401. Without God

Comment #253297 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 9:22 am

I would be interested to know what you mean. I've heard "the self" stuff talked about, and what it means to experience my consciousness instead of yours, and what not. I just haven't given it much thought. I assume with another person it would be rather similar, if not quite the same.

I'd rather experience my cat's consciousness.

402. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253281 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 9:02 am

1332. Comment #253271 by Bonzai

As you know (because I never fail to mention it at every opportunity) I am learning Japanese. I decided that I'd like to teach english in Japan, so I'm going to get a BA in philosophy starting next fall. By the time I'm through get my BA, I should be half decent at Japanese. I know about 1500 kanji now.

I still plan on practicing and doing some of my own doujinshi (self-published manga) but not for some time, when I'm no longer terrible. I certainly can't wait to visit the place. I've been obsessed with Japanese stuff for the past ten years.

403. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253275 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 8:56 am

1328. Comment #253267 by Styrer-

Your obsession with manga strikes me - as a man married to a Japanese woman - as distinctly unusual.

404. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253268 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 8:47 am

1326. Comment #253265 by Bonzai

Nah, everyone reads manga in Japan. It is a 4 billion dollar a year industry. Anywhere you can buy a newspaper you can buy manga. Libaries are generally half devoted to them. There are manga genres for everything imaginable. No demographic is overlooked, and not marketed towards.

The obsessive though are referred to as "otaku" which I almost certainly fit in with.

405. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253266 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 8:45 am

1321. Comment #253259 by Sargeist

Big deal if people disagree? People disagree that evolution happened, some people disagree that the earth goes around the sun. Let them argue for it, all because people disagree doesn't imply in the least that I'm not right. Let them form argues for their position, and against mine, otherwise pointing out that people may disagree is immaterial to anything.

It can be verified or refuted. What causes more harm? Give a kid some candy, or punching them in the face? This is testable. Harder problems will of course be harder to distinction, and won't be so black and white, and you might come to incorrect conclusions, but argument and evidence can always over turn things.

I think that your problem exists in language, and you think that words necessarily carry connotations that are absolute, or or useless. Why not reject those connotations completely and only use the words in useful ways?

406. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253260 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 8:38 am

1319. Comment #253256 by Styrer-

That was actually the strangest thing I thought of your post. Saying you had a Japanese wife, thus I'm strange for liking manga. I didn't understand that at all. Would you care to expatiate on that for me.

Don't worry about it Styrer, you didn't offend me. I made my comment towards you fully prepared for the retort.

407. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253253 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 8:30 am

1304. Comment #253237 by Sargeist

That part that you quote saying you misunderstood doesn't seem to appreciate the entire paragraph that followed elucidating what I did mean, and ending with a rejection of relativism. I also offered to explain anything you misunderstood, and still do. I can't be faulted for your misunderstanding if you don't ask for clarification.

You accept my assertion that morality must have those goals, then it follows from that, that with evidence and reason, what is the best option can in principle be discerned, and what is wrong, and right categorically determined. Doesn't mean it always will be, or one can't be wrong, but it can be done.

Then I rest my case. That is all I needed to get you to accept.

408. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253239 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 8:10 am

1301. Comment #253234 by Bonzai

Well, with that explanation in mind, I think I'm a pussy then. Assholes definitely seem to be the worse to me.

409. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253235 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 8:04 am

Damn you guy with similar name. I keep thinking people are talking to me. I also hate it when my name is contracted, so when I think they're referring to me, I'm double annoyed!

410. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253231 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 7:59 am

1295. Comment #253224 by Bonzai

Your link doesn't work.

As for your trichotomy, I don't see why I can't be all three.

411. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253218 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 7:49 am

1271. Comment #253193 by Sargeist

In the first quote, I'm goading you, and I hope now that you realize that everything you stated before that quote, are things that I am NOT saying. Are we clear on that?

I also explicitly denied the existence of other valid systems.

If you think I've contradicted myself then say so, I'll either explain that I made a mistake, or you misunderstood.

I asked a specific question that you didn't answer:

If someone's "moral" goals are not based on benefit and harm, or happiness and suffering, then in what sense is it a moral system at all, and in that case, what are its goals, and how is it practical or useful?

412. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253202 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 7:34 am

1265. Comment #253185 by Titania

No, I thought it was funny, because he said everyone would hop to my defense, and no one did. It seems no one even read his post. I was actually pleased that it was original. When he said "what's your excuse" I thought he was pullin' a "I know you are but what am I" retort, and calling me emotional. I was happy to get an original insult.

I was of course joking about being upset over not getting defended.

413. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253177 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 7:12 am

Her kids names are ridiculous. If I have kids I'm going to name them "speedstick" "splenda" and "Mock 6".

414. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253171 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 7:01 am

1252. Comment #253159 by Sargeist

Why must you "summarize" what I'm saying? Is it not clear? Then ask me to explain it to you, and the exact parts you don't understand. How does it help your understanding to do what you're doing?

How else am I suppose to respond to your repeated misrepresentations of what I've said? You didn't say "is this what you mean" or "so this then" or something you continued to assert "you mean this" and "you mean that". After three consecutive posts of this, I was getting rather annoyed. If you are incapable of asking for clarification, or saying exactly what you don't understand then fine. If you think I'm completely wrong, and want to disagree, then also completely fine. How you have preceded however...is annoying.

1253. Comment #253162 by hawt4dawk

Finally, someone cares! Everyone else just silently agrees "yeah, he is a weird dull fuck". I had to practically beg for active dissent of such a view...bastards...I'm holding a grudge though. They'll rue the day they didn't take the chance to praise my excellence. RUE IT I SAY.

415. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253155 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 6:40 am

1250. Comment #253149 by Sargeist

Forgive me, but perhaps you are having trouble understanding me because you keep dictating to me what I'm saying, when I've stated what I'm saying. Why must you attempt to break it down into some meaning I'm not convey? Take it at face value. I'm saying exactly what I mean to say, it needs no interpretation. I mean it all quite literally.

Please don't tell me what I mean. I mean, when I say something is wrong, that it can be demonstrated wrong, in the same sense that I think that things can be demonstrated illogical (as I said in previous posts.)

If someone's "moral" goals are not based on benefit and harm, or happiness and suffering, then in what sense is it a moral system at all, and in that case, what are its goals, and how is it practical or useful?

That appears to me to be like saying your system of logic isn't meant to draw correct conclusions, and accurate inferences.

Your analogy is false because fear and disgust are different, and for the reasons I gave in my last post, not equivalent.

416. Without God

Comment #253148 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 6:28 am

83. Comment #253145 by John Desclin

He says "something to be missed" as in something worth missing. Not meaning something you actually will miss when dead.

417. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253140 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 6:17 am

1247. Comment #253137 by Sargeist

Not wrong for me... something isn't logical for me, and illogical for you. Logic isn't an objective absolute thing either you realize? Nor is "truth". It is a formalized system of reason, where with goals in mind, and evidence supported, conclusions about the world can be definitively established. There is absolutely no reason why this to cannot be said of moral conclusions.

This require contexts however, so what is right and wrong would depend on an evaluation of evidence, and may change depending on the circumstances.

Another false analogy. That was something scary. I have several phobias of things that I can't help but think about a million times a day. At least in principle these things can harm me.

Do you think of things that disgust you, but couldn't harm you all day? I certainly don't. Like what your parents do in bed. You know, they do it too.

418. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253133 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 5:56 am

1245. Comment #253127 by Sargeist

Again, this is nonsense. You don't like the taste of something because you've tasted it, and it does not appeal to your palette. How can you hate something you've never tried? It's irrational. They can only possibly be disgusted for irrational reasons.

What you said next is absurd. Most people are ugly, I never think about having sex with people I'm not attracted to. I find that strange. If these people can't stop thinking about gay sex all day then I think they are clearly only claiming that it disgusts them. Clearly they must find it appealing.

Also, I am not attracted to blonds, but I'm not disgusted by blonds.

Their reasons are simply, and completely irrational, and yet they have rational reasons to abandon their position. This should be pointed out.

I never said that I have a valid moral system, but there can be many valid systems. Mine is useful, practical, rational evidence based and beneficial. If theirs isn't, then it is wrong. If it's better than I'd adopt it. It's pretty simple really. No one needs to adopt formal logic, or forms of mathematics. Some just work, and other don't. The ones that don't are wrong. You are free to use your own systems of either, and if they're better then they can usurp mainstream ones. It isn't some relativistic nonsense.

It has nothing to do with majority. Some systems are categorically better for achieving certain goals than others.

419. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253121 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 5:17 am

1240. Comment #253118 by Sargeist

Not knowing where you get your moral views, but yet having moral views, is de facto, plucking them from the ether. No system beyond nonrational arbitrary intuitive assertion.

You're second paragraph is nonsense. Evidence is what changes the views, and since it is only based on a goal, the moral prescriptions are ad hoc.

420. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253117 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 5:13 am

I would also contend that if liking wine caused harm, while liking beer did not, but you preferred wine over beer...then you would be morally obligated to change your tastes.

I'm a vegan for this reason.

421. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253115 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 5:09 am

1236. Comment #253113 by Sargeist

You said you don't have a system, you pluck them from the ether. So no, I'm saying your are wrong based on mine system, and you lack a system.

422. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253114 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 5:07 am

1234. Comment #253111 by Sargeist

That's a false analogy. You have a rational reason to like one beverage over the other. They have tastes, literal tastes, with one appealing to your palette, and the other not.

This is not the case with homosexuality. There is no physical difference, nothing you have to do that will be displeasing. It is merely changing an attitude that is based on absolutely no rational grounds, and causes harm.

423. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253112 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 5:02 am

1230. Comment #253103 by Sargeist

Well, then that is your one failing, not mine. If you wonder why somethings are bad, and others good, or what is morality, then those are questions you should seek the answers for. I'm happy with mine. Mine are practical, and suit my hedonistic and utilitarian purposes, at the same time as being emotionally satisfying. That is all I require of them.

424. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253090 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 4:40 am

1218. Comment #253081 by Sargeist

I use morality synonymously with "ethics". Ethics are based on how creatures behave towards each other, in a benefit to harm balance. Meaning if I base morality on a happiness/suffering balance, then it very much becomes possible to make definitive pronouncements. With a little ethical calculus I can say that hacking off limbs causing more harm than shoplifting, and is thus categorically wrong.

I don't know what you base your morality on, but if you can't make evidence based decisions with it, then I'd assert that it is useless, and should be abandoned for something better.

425. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253086 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 4:35 am

1217. Comment #253080 by Steve Zara

Was responding to "1206. Comment #253065 by Sargeist" Forgot to put it at the top of my post.

426. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253082 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 4:33 am

1213. Comment #253074 by Lev-CapeTown

"Effect" is to have a result, "affect" is to change something.

427. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253075 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 4:27 am

1209. Comment #253069 by Steve Zara

I don't think we can say that most people needed therapy!

428. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253070 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 4:24 am

It isn't a matter of taste. You're (in the general sense) speaking hate against people, which is demonstrably harmful, and completely unjustified in any sense.

It is someone's opinion that shoplifters should have limbs hacked off too, don't you think that deserves challenging? Don't you think that is morally reprehensible?

429. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253057 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 4:07 am

1194. Comment #253050 by Quetzalcoatl

I've written a few short novels, but I've never considered letting anyone read them, let alone publishing. Writing the book was easy, they just didn't have the virtue of being any good.

I really am boring and dull when it comes to story telling. My action scenes read like desk assembly instructions.

I tried getting into 3D animation, but I was terrible at that too. I'm now working on learning to draw so I can try my hand at manga. This time for sure!

430. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253049 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 3:55 am

1190. Comment #253044 by Quetzalcoatl

I bought Caleuche awhile ago, but I haven't read it yet. You likely know that I did, since you would have gotten a receipt with my name on it.

I have a ton of books I'm trying to read, it's in the fiction pile. I'll get to it sometime.

431. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253045 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 3:49 am

1189. Comment #253043 by Lev-CapeTown

I have no trouble if they want to hold them privately. When they bring them up in public, is when any sane, and good person should be sure to voice equally vehement disapproval of them, and their proposals. I wouldn't suggest deportation, criminalizing thoughts, or anything insane, but I very much do support being as loud, if not louder than they are.

432. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253026 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 3:12 am

1179. Comment #253020 by Steve Zara

How is that not being an active homophobe? I think that it very much is. Homosexual teenagers have the highest suicide rates not because people don't want them getting married, I highly doubt they even consider that at that time in their lives. They get depressed, and upset because they are constantly getting reminded of how sickening and disgusting they are to everyone.

You don't think that espousing how repulsive you think people are is being actively bigoted? I think that it very much is, and that it does real and measurable harm.

Doing that does cause harm, and for this reason I find it prudent to espouse my own disgust for people like him, and for the harm they cause. I may not wish to take their freedom to espouse their views away, but that damn well isn't going to stop me from exercising mine.

433. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253017 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 2:48 am

1160. Comment #252985 by Steve Zara

Ah well, I seem to be posting again...

434. Without God

Comment #253004 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 2:36 am

All this, "oh I don't fear death" followed by *absurd nonsensical justification*. If someone points a shotgun at your dead, I think you're a liar if you claim you won't be afraid. What are you afraid of? You aren't going to feel your head being blown off? The hideously ridiculous idea of sleep as an analogy...try knowing you won't wake up, and then go to sleep without fear. All these mental gymnastics are just pretty words that make you feel better, but do not translate into reality. Your actions would betray them in a life or death situation, and you all know it.


Bonzai, I consider my "self" or "I" to be this particular arrangement of atoms, coupled with the data acquired from my past experiences. Together they account for my "self". I consider the latter far more integral to this than the former.

It would take a hell of a lot for "me" to exist again, a hell of a lot of the exact, or extremely similar circumstances unfolding. If string theory is true, and there are an infinite number of possible universes, then there is also a infinite number of myselves, and yourselves existing, at the same time, and at every point in time...somewhere. I don't subscribe to the idea, but if it is true, then I think what you propose is possible, though it would take string theory being true to actually happen.

435. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252977 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 1:55 am

1153. Comment #252970 by Fanusi Khiyal

Steve is an intelligent, thoughtful, and considerate man. You're crazy, and dumb.

Steve is interested in understanding what others have to say, and being understood. You are not.

I frankly ignore your posts. I just happened to notice my name. It would hurt me none if you returned the favor.

436. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252971 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 1:45 am

1151. Comment #252955 by Steve Zara

I don't understand the connection. I wouldn't suggest arresting, killing, or deporting someone because they're a bastard...I would think that we've spoken enough that you would know that about me. I still don't have to like them. I also don't remember anyone suggesting that any action should be taken against AtheistJon, so I fail to see why he needs defending?

I also find what you say completely untrue, and contradicted by your past action. Or has that background anger past by? What has Fanusi used against you besides words? Clearly they do matter to you.

437. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252941 by Mitchell Gilks on September 24, 2008 at 12:08 am

1148. Comment #252930 by Brian English

I know that...but the tacit acceptance of his opinions by everyone gives me boo boos...on the inside...*sniff*.

I know it's not true. Don't you remember that super interesting story I told you, and you were like "wow, that was really interesting" and I was like "I know, right?". See that proves it.

438. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252929 by Mitchell Gilks on September 23, 2008 at 10:29 pm

1144. Comment #252909 by robotaholic

Yes, but only Palin publically lied about it, and kept the money.

Steve, I am stunned that you can defend someone who says that you disgust them. That is a heavy insult. I'm sorry, but your willingness to take it with a smile does not alleviate my revulsion of his, harmful, and prejudiced opinions.

Lastly...not one person disagreed with Styrer about me being a dull and weird person. Now I won't dispute the latter...but dull? C'mon... you guys are dicks.

439. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252583 by Mitchell Gilks on September 23, 2008 at 11:29 am

1036. Comment #252574 by Caudimordax

I don't think anyone did, but the rebuttal should be posted on the site. So as we may scathe in its general direction.

440. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252541 by Mitchell Gilks on September 23, 2008 at 9:45 am

1022. Comment #252533 by severalspeciesof

No probably about it.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1150170,gay090708.article

The conservative homosexuals just think that they are evil and sinful is all. Ted Haggard before getting caught talked about homosexuality as if it were a drug addiction. I thought this was weird at the time, but it made perfect sense after it become public that he was gay. These people are likely deeply depressed, and self-loathing individuals. I can't even imagine thinking I was a bad person for having biological reactions to external stimuli outside the realm of conscious control. It must be terrible to think that way.

I certainly feel very bad for them. It angers me that religion has poisoned them into self-loathing.

441. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252531 by Mitchell Gilks on September 23, 2008 at 9:25 am

1017. Comment #252527 by severalspeciesof

Her and her wingnut church try to "pray the gay away".

442. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252522 by Mitchell Gilks on September 23, 2008 at 9:09 am

1011. Comment #252517 by BrandySpears

It seems self evident that people should find that disgusting, but I've seen almost everyone of the people arguing for the conservative view point espouse bigoted views towards homosexuals at one time or another...so I'm less than confident that they will see that as a bad thing.

Don't mind moralizing based on some personally invented metaphysical "dignity" that they get to define, but things that actually do hurt others, and violate their human rights seems to elude their attention.

One of the major reasons I find it hard to take their self-professed rationalism seriously.

443. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252501 by Mitchell Gilks on September 23, 2008 at 7:57 am

999. Comment #252496 by JAMCAM87

Japanese monkeys have the largest lesbian population in the animal kingdom to our knowledge.

Think I don't know the species with the biggest lesbian population? Are you having a larf? Of course I do.

444. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252382 by Mitchell Gilks on September 23, 2008 at 2:28 am

908. Comment #252379 by Fanusi Khiyal

I not going to repeat what I just wrote on the other page. Go read my posts again.

445. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252377 by Mitchell Gilks on September 23, 2008 at 2:14 am

900. Comment #252371 by Fanusi Khiyal

Again, I don't know who you are trying to argue against, but I said nothing like anything you responded to. You start off with a third party omniscient assertion, that I would think would be impossible to actually demonstrate.

1, I said nothing even remotely of the like.
2 I suppose you are doing this one...don't know why it's on the list... you are suppose to be outlining double-talk I infer from you heading...but whatever.
3 I never said that either. I said that there is no reason why they can't, like christians do. I never said that most muslims actually do, just that there is no fundamental reason why they can't.
4 again your own "double-talk" apparently.
5 again, something I never even remotely implied.

Instead of starting again from point one, and addressing hypothetical invented points I never made...it would be great if you responded to what I actually did say.

446. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252366 by Mitchell Gilks on September 23, 2008 at 1:55 am

888. Comment #252358 by Fanusi Khiyal

Well you can argue with the people that call themselves Muslim but don't fit into your definition. Reminiscent of the abstract "real Christian" no one seems to be able to agree on.

What part of "ignoring their holy texts" don't you understand? What part of "I don't care about reforming, or think it is important to reform Islam" don't you understand?

You need to work on your rhetoric's aim. I'm over here, I don't know who you're shooting at.

I'm not discussing Islam, I'm discussing Muslims. Who are individuals, like any other.

447. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252362 by Mitchell Gilks on September 23, 2008 at 1:47 am

887. Comment #252357 by Styrer-

Oh, that. I don't really have an excuse. I guess I'm just a dull and strange person. Sorry about that.

448. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252354 by Mitchell Gilks on September 23, 2008 at 1:31 am

884. Comment #252352 by Bonzai

I think because it still answers Styler's replies.

449. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252350 by Mitchell Gilks on September 23, 2008 at 1:24 am

879. Comment #252346 by Styrer-

My excuse for what?

450. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252348 by Mitchell Gilks on September 23, 2008 at 1:21 am

877. Comment #252344 by Bonzai

I know, it makes no sense to me either. Fundamentalists are the most intellectually dishonest people I've ever seen. They are capable of astonishing cognitive dissonance, and yet they are suppose to be ultra consistent when it comes to their religions. These people are masters at warping things to be what they want them to be.

I personally couldn't care less about reforming Islam, nor do I think that it is compatible with democracy or freedom, but neither is Christianity. It hasn't changed. That's the same book it's been for five hundred years. People just don't pay attention to most of it anymore. They read vague, out of context excerpts and divine special meanings from them. There is no reason that Muslims can't do the same thing.

Even almost all fundamentalist Christians still reject the super crazy stuff found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Most of them don't endorse slavery or think women deserve less rights and freedoms. This shows that even the fundamentalist Christians are not all that fundamental, and are considerably liberal compared to a fundamentalist of a hundred years ago.

The religion, or bible hasn't changed or been reformed. People just read it differently now, and let secular society inform how they interpret it to varying degrees. There is absolutely no reason why Muslims can't also do this.