible!!

14:8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.

Wow, that St. John was some perv!!

And people read this shit to their kids!!

1937. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189657 by Diacanu on June 6, 2008 at 10:40 pm

Greyman-

You simply get stuck on the idea that the end result has to be the target of design,

It's that anthropomorphic solipsism of the genesis story, they just can't fucking let go of it.

1938. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189428 by Diacanu on June 6, 2008 at 9:01 am

Frankus112-

Diacanu,
I believe the chances of you getting an answer are about the same as random mutation and natural selection producing tits. At least the same in txpiper's mind. Which is a rather long winded way of saying that your chances of getting an answer are "a statistical zero many times over."

Well, I meet your assertion with triumphant incredulity!!

I have FAITH that txpiper will answer my question about molecular wrench weilding pixies!!

Faith is all I need!

I believe it, because I believe it!

And if txpiper doesn't answer my question, that merely means the answer to my prayer for him to was "no".

And I needn't worry reasoning why, because I'll understand it all when I die.

Hallelujah!!

1939. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189426 by Diacanu on June 6, 2008 at 8:53 am

It's just Doug Henning sitting on a rainbow.
I did a Google image search, and grabbed the link and didn't note the address.

1940. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189419 by Diacanu on June 6, 2008 at 8:42 am

It's maaaaaagiiic!!

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/entertainers/magicians/doug-henning/10044040.jpg

1941. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189416 by Diacanu on June 6, 2008 at 8:27 am

So, does anyone think txpiper will answer me, or will he just blindly keep plowing foreward with his deluded assertion that nitpicking evolution constitutes automatic proof of magic?

1942. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189259 by Diacanu on June 5, 2008 at 11:06 pm

qster-

...i cant give an example because..

Like all new-agey boneheads, you're full of shit.

1943. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189257 by Diacanu on June 5, 2008 at 10:56 pm

qster-

Blah, blah, blah, blah...Deepak Chopra...blah, blah, blah...

*Sarcastic clapping*

That was lovely.

Now go play in traffic.

1944. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189255 by Diacanu on June 5, 2008 at 10:53 pm

txpiper-

Someone had to design and assemble the adaptation catalog. That degree of sophistication, complexity and accuracy can't reasonably be considered accidental.

Okay, you've admitted this much, take the next step and answer my question.

How did "the designer", do it?

Little molecular wrenches?

How can we test for this?

1945. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189124 by Diacanu on June 5, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Steve Zara-

It is interesting what has been labeled "straight" at various times. Apparently you are still straight in some circles if you have sex with a transexual, or a ladyboy, or an effeminate man and so on.

That brings up a spinoff question that's floated in the back of my mind for awhile.

What's the degree of gayness if a guy consumes another man's semen if it dribbles second hand out of a vagina rather than directly from the penis?

I've seen otherwise macho guys admit to this practice.

It repulses me at a gut-reaction level, and it seems a bit hypocritical to me for someone to be a homophobe and engage in such acts, but...*shrug* what do I know?

I open the floor.
Discuss.

1946. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189110 by Diacanu on June 5, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Podaar-

Diacanu,

Strangely, he seems to be asserting that 'scientific' discovery may prove one group superior to another regardless of how people morally feel.

"Regardless of how people morally feel", is such a non-starter of an argument, and I see conservatives, christians, and Nietzsche-ians pull it out all the time.

There's no other morality for humans but human morality to go by, and human morality comes from the human brain, and the human brian is the only decision making instrument we have.

Appeals to the external morality of God, social darwinism, or "history", are meaningless.

So, let science "prove", people are "inferior", all it wants (it never does btw) if I'm morally opposed to the proposition, then I'm morally opposed to it.
There's no inherant prescriptive behavior to go with such science, and thus no obligation to follow any presreptions that one would seek to attach to it.
Thus, science would never determine what's "inferior", in the first place, since that's a purely prescriptive judgement anyway.

So, really, it's just a re-framing of his "it's good because it's normal, and it's normal because it's good", circular reasoning.

Then he seems to think that is a good arguement for being repulsed by homosexuality and not repulsed by bestiality.

The only thing worth being morally repulsed by is anything unconsentual.

Any other kind of sexual repulsion is just things you're inherently not into, and morality has nothing whatever to do with it.

I find Cleveland steamers repulsive, but I don't label them immoral, I just don't engage in them, and studiously avoid porn that depects them.

Hell, there's lots of porn I studiously avoid, and I'm neither morally nor gut-reaction repulsed by it, it's just stupid to me.

Like foot fetishes, and badly acted roleply scenarios.

Nothing "repulsive", about it, just not my bag.

Religion attaching morals to people's consentual behavior has been a disaster for humanity.

I think. He's kinda hard to follow.

Circular arguments are.

1947. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189094 by Diacanu on June 5, 2008 at 12:34 pm

So, lemme guess, the homophobe is still spewing the same circular argument that boils down to this...

Homosexuality is bad because it's abnormal. And heterosexuality is good because it's normal. And it's normal because it's good. And it's good because it's normal. And....

Am I right? That about the size of it?

1948. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #188868 by Diacanu on June 4, 2008 at 9:13 pm

Look, this snapperhead ignores posts, ignores links, won't read up on the subject, refuses to answer questions, stop engaging the cockmonger.

We've done more than enough for a lurker to see his position is bullshit.

If a fence sitter is still mush-minded after all this, they deserve to be.

1949. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #188317 by Diacanu on June 3, 2008 at 9:54 pm

txpiper-

your theory is yours to prove, not mine to disprove.

Prove the existence of God then.

1950. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #188292 by Diacanu on June 3, 2008 at 7:29 pm

Like Mike Tyson beaten into a blackout stupor by Evander Holyfield, txpiper is still wandering the ring and swinging.

Someone ring the fuggin' bell dis is moida!