[Thunderdome]
This is Thunderdome, the unmoderated open thread on Pharyngula. Say what you want, how you want.
We’ve got Eric Hovind planning to send his ‘students’ here on Friday. They should post here in the unmoderated thread.
Status: UNMODERATED; Previous thread
PZ Myers:
October 26th, 2012 at 2:34 am
Brace yourselves for presuppositional nonsense.
chigau (棒や石):
October 26th, 2012 at 2:55 am
I think you should provide links in the Australian thread.
Else they’ll get all lost
an’ stuff
and I bet they shit in the corners
Avicenna:
October 26th, 2012 at 2:57 am
That’s not a good thing in an igloo…
Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus:
October 26th, 2012 at 3:05 am
Damn, I actually have something usefull to do tomorrow morning.
Depends. If it’s already dead it will keep fresh for a long time. So, much better than one of their chicken relatives.
Ichthyic:
October 26th, 2012 at 3:08 am
wait, Eric Hovind has students?
or are these kidnapees?
=8)-DX:
October 26th, 2012 at 3:16 am
A “clean” conversation? Is that one where you wash your hands before and come with a napkin tucked into your shirt? Or is it one where you refrain from spewing bullshit?
joefogey:
October 26th, 2012 at 3:22 am
What are they studying? Tax accountancy?
Ichthyic:
October 26th, 2012 at 3:30 am
Or is it one where you refrain from spewing bullshit?
no no, it’s one where you agree ahead of time not to use words like:
Fuck the fucking fuckers.
Shit, that crap stinks.
and of course never ever refer to their imaginary deities names in “vain”.
Jesus Christ, what a fucking shitfest it will be.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist:
October 26th, 2012 at 3:34 am
I thought a clean conversation is the one not polluted with inconvenient facts, reliable sources, intelligence… you know the kind of thing that brings a conversation on a higher level than the one hovind is capable of.
The very model of a modern armchair general:
October 26th, 2012 at 3:38 am
“Clean” conversation is rather like Reddit’s version of free speech: it means freedom from consequences.
Ichthyic:
October 26th, 2012 at 3:49 am
Hey, Eric, if you’re paying attention, and these really are a random group of kids you conned parents out of cash to get sent to you, might I recommend you send them instead to Jerry’s Blog for a change of pace?
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/
Jerry runs a much “cleaner” ship over there; much more family friendly.
they’ll still get the crap you stuffed in their mouths washed out, but it will be done much more… civilly… that here.
Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus:
October 26th, 2012 at 4:12 am
I’m wondering how much “good faith” there is on the side of those asking for “clean conversation”
Muz:
October 26th, 2012 at 4:17 am
Won’t they just retreat to the Lounge to avoid unpleasant swears?
And if it’s Presuppositionalist Apologetics there’s going to be swearing.
And after the tenth repeat of “But you can’t even know anything to ask that question in the first place”, attempted strangulation.
robinjohnson:
October 26th, 2012 at 4:21 am
I think Hovind’s definition of a “clean conversation” is one where you lie your arse off, then when someone calls you a fucking liar, you win. The point of the exercise is probably to show his students that non-creationists like to swear, and the truth can go fuck itself for all he cares.
LykeX:
October 26th, 2012 at 4:21 am
I like the argument that the guys from Fundamentally Flawed used:
I know you’re wrong because the Ghost That Never Lies told me so. Anyone who disagrees with me is automatically wrong, because they clearly do not have access to the one, true source of knowledge; the Ghost That Never Lies.
Anytime the Hovindites asks “how do you know that?”
GTNL told me.
How can you be sure it’s right?
GTNL told me it’s right.
But my god says differently.
GTNL says that your god is simply a delusion.
But I know my god exists
No, you don’t. The only source of true knowledge is GTNL.
Etc. See, we can presuppose nonsense, too.
McC2lhu doesn't want to know what you did there.:
October 26th, 2012 at 4:24 am
Are these ‘students’ the same ones that walk by enormous university libraries with millions of data-backed books on biology, geology, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, etc. that all but prove an ancient universe, world and evolution so they can squeeze into a dorky conference room with one book (or worse, one video, that the presenter is desperately trying to sell you) and pretend at being more informed? That sounds freakishly like delusional fear-based superstition, not human curiosity and actual studying to me.
See, the word study…it’s essentially right there in ‘students’. These can’t really be students then. If they were really ‘studying’ they would be in much larger libraries, surrounded by many, many more books. And surrounded certainly by more than one teacher who wants you to buy his videos at $19.95 a pop.
theophontes (坏蛋):
October 26th, 2012 at 4:31 am
@ Tony
I used the shortened form in the interests of brevity. If you like:
@ chigau
No,no, of course not! As 2IC you have complete insight into .
The shape of The Thunderdome is spherical – as all fans of the new Pharyngula Movie (not yet released, I am struggling to get my Blender skills up to speed) are well aware.
…
Should we not be rallying the troups to fend off the invasion tomorrow? Should we be sharpening our questions and loading our responses in preparation? Fortunately we have a new Politburo member on board (Cde DarkInfant) to help co-ordinate.
John Morales:
October 26th, 2012 at 4:44 am
theophontes:
Then it’s a sphere, not a dome.
(Though a dome can be hemispherical, but then, so can a bowl)
John Morales:
October 26th, 2012 at 4:48 am
<snicker>
(Troups with croups?)
theophontes (坏蛋):
October 26th, 2012 at 4:48 am
@ John Morales
Only the “dome” part appears above ground level (though not in the first installments).
((Damnit, now I have to change the script, just so I can appear to be right…!))
John Morales:
October 26th, 2012 at 4:56 am
We shall welcome them to the bathosphere, while the domeheads battle the coneheads and the eggheads will have their little yolks.
feralboy12:
October 26th, 2012 at 5:04 am
When they come, it’s critical that we stay in formation. Nobody runs off alone. We watch each other’s backs.
And remember: head shots. Only head shots are effective.
venturefree:
October 26th, 2012 at 5:15 am
Unmoderated? Does that mean I can say anything? Anything at all? Like bad words and stuff just like on South Park?
Barbara Streisand!
HA HA HAAAAA!!! Take that prudes!
blf:
October 26th, 2012 at 5:30 am
Clean Conversations: Remaining Clean-ish in everyday settings, by Penny Tompkins and James Lawley (emphasis, etc., as in original):
I’m not endorsing the above per se.
I also suspect it’s not what’s meant. I myself suspect what is meant is some variable and varying combination of “no naughty words”, “no nasty facts”, “fecking stoopid babblings only”, “if it ain’t how ‘I’ interpret the wholly useless babble then ‘you’ must be wrong”, and “whatever ‘I’ make up, which ‘I’ can retroactively change”.
McC2lhu doesn't want to know what you did there.:
October 26th, 2012 at 6:32 am
Just how clean can a conversation be when someone has ‘pre-supposed’ an answer (which is every bit as cheesy as the ontological argument, but with 40% more fat), is showing up with the obligatory ‘six things biology hasn’t explained yet (while ignoring the other 300 million things it has explained)’ and resorts to magical thinking whenever things go wrong?
There’s only so many times a person can wheel out the right answers/scientific method/try this at home – it works wagon before the only recourse is to blurt out, ‘how fucking stupid are you? Four year old children are understanding this and making accurate predictions with it, for fucksake!’
usagichan:
October 26th, 2012 at 6:41 am
McC2lhu doesn’t want to know what you did there. @16
They only read one book, but its a good book
usagichan:
October 26th, 2012 at 6:49 am
Anyway, I thought Eric’s ‘Theory’ does make accurate predictions – it accurately predicts the transfer of currency from the believer to the Pastor (Father, minister, monk, Epop, Lama… etc).
McC2lhu doesn't want to know what you did there.:
October 26th, 2012 at 7:26 am
Usagichan (with the lovely odango), there should be enough moment’s hesitation after a Minchin tune to keep a Hovind from ever having ‘students.’ Bible apologetics are rape, murder and slavery apologetics. It is also tiresome that the Hovindkind never give pause to consider that if magical mechanisms were scientifically proven tomorrow, this wouldn’t prove the existence of their deity. One would certainly hope not, or we actually would have to stone our children to death, or burn a woman who decided to dance nude on Spring solstice. By ignoring the bibble, we show far superior ethics to the fictional thing they would want all of us to be forced to worship in their future theocracy.
This should always preface a ‘debate’ on evolution. The question of “why are you attacking the process of scientific investigation as a defense of a book ethically unwarranted of defending” should be asked of every Hovind acolyte. Fear of the unknown causes superstitious thinking, but the unknown becomes a dwindling quantity when science is applied. Too bad people’s fears are so abused by religions to overrides normal intellectual curiosity and perpetuate needless ‘noise,’ rather than learning and finding real joy from the universe and all its sights, sounds, processes, creatures and extremes of violence (such as supernovas) and elegance (a dandelion seed caught on a breeze). Pretending that these things are the work of imagined overlords, especially sadistic ones, cheapens, not enhances them.
McC2lhu doesn't want to know what you did there.:
October 26th, 2012 at 7:28 am
Usagichan: That’s not a theory, that’s a *hypothe$i$!
—-
*At least until after accounting reviews returns.
Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle:
October 26th, 2012 at 7:32 am
OMG I hate the %^*(&^@(%?@%(&!(*^$#(&#%^&*)n floating ads on FTB.
that is all.
usagichan:
October 26th, 2012 at 7:44 am
McC2lhu,
True, with the added advantage that it is less taxing than science… and
not to mention mandatory genocide… Although for me that’s just symptomatic of the real problem of getting your morality second hand, from someone claiming to represent absolute authority (leaving aside that acting morally through compulsion is hardly acting morally at all).
Don Quijote:
October 26th, 2012 at 7:50 am
Been waiting all morning for the “Hovmind” to start, y nada.
Owlmirror:
October 26th, 2012 at 8:07 am
How fortuitous!
I have recently declared, via the Internet Statement on Owlmirrorical Inerrancy, that I am inerrant.
I will also steal a march on Catholics, and declare myself infallible on faith and morals.
Hovind’s students who think I am wrong merely have an inherently depraved and anti-Owlmirror nature.
ChasCPeterson:
October 26th, 2012 at 8:18 am
Coyne’s blog?
“Bike-riding kitteh”
Otherwise it’s All About Jerry, by Jerry. The dude publishes more pictures of himself than Abbie Smith or even JT What’shisname.
And he uses the appellation “Ceiling Cat” alternately as a jokey substitute for ‘God’ and to refer to himself in the third person.
J.A.I.N.
(Still, there’s much more biology over there than around here anymore. An observation, not a criticism.)
Owlmirror:
October 26th, 2012 at 8:25 am
Or, they may have been deceived by an evil spirit, perhaps even by Boltzmann Brontosaurus itself.
Emrysmyrddin:
October 26th, 2012 at 8:48 am
Just been very pissed off at an interview on a highly popular sceptical news podcast; I need some popcorn-worthy hovindian flamebait to make me howl with laughter instead of rage, and lower my blood pressure.
.
(Who the fuck says it’s YOUR fucking tent?!)
(Breathe. Choke off the rant. Say no more. Calm, waving fields of wheat or somesuch…)
.
I suppose they’ll be released from Castle Eric on US time though. Sigh.
blf:
October 26th, 2012 at 9:01 am
I’m more inerrant than you. I don’t even need to declare my inerrantity, er, inerrancy. And yer mother drinks wallpaper paste, and yer father was a shipworm. So there! Pfffffffffft!!!1!111!
bargearse:
October 26th, 2012 at 9:07 am
Emrysmyrddin@36
Puts on best singsong voice, “somebody just listened to this week’s SGU didn’t they?”. My coworkers had to put up with me muttering obscenities for most of Tuesday morning because of that interview.
Emrysmyrddin:
October 26th, 2012 at 9:13 am
bargearse: Haha. I was trying to be diplomatic. But yes, yes it was.
*begins to mutter – *
.
No! I will not be dragged back in!
*goes back to winding string dolls; it’s soothingly repetitive, and involves no tents whatsoever*
bargearse:
October 26th, 2012 at 9:16 am
Get back in the tent! Alternatively, where are these Hovindites I was promised?
Owlmirror:
October 26th, 2012 at 9:17 am
But by stating that you are more inerrant than I, you are declaring your inerrancy. So saying that you don’t need to is wrong, therefore you aren’t more inerrant than I am, and your claim of inerrancy is necessarily false.
Ta-da!
But yer mother was a sack of peas, and yer father was a horse!
This explains much, methinks.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
October 26th, 2012 at 9:21 am
Keep in mind that innerent pronouncements are only those that are declared to be innerent and are pronounce ex cathedra — from the throne. So in order for either one of you to acutally be innerent, you must declare that what you are saying (or writing) is, actually and specifically, inerrent and must declare it from the throne. So you’d both better be commenting from the bathroom or it don’t count!
robb:
October 26th, 2012 at 9:25 am
where are the “students?” they must be sleeping in.
i can’t wait til they chum the blog.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
October 26th, 2012 at 9:26 am
All Hail Tpyos!
That was impressive. I spelled ‘inerrent/innerent’ two different ways in one comment and dropped a ‘d’ from pronuonced.
Thank you. I’ll be here all week. Try the crawfish thermidor.
blf:
October 26th, 2012 at 9:35 am
Therefore your argument is false and disproven, and my inerrancity, er, inerrancy, must be true. Which disproves the clams of that heretic pretender, awlminion.
(Do you realise how hard it is to write hovindmind “logic”? My brain keeps screaming “but, but, but…”.)
otrame:
October 26th, 2012 at 9:40 am
I only worship Anoia, the Godess of Things That Get Stuck In Drawers. I hear She’s moving into becoming the Godess of Lost Causes as well so I’ll try to get some of the “students” to consider how much more evidence there is for Her than for their god.
That cause should be lost enough to please Her. Maybe She’ll let me find my corkscrew. I have this bottle of Yellowtail Shiraz……
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
October 26th, 2012 at 10:07 am
May Her spatula always rattle.
Rawnaeris, FREEZE PEACHES:
October 26th, 2012 at 10:21 am
Darn, looks like I’m going to miss the Hovindites. Gotta run errands today.
Oh, and I’m going to put a second vote in for I bloody hate the floating adds on my phone. They get bigger and bigger whenever I zoom in, an usually won’t let me close the damned things.
Take up my whole screen, they do.
blf:
October 26th, 2012 at 10:29 am
Floating adds?
Yeah, floating-point maths is tricksy. Stick to integers.
Rawnaeris, FREEZE PEACHES:
October 26th, 2012 at 10:33 am
Goddammit. Floating Ads.
*wanders off muttering about Tpyos*
1peter315:
October 26th, 2012 at 10:48 am
Hey does anyone want to engage in a good conversation about God?
dobbshead:
October 26th, 2012 at 10:48 am
I’m getting bored, let’s get this party started.
How do you know anything?
1peter315:
October 26th, 2012 at 10:50 am
Because I know a God that knows EVERYTHING, and He can’t lie.
1peter315:
October 26th, 2012 at 10:52 am
How do you know anything to be true?
dobbshead:
October 26th, 2012 at 10:53 am
How do you know God?
apologia:
October 26th, 2012 at 10:53 am
We know God through the revealed Word of Scripture.
1peter315:
October 26th, 2012 at 10:54 am
Because He has revealed HImself to us in the Bible.
DPB:
October 26th, 2012 at 10:54 am
So you believe in Allah? Me too!
dobbshead:
October 26th, 2012 at 10:54 am
How do you know that scripture came from god?
DPB:
October 26th, 2012 at 10:55 am
oops. Damn. Quoted the wrong post.
Meant to quote this:
1peter315:
October 26th, 2012 at 10:56 am
dobbshead:
Through His revealed Word.
cavarly4calvary:
October 26th, 2012 at 10:56 am
Hey anybody want to join in an interesting convo???
DPB:
October 26th, 2012 at 10:57 am
Lies. Only Allah’s words are truly revealed. Stop denying the One True God.
dobbshead:
October 26th, 2012 at 10:57 am
How do you know that it’s god’s revealed word?
1peter315:
October 26th, 2012 at 10:58 am
Glad to hear you’re not an Atheist.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist:
October 26th, 2012 at 10:59 am
Er, I didn’t think hovind meant actual ten-year-olds when he wrote “students”.
apologia:
October 26th, 2012 at 10:59 am
@dobbshead Because Scripture tells us it is God’s revealed Word.
Portia:
October 26th, 2012 at 10:59 am
I demand you rescind your blasphemy against Odin.
apologia:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:00 am
@ DPB How do you know that Allah is the only true God?
Portia:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:02 am
Emrysmyrddin:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:02 am
Wow, they all started off on the same script. That’s what I think of when I want to have a free-flowing useful conversation! Scripts! Whee!
Matt Penfold:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:02 am
You already know the answer. The same way you think your god is the only true god.
1peter315:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:03 am
@Portia so since you believe in Odin your NOT an atheist?
apologia:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:04 am
I’m glad to hear that you all seem to have beliefs in gods. Allah, Odin… And here I thought you were atheists! :)
feralboy12:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:04 am
Is this the same god that “knows” the world is flat, that it rests on pillars, that the sky is a dome with little lights hanging from it? The same god that “knows” bats lay eggs, rabbits chew their cud, insects have four legs, and that the mustard seed is the smallest seed in the world?
All that stuff is demonstrably wrong. It does match up, however, with all the erroneous ideas that the perfectly ordinary people of biblical times believed.
dobbshead:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:04 am
You know it’s god because it says it’s god?
I am god, this is my revealed word, the Christian bible is false. Prove me wrong.
DPB:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:04 am
She was joking.
But since you believe in Jesus, you admit to being a tool of Satan?
apologia:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:05 am
@ Dobbshead So if you are claiming to be god, can we assume you know everything? Or is there information in the universe that you don’t know?
scorpy1:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:05 am
If you happen to think that Guhd has given you a gift of logic, I’d ask for a refund.
onlybygrace:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:05 am
@dobbshead: Do you know everything? Because if you don’t, you’re not God.
erichovind:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:06 am
Hey friendly neighborhood Atheists.
We have 6 groups of students that can’t wait to engage you. There is no script, they just want to see if the Atheist has anything to stand on.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:06 am
Ok dobbshead, honey, you’re god. It’s not like anyone has ever properly defined the term. If you want to call yourself “god”, go ahead.
Portia:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:06 am
If you’re going to take me literally, then I worship dobbshead. Prove me wrong that’s xe’s not the Ultimate Deity.
1peter315:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:08 am
@DPB Oh do you have any real arguments against God? Anything to actually stand on?
onlybygrace:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:08 am
@Portia: because dobbshead doesn’t know everything.
Portia:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:08 am
We. Are. THE Atheist.
One mind.
One message.
Unite.
scorpy1:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:08 am
hoveround sez,
I’d start by saying that no one person can speak for a group (and yes, not even Myers), but I doubt your acolytes have been exposed to such a social structure.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 26th, 2012 at 11:09 am
Liar.
feralboy12:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:09 am
I was hoping for “Hello, my name is Eric Hovind.”
But I guess this isn’t a PhD thesis, is it?
1peter315:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:09 am
@Portia How do you know that he is the “ultimate deity”? Is it possible that you could be wrong?
Portia:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:09 am
Prove it. Ask questions of hir. Prove the answers are wrong. Isn’t that how this works? You think proving a negative is possible, then do it.
thunk, Blob Alert!:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:09 am
I’m very sorry, but your “god” does not know much of anything either.
But go ahead and conveniently ignore that.
apologia:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:10 am
Since there has been some confusion as to God’s definition:
God: The all-knowing Creator of the universe who has revealed Himself to all people and cannot lie.
Emrysmyrddin:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:10 am
Did you go to that cocktail party too? Man, the wine was great. Not too sure on the buffet, though; a hundred and fifty variations on bread gets a little stale after a while. Nice concept, poor execution. So, how did this (g)od introduce herself to you? I had a bit of difficulty choosing which hand to shake; eight arms give you a lot more options than the usual.
As soon as I discovered the revealed words of the One Lord, I knew I’d been lied to my entire life. It does matter if you’re born of two magical parents, no matter what those liberul Hogwartsian types try to indoctrinate you with. The Daily Prophet is just too Mainstream Media to publish the Truth. Plus, the DE club has the most awesome tattoos.
Matt Penfold:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:10 am
Thanks for reminding me: I need to get some new stepladders since the ones I have at the moment are held together with binder twine.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 26th, 2012 at 11:11 am
Portia:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:11 am
I’m asking you to prove me wrong.
Ok, spoiler alert. The point is your position is unfalsifiable.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:11 am
It is early but this has to be the funniest and most dishonest line to come out of this clusterfuck.
Have fun people. You might as well debate parrots.
Except parrots are more honest.
msbd2:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:11 am
@thunk, Blob Alert! How do you know that?
cicely:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:11 am
So many . And all equally credible.
-
DPB:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:11 am
*sigh*
Here you demonstrate that you come to an atheist forum and don’t actually know what atheism is.
Do you have any REAL arguments for god? Or do you want to just argue against strawmen?
Portia:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:12 am
“Why the fuck would anyone need arguments against a figment of your imagination?”
QFMFT.
broboxley OT:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:13 am
#56 Apologia
“We know God through the revealed Word of Scripture.”
that books has been EOL’d and is out of warranty
http://www.baptist2baptist.net/printfriendly.asp?ID=43
erichovind:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:13 am
@Portia and @scorpy1 You guys need to get your story straight. Seems a bit contradictory.
Emrysmyrddin:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:13 am
Are you denying that Nagini died for our sins??!?
Emrysmyrddin:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:13 am
See, Hovind, that’s how that thing called individualism works. New concept for you, I can tell.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:14 am
Which version of the thousands of sometimes mutually exclusive version of the scripture is one true one? Keep in mind, the damn thing was edited, mistranslated, miscopied, bowdlerized, and poetryized so many times that even scholars cannot agree on what some of it actually says.
And for an infallible god, how the fuck did your so-called god come up with pi=3?
1peter315:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:14 am
@Portia I asked if you personally could be wrong?
apologia:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:15 am
Would anyone like to honestly answer the question, “How do you know what is truth?” Because up to this point it seems everyone has simply resorted to name-calling and sarcasm…
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 26th, 2012 at 11:15 am
In that case, “God” will be able to tell you whether or not there is an odd perfect number, and provide a proof of the answer. Can’t provide one? Then you’re obviously lying.
Portia:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:15 am
I was mocking your phrasing. Xe chose to respond without snark.
feralboy12:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:16 am
You made the positive claim, that such a creature exists. Burden of proof is on you. Get crackin’. Whatcha got?
I’ve already pointed out a bunch of stuff demonstrably wrong with “His revealed word.” So that won’t work.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:17 am
Ah. I see the problem now. That was just a door-to-door salesman. You really shouldn’t believe everything that comes out of those people’s mouth. They’d say anything in order to sell you an overpriced vacuum cleaner.
Portia:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:17 am
That’s actually not true. I’ve been pretty sarcastic, and maybe some others, but the sarcasm had real points underneath if you chose to look. Lots of people have made substantive points. They are being ignored. Need I remind you that no one came to your house and demanded to be treated with kid gloves?
Emrysmyrddin:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:17 am
You’re claiming that a god exists. So, provide proof. Badda bing. Go.
1peter315:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:18 am
@DPB I want to know your arguments against God.
broboxley OT:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:18 am
#93 Apologia
Well if you believe in your book he did lie, often so which is it?
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:18 am
Can one of you godbots point to actually evidence for the existence of any god? Doesn’t even have to be the misogynistic genocidal Abrahamic god, any would do.
Matt Penfold:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:19 am
I don’t know how old you are, but I very much doubt there is anything honest in your asking that question. To pretend you are unaware of concepts such as evidence, and the burden of proof, and the scientific method is too treat us like idiots. We are not idiots, so stop thinking we are, and start being a little less disingenuous.
onlybygrace:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:19 am
@feralboy12: Logic. Logic exists, correct?
apologia:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:19 am
The concept of an “odd perfect number” is totally illogical. If you would like God to be illogical, that’s fine. But that’s not the God of the Bible.
DPB:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:19 am
My guess is that no one has answered it because it’s a stupid and boring question that won’t get us anywhere.
Either that or it’s just gotten lost in the flurry of comments.
scorpy1:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:20 am
Sarcasm, dude.
But then, I thought you understood humour, being a joke of a human being and all :)
msbd2:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:20 am
@Portia “I’m asking you to prove me wrong.” What proof would make you believe there is a God?
Portia:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:20 am
Nope, now I’m asking the questions. Can you prove dobbs doesn’t know everything?
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:21 am
If anyone died for our sins, it was Severus, you filthy Gryffindor blasphemer!
Emrysmyrddin:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:21 am
Bwahahahahaha!
Sorry people, I need a howling fit of the giggles break. I can’t see the keys, I’m so dizzy from laughing. I knew this would be entertaining.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:21 am
Bats are birds, insects have four legs, pi=3. Do you even read your so-called holy book? And if so, which of the thousands of versions is actually holy writ?
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 26th, 2012 at 11:21 am
You’ve just shown that erichovind was lying when he claimed there was no script. We know your script, and we’re not following it.
apologia:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:21 am
I am certainly not trying to treat anyone like an idiot, but you raise an interesting point. As an Atheist, what basis do you have for assuming the scientific method is valid? Could it ever be shown to be invalid?
onlybygrace:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:21 am
@Portia: sure can. dobbs doesn’t know my name.
broboxley OT:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:22 am
#109 Apologia I have responded with arguments using your material not sarcasm or name calling yet you respond not.
Matt Penfold:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:22 am
Evidence, not proof. Proofs only exist in mathematics. Do you understand the difference between proof and evidence ?
DPB:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:22 am
Again, you don’t know what atheism is. Way to not do your homework.
Atheists, for the most part, don’t believe in God.
Note: this is not the same as believing gods don’t exist.
You are assuming for some reason that all atheists are saying that gods don’t exist. From my experience most don’t hold that position.
If Hovind hasn’t taught you this, he is a shitty teacher.
Portia:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:22 am
scorpy1 @123
LLOL, well played.
bargearse:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:22 am
One, just one actual piece of evidence. Not, “I read it in a really old book that says it’s his word,” not, “because I feel his power and if only you could feel it too.” Give something, hell, anything, I can point to and say, “yep, that clinches things.” I don’t ask for a miracle but please, give me something.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 26th, 2012 at 11:23 am
A valid one, starting from premises I accept.
feralboy12:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:23 am
If you want to claim it’s “logic,” you need to run us through the logical steps. Saying it’s “logic” without further explanation is meaningless. You might as well say it’s because “plywood. Ha! Refute that!”
DPB:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:25 am
Do you even know what the scientific method is? What it entails? Please, give us a quick explanation of what you think the scientific method is.
apologia:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:25 am
I’d like a reference if you would so oblige. :)
onlybygrace:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:26 am
@bargearse (#136): Logic exists. Logic is intangible and it is universal. Where did it come from?
God.
Without God, it wouldn’t make sense.
Portia:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:26 am
You only think that. Xe does. Next.
(No, xe will not tell you your name and prove xe knows it. Because I have faith xe knows your name. That’s all I need).
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 26th, 2012 at 11:26 am
apologia,
“Atheist doesn’t need an initial upper-case letter, you ignoramus. Didn’t “God” even tell you that?
It works.
Yes: it could stop working.
Matt Penfold:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:26 am
The scientific method works, which is a pretty good basis for thinking it is a valid means of understanding the Universe. As to whether it could be shown to be invalid, the answer has to be no. It could be shown to be invalid in certain situations, but since it has already been shown to work it cannot be shown to invalid in all situations. It is also important to note that when it comes to understanding how the Universe works never has the answer come from anything other than science.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:26 am
Fly! Fly, my pretties!
msbd2:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:27 am
@Matt Penfold So do you think there are absolute truths, for example in mathematics?
Portia:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:28 am
Ah, the C.S. Lewis line. Time for a new script, I see.
apologia:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:28 am
Using observation to observe, test, and repeat experiments to show us information about the world. Interestingly, this assumes the universe is governed by laws that are universal, immaterial, and unchanging. How do you account for these laws in your worldview?
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:28 am
The scientific method is valid because it works. And it works by following actual evidence, evidence that can be shown to others and replicated by others. If no one can replicate the results of an experiment, then that experiment is considered invalid (see Pons & Fleishmann for a good example). If others can replicate the results, the result is conditionally confirmed.
If this system ever stops working (and it hasn’t) it would be shown to be invalid. Until then, we keep using it because it works.
DPB:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:28 am
God is the quadratic formula?
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 26th, 2012 at 11:28 am
Which logic, ignoramus? There are scores of different logics, devised by logicians. Prove that without “God” logic wouldn’t make sense.
onlybygrace:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:29 am
@feralboy12 (#138): I’m simply reminding you of the fact that you have a brain and you can think logically. How do you account for that without a God? My comment above (#141).
ctbn:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:29 am
@feralboy12
How do you define ‘logic’ with your worldview?
Matt Penfold:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:29 am
No. Even in maths absolute truth is an impossible goal. Godel showed us that.
Utakata:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:29 am
“Oh do you have any real arguments against God? Anything to actually stand on?”
And…
“How do you know that he is the ‘ultimate deity’? Is it possible that you could be wrong?”
I see what you guys mean about hyper-skepticism. A tactic apparently used by godbotters and slyme pitters alike. And I’ll admit, it gets old really fast.
thunk, Blob Alert!:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:30 am
@msbd2:
In holey scripture, as noted by Improbable Joe, it says that insects have 4 legs.
Let me count… 1…2…3…4…5…6…
Six does not equal four. Therefore, the bible is wrong.
msbd2:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:31 am
@DPB I am asking if you believe in absolute truth.
Jadehawk:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:31 am
hmmm… Jahweh manages to misplace a couple ofhumans, as per Genesis 3:8; and he lies about the effects of eating from the tree of knowledge, as per Genesis 2:17
meaning, whatever “god” you’ve just defined here, it ain’t the one from the bible
1peter315:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:31 am
Do you believe in absolutes?
apologia:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:31 am
So you believe that science provides us with universal, immaterial, unchanging truth?
onlybygrace:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:32 am
@Matt Penfold (#154): What’s 2+2? Is there an absolutely true answer to that question?
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:32 am
Since we’re talking mathematics, I’m interested in that p=3 miscalculation in the Bible that some other have already mentioned.
msbd2:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:32 am
@Matt Penfold So are you absolutely sure about that?
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:32 am
And they claim there is no script.
What a surprise. Eric Hovind lies again.
This is an impressive Gish Gallop, though.
bargearse:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:33 am
onlybygrace@141
Nope, gonna have to do better than that mate. You’ve assumed the conclusion. Logic is perfectly possible without a god. Show me why I need a god to be logical.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:33 am
<blockquote cite="@feralboy12 (#138): I’m simply reminding you of the fact that you have a brain and you can think logically. How do you account for that without a God? My comment above (#141).
Hey, I can play this game also.
How can you take a shit with out God?
How can a raped woman get pregnant without God?
How can one have a heart attack without God?
How can a cancer grow without God?
What a fun fucking game!
A. R:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:34 am
Hovindites are coming? [Powers up the LOLstar, switches superweapon output from LOLcats to facts, raises the rapid dissipance stupid shields, orders the logic blasters charged, arms Reference torpedoes.]
Just try something Hovindites.
DPB:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:34 am
What do you mean by absolute?
And what do you mean by truth?
Uh…Kind of. Numbers are a concept. Not a real physical, tangible thing. 2+2 could equal 5 if we decided to redefine numbers.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:35 am
How very true, Ogvorbis. This is the same bullshit as the last time Eric Hovind brought along his flying monkeys.
bargearse:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:35 am
Throws popcorn at everyone!!
cavarly4calvary:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:35 am
@Matt Penfold, So you are saying 2+2 doesn’t always equal 4?
Jadehawk:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:35 am
no such thing, and not only because “immaterial truth” is nonsense
broboxley OT:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:35 am
140 apologia
right at the begining of the book the lies started Genisis 3:3
they didnt die, they were forced to get a job, without healthcare or contraceptives I might add
onlybygrace:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:36 am
@bargearse (#165): In your worldview, there’s no reason why logic should exist. Evolution and chemical processes can’t account for universal, unchanging, absolute laws of logic. God can. He created them. There can’t be a reason for logic without Him.
msbd2:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:36 am
@DPB I mean can you be 100% sure about anything?
Matt Penfold:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:37 am
@Matt Penfold, So you are saying 2+2 doesn’t always equal 4?
It equals 10 in Base 3.
Do you know who Kurt Godel was ?
cavarly4calvary:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:37 am
@Matt Penfold, So if you had 2 apples and I gave you 2 more, how many do you have? How do you know there can’t be an absolute truth?
Jadehawk:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:37 am
1+1=10 and 1+1=2 are both true. numbers add up the way they do because of how humans have defined them. there’s absolutely a way to make 2+2 not be four; for example, in a base two system, 2+2 = 20
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:37 am
When fucking Big Brother fucking says so, 2+2=5.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:38 am
Hey kids, why don’t you select a spokesperson and let them type? You’re all repeating yourselves and it’s getting a bit distracting trying to distinguish between fool1, fool2, fool3, …however many there is of you.
(Or preferably, just go away. You’re not amusing)
DPB:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:38 am
Not a whole lot, but a few things.
usagichan:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:38 am
Indeed – truth is dependent on meaning, which is contingent on language, thus truth is contingent and not absolute. Now children, can we have a clear unambiguous logically consistant definition of what we mean by god?
Jadehawk:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:39 am
bah, i meant 11
Portia:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:39 am
om nom nom popcorn.
onlybygrace:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:39 am
DPB (#168): So you’re saying that if I owed you $50 and I gave you 2 twenty-dollar bills, it would be the same. After all, I can define numbers how I want to, according to your worldview.
cavarly4calvary:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:39 am
But in base 3 that is another form of math which has its own absolutes.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:40 am
Jadehawk,
It’s not like they’ll know what you’re talking about.
insipidmoniker:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:40 am
onlybygrace,
and what are these universal laws of logic you’re referring to? Care to share a few examples?
Matt Penfold:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:40 am
Please stop treating me like an idiot, and go an learn about Kurt Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem. Unless and until you have an understanding of that, you are wasting my time.
1peter315:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:41 am
So you believe in absolutes?
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:41 am
I am about to get all Philosophy 101 on the collective asses of the flying monkey.
Is 2+2=4 because this is what the big sky daddy desires or does the fucking big sky daddy have to yield to the laws of mathematics?
usagichan:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:41 am
Oh and of course, 2+2 = 10 (base 3), or 22 if + is an append operator… it is all dependant on context (as is everything)!
msbd2:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:41 am
@DPB So in all the knowledge you are not 100% sure of, is it possible that there could be something that contradicts what you think you know is certain?
Jadehawk:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:41 am
that’s not how the word “absolute” works.
Matt Penfold:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:42 am
Nope, there is no such as absolute truth in maths.
Can you explain why you know nothing of the most important mathematical discovery of the C20th ? What excuse do you have for being so ignorant ?
1peter315:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:43 am
Then what is “absolute”?
Portia:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:43 am
Beatrice, I like your suggestion that they elect a spokestypist to dump their brain-vomit onto the screen. It’d be much easier.
How great is it that they tromp in here with this shit and then complain about the “name-calling” (Where? Godbot?) and the sarcasm.
Jesus Mary-Fucking Christ.
cavarly4calvary:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:43 am
When you go into base 2 or base 3 is just more math but they still have absolutes. Matt Penfold, How do you know there are not any absolutes?
onlybygrace:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:43 am
@insipidmoniker (#188): The law of non-contradiction, for one. I cannot be both in a building and outside of it at the same time, and in the same way. It simply doesn’t work. It’s a contradiction. That is a logical law.
msbd2:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:44 am
@Matt Penfold So is there absolute truth in anything?
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:44 am
There’s Absolut vodka, which I’m going to need, in large quantities, from reading this shit.
Portia:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:44 am
Janine:
*applause*
(yeah I’ve given up trying to make any headway with the Hovbots).
DPB:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:44 am
*sighs*
NO.
Christ you’re dense. Do you actually think about what you type?
It’s almost unbelievable that someone is so stupid that they would misinterpret what I said in the way you misinterpreted it.
bargearse:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:45 am
onlybygrace@174
Okaaay, so explain to me these universal laws of logic. What do you mean by that? Please be specific.
Jadehawk:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:45 am
oh, that’s adorable: playing semantics without knowing how.
absolutely (adv.) = positively, definitely
absolute (n.) = the ultimate basis of reality
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:45 am
Your cluelessness and your gullibility.
broboxley OT:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:45 am
Apologia
God lied to Abraham when he ordered him to kill his kid. He didnt change his mind, he deliberately lied to him.
Now that is two concrete pieces of evidence from your evidence locker that disproves your belief that god cannot lie
Now we have that out of the way is there anything else I can help you with
Matt Penfold:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:46 am
I see you are another who is proud to be ignorant.
I have some homework for you. Go and read about Incompleteness Theorem. Once you have done that, come back.
DPB:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:46 am
Can god be both inside and outside?
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:46 am
I have a bottle of Tito’s in the freezer. I need a few shots.
Matt Penfold:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:47 am
0K
scorpy1:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:47 am
It strikes me as a little silly to try and say that a concept needs to be proven using itself, but then, you sillies love silly circular arguments.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 26th, 2012 at 11:48 am
Look, presuppositional fuckwits, we’re not playing your stupid game, not following your dishonest script. Now, since broboxley@173 has already shown that the god of the Bible does lie, while you claim your god can’t, you need to tell us which god you are talking about.
insipidmoniker:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:48 am
Onlybygrace,
Tunneling behavior allows particles to exist in more than one place at the same time. There’s a big exception that tears a hole in that particular absolute truth.
Rey Fox:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:48 am
God lied numerous times in the Bible. God got up to all sorts of crazy and horrible stuff in that book. He would be history’s greatest monster, if only he existed.
So, just like last time, I guess. Presuppositionalism. They think they have an easy out for all those complicated and disquieting philosophical questions, but it really doesn’t actually explain anything and just raises further questions.
And also, because God is supposedly the ground of all logic and knowledge and what have you, then homosexual people are icky. It’s all terribly convenient.
erichovind:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:48 am
Hey Atheists. We have 20 more min.
So far all we see is Atheists abandoning Atheism in order to defend it. Got anything better for the students?
apologia:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:48 am
While I could reply with evidence to your claims, evidence isn’t really the issue here is it? You wouldn’t accept evidence even if it was offered, because you presuppose that God does not exist. Since you bring up lying, do you believe that lying is morally wrong, and why do you believe that?
cavarly4calvary:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:49 am
Janine, To know anything for absolute you have to know everything or know someone who does, Like our heavenly Father. Do you know everything? or even anything at all?
Amphiox:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:49 am
@199;
Quantum superposition. Look it up.
Jadehawk:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:49 am
still no. there are anxioms in math, but not absolutes in the common english definition of the word )there’s such a thing as an absolute value, but that’s just defined as distance from 0, and has nothing to do with absolutes in the dictionary sense)
sharculese:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:49 am
Your god sounds like kind of a pervert. You should call the police about that shit.
msbd2:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:49 am
@DPB So in all the knowledge you are not 100% sure of, is it possible that there could be something that contradicts what you think you know is certain? Not sure if you saw this earlier, can you answer it?
Strewth:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:50 am
Everyone is being so… civil. In the thunderdome. Ladies and Gentlemen, you have my admiration.
But yes, script kiddies are disappointing.
Matt Penfold:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:50 am
Hovind,
Shame on you for letting such ignorant people loose here.
Can you explain why not one of them knows much maths ? What’s your excuse for their ignorance ?
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:50 am
Sonic Youth
1peter315:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:51 am
So you believe in absolutes. Then how do you know what you believe is absolutely true?
Portia:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:51 am
IT’S CALLED SARCASM, YOU FUCKING DISHONEST SACK OF SHIT.
DPB:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:51 am
ctbn:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:51 am
#221 @sharculese
What grounds do you have to claim anything is ‘perverted’ with your worldview?
Jadehawk:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:51 am
you might want to check your glasses; or your ability to read sarcasm. no one is “abandoning” atheism, it’s still the null hypothesis until you come up with some evidence.
Rey Fox:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:51 am
I mean, imagine. We have a being who supposedly created the universe and knows everything and is the ground of everything, and yet he’s afraid of everything outside of the comfort zone of small-town Americans! Pretty remarkable, if you ask me.
(Apologies if I’m derailing, but I really don’t feel like playing nice with people who have a demonstrably harmful impact on the world.)
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:51 am
I’m not sure… What age are they? I mean, I would find them a list of real colleges, but I’m not sure they have sufficient knowledge to qualify.
msbd2:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:51 am
@Matt Penfold Based on your previous statements I would like to know if you think there are any absolute truths?
bargearse:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:52 am
onlybygrace
I apologise, I see someone else asked and you answered while I was away. I’m willing to except your example, it is impossible to be both inside and outside of a building at the same time. Why is god necessary to understand that though?
Hurls more popcorn!!!
cicely:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:52 am
Or even sticking within the misogynistic genocidal Abrahamic god genre, in what way is the Xian more “true” than Islam’s ? After all, they both claim to be the true .
-
Face it, y’all aren’t really here to have an honest conversation. You’re here to Witness Unto The Atheists, and make brownie points.
*sighing tiredly*
-
onlybygrace:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:53 am
@insipidmoniker (#214): So are you denying that there are absolute laws of logic? Then there’s no point in debating.
By the way, you’re using the law of non-contradiction to conclude that our two worldviews can’t both be right.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 26th, 2012 at 11:53 am
Read up on paraconsistent logics, ignorant one.
Matt Penfold:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:53 am
In respect of what ?
Oh, and you forgot to admit your mistakes and apologise. Does Eric not teach you any manners ?
sharculese:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:53 am
Did you really assign your ‘students’ to babble nonsense in response to snark for an hour so you could get a post-debate high five about how totally super smrt you are for managing to act completely po-faced against people who are really obviously mocking you?
Because that is infinitely sad.
cavarly4calvary:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:54 am
If your asking if God can do something logically impossible, No.
DPB:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:54 am
Yes, as far as I am certain of anything (which is almost never 100%). For example, I know my mother is alive and at her job. This is something I would say I know as a fact.
New information (This part is key!) could disprove what I am fairly (but still not 100%) sure of. She could have gotten in a wreck or maybe her work day was called short due to some sort of localized emergency.
Now answer the question yourself.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:54 am
Fuckface4rudeness, I am not here to debate you. You are merely a chess playing pigeon. (Ask someone else to explain the joke.)
I am here to mock you. You can go away, claiming that you were persecuted for you beliefs.
sharculese:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:55 am
Truth is recorded on the pelt of a twelve-headed hypermole who endlessly orbits earth in his space helicopter.
Duh?
1peter315:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:55 am
Then how do you know your knowledge to be true?
Jadehawk:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:55 am
light is both a particle and a wave, but a wave is not a particle, and particles aren’t waves.
if you’re just going to pretend I answered the question how you wanted me to, instead of how I actually answered it, why are you even bothering typing? you can talk to yourself without that, you know?
msbd2:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:55 am
@Matt Penfold You said that there are no absolute truths in mathematics, but do you think there are absolute truths in anything?
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 26th, 2012 at 11:55 am
There is no point in debating presuppositionalist fuckwits, because they never engage in honest argument.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:56 am
Wait, wait, wait. I thought God was omnipotent. That would mean he can do anything, logically possible or not.
DPB:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:56 am
So god is bound by the rules of logic?
Did he create them?
cavarly4calvary:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:56 am
I was answering you question.
apologia:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:56 am
I’d like you to honestly consider why we’re here. We aren’t here to get “brownie points”. So far we’ve been called stupid, ignorant, and other far worse obscenities. And we don’t gain anything from that; it’s not about us.
We are here because we honestly care about where you spend eternity. Each of your lives is incredibly valuable, and I would urge you to consider your denial of God and its implications.
If we wanted to gain something, we wouldn’t come here. We are here because we care, and we want God to be glorified. :)
Jadehawk:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:57 am
so much for omnipotent; but then, I guess that wasn’t in the definition.
anyway, are y’all ever going to pony up some evidence for that god of yours?
Portia:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:57 am
Monkey wrench:
If your god in willing to prevent evil, but unable, then he is not omnipotent.
If your god is able to prevent evil, but unwilling, then his is not beneficent.
Fly away with that, flying monkeys.
insipidmoniker:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:57 am
Why is there no point in debating without absolute laws of logic? And kindly stop speaking for me, even though the law of noncontradiction is demonstrably not absolute it remains a useful tool. I don’t discard my standard screwdriver because it won’t drive a torx bit.
cavarly4calvary:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:57 am
God is not bound by anything. Yes He created all.
Amphiox:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:57 am
@217;
It is perfectly possible to discuss evidence concerning whether or not Voldemort lied even while knowing that he does not actually exist in the real world.
@218;
How do you know that you know that He knows?
@216;
Speaking a blatant lie forcefully does not make it true.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:58 am
Finally something I can definitely QFT:
Jadehawk:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:58 am
darling, we’re not the ones in denial.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:59 am
So which bible is the Absolute Truth?
1peter315:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:59 am
By your own admission, you said you believed in absolutes. Back to what I was saying, how do you know what you believe is absolutely true?
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:59 am
1peter315 ,
That you’re an ignorant fool? You’re not exactly hiding it.
Jadehawk:
October 26th, 2012 at 11:59 am
this is not an English sentence. Don’t they teach you English at whatever school you go to?
DPB:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:00 pm
So you’ve come here to make yourself feel good about trying to “save” people. You don’t honestly give a fuck about anyone here. You’re here to pretend you’re doing something to improve the world. You pretentious fuck. Just go back to liking things on facebook.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:00 pm
The only thing I get out of this exchange it this: I have no desire to follow your concept of god if it makes me as insipid and humorless as you lot of flying monkeys.
Fly! Fly, my pretties!
Jadehawk:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:00 pm
no darling, I didn’t. I merely defined words for you.
Portia:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:00 pm
How’s that martyr complex working out for you? Because I can’t imagine you expected to have any success here. Ergo, you’re engaging in metaphorical self-flagellation.
msbd2:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:01 pm
@DPB Being fairly sure is not certain, in order to be 100% sure of anything you either, need to know everything, or you need to know someone who knows everything. Would you agree?
I can be certain of things because I know a God who cannot lie and knows everything and has revealed things through His Word. Therefore I have a basis for the truth I know.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Which bible is the Absolute Truth?
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 26th, 2012 at 12:01 pm
So, you worship a genocidal, lying, pathologically jealous, psychopathic sadist. Just as well it’s imaginary.
feralboy12:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Try offering some and see what happens. Your “I could but I dwanna” isn’t going to make much headway, I’m afraid.
Yes, evidence is the issue. All we’ve seen is argument from ignorance, the unwarranted leap from “I don’t know” to magical, all-powerful being that did everything.
Emrysmyrddin:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:01 pm
…and yet you spend it worrying about a non-existent hell that an unproven Daddy-figure may or may not sendyou to based on what naughty thoughts you think. I genuinely feel sorry for you godbots. You miss out on the wonders of this life while you’re wringing your hands about ‘the next’. Sad, wasted brains.
insipidmoniker:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Msbd2,
How do you know that’s the truth?
DPB:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:02 pm
So he cannot violate logical laws, but isn’t bound by them.
You don’t see the contradiction here?
gourd could violate the laws of logic if he wasn’t bound by them. Words DO mean things, you know. Well…you probably don’t.
apologia:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:02 pm
Actually I do. Please don’t be so arrogant as to claim to know my motives. :)
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:02 pm
Send in the iron chariots!
1peter315:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:02 pm
We are not here looking for persecution. We are here to have a conversation and so far no one has been able to oppose our beliefs.
sharculese:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:03 pm
If this were even remotely true you would be trying to do so without the prefabricated smarm, the cookie-cutter sophistry, or the weirdgross obsession with Defining Terms. But you’re not, so it isn’t.
onlybygrace:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:03 pm
@Jadehawk (#252): If I gave you evidence of the incredible design that we see, for example, in one single cell, you would shoot it down saying that unitnelligent random evolutionary mutations created that over time. Man can’t even create something that complex if he tries… it demonstrates intelligent design.
But you won’t accept that evidence.
If I argue that logic and math are proofs of God because they are eternal, universal, and unchanging, and their origin can’t be explained by “science,” you won’t accept that proof either.
We are at an impasse.
I am simply pointing out that your worldview cannot explain the world or how it works, and mine can.
I know what’s going to happen to me when I die, and you don’t.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 26th, 2012 at 12:03 pm
How do you think you know that? how do you think you know that what you think is God, is neither a figment of your imagination, nor a demon? Either could give you a conviction of certainty, which is all you have.
Jadehawk:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:03 pm
usagichan:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:03 pm
I agree – of course it cannot lie, because it does not exist .
1peter315:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:04 pm
So you don’t believe in absolutes. Do you believe that to be absolutely true?
Jadehawk:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:04 pm
LOL
DPB:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:04 pm
Earlier I said there’s next to nothing I know certainly.
I know I exist in some form. Whether I am real or some sort of simulation or something.
Now HOW do you know there is a God. How do you know he doesn’t lie? How do you know he knows everything?
Your answers are just to assert these things to be true.
msbd2:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:04 pm
@insipidmoniker Because God revealed it to us.
Portia:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:04 pm
See me #266. QEmotherfuckingD.
Emrysmyrddin:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:04 pm
cavarly4calvary said:
…then later:
Careful, Hovind. One of your kids is breaking the hivemind.
.
Fly, little monkey! Reach that horizon! Don’t look back…!
apologia:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:04 pm
You assume that evidence gives us a source of truth, correct? But evidence is open to interpretation, so it really isn’t a very solid foundation. So what do you point to as a standard of truth? No one has really answered this question…
cavarly4calvary:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:05 pm
DPB, we do care, even more so we are here to glorify God. and defend our faith.
feralboy12:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:05 pm
Oh, for fuck’s sake.
We’ve already pointed out cases in the bible where your god lied, and stuff in the bible that describes the world in ways that are demonstrably wrong. How is that a basis for “truth?”
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:05 pm
You have made a shit load of absolute statements with nothing but your hot air to support it.
You are not here to converse. You are here to dictate.
Dishonest fuckface.
ctbn:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:06 pm
#243 @sharculese
We aren’t here to make fun of your world views, we are asking serious questions and a serious conversation would be great. Sarcasm isn’t going to get us anywhere. However, if you believe in evolution, this kind of reply is the perfect example of what logic should be. We can be logical because we all know there is a God who installed the principles of logic. Without Him, all of our conversations would be meaningless.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 26th, 2012 at 12:06 pm
Actually, the imperfections of the cell – such as its liability to infection, to cancer, to aging, are clear evidence that if it was created, it was not by something omnipotent.
blogofmyself:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:06 pm
So, godbots, here’s the thing. This discussion could be over really quickly if you could give us some evidence for your beliefs rather than arguing about definitions of words. So here’s what I propose:
If you have any evidence for the existence of your god, give it to us. You believe in him for a reason, right? Tell us one good reason why we should.
If you have any evidence that the Bible is anything more than a really old book, tell us.
If you have any reason what-so-ever that we should take anything you say seriously, let us know.
If you think you don’t have to do any of that, then why do you expect us to? Why do you expect other religions to? You can’t have it both ways.
Matt Penfold:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:06 pm
But you know that is enough, because if a Jew, or Muslim, or the follower of any other faith, or even of other forms of Christianity said that to you, you would say they were wrong.
So if they can be wrong, you can as well.
insipidmoniker:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:06 pm
Onlynygrace,
You’ve done nothing to demonstrate that logic and math are eternal and unchanging. When you’ve tried it has been pointed out that your examples have exceptions, meaning they are not absolute. You’ve presented no evidence whatsoever.
erichovind:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:06 pm
Ok, 5 more min.
yes, there will be High 5′s. You have failed to show how Atheism can account for truth. You have successfully abandoned atheism in an attempt to defend atheism.
Jadehawk:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:06 pm
this is not how the word “know” works.
You imagine a god, and you believe in one, which is different.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:07 pm
Oh honey, you have no idea.
Matt Penfold:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:07 pm
* is NOT enough
msbd2:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:07 pm
@DPB How do you know that?
How do I know there is a God who doesn’t lie and knows everything? Because God revealed it to us. And because without God I can’t know anything.
Emrysmyrddin:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:07 pm
Ogvorbis’ question repeated for emphasis. Waiting.
insipidmoniker:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:07 pm
Msbd2,
How do you know god revealed it to you?
coralline:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:07 pm
Yes, it IS about you. It’s about your stupid and ignorant words, and your stupid and ignorant ways of reasoning.
You /should/ gain a LOT from that: The realization that you’re wrong, or at least what you *think* you know is right could very easily be a lot of crap. You come on here to engage people who reject your presuppositionalist bullshit, and who haven’t drunk the Hovind Kool-Aid. You should gain the knowledge that spouting lies—to people who have heard them all before and have thought about them, deeply—is really a damned stupid way of living and thinking.
Gain *something* from this, and it IS about you.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 26th, 2012 at 12:08 pm
You’re a liar, like Eric Hovind. Presuppositionalists never argue honestly.
sharculese:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:08 pm
No no no no no, kiddo. It demonstrates that you grapple onto the simplest explanation you can must because the real world is just too haaaaaaaaaard for you to handle, but I guarantee that’s about all it proves.
Jadehawk:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:08 pm
this is factually incorrect, but of course if you’re not going to read what people write, you won’t notice.
not that it matters, since actually the burden of evidence is on you, not on us.
Amphiox:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:08 pm
@244;
We don’t nor do we pretend that we do. What we do instead is determine to the best if ability the probability that what we think is true really is true, and act accordingly.
And if you are actually honest with yourself you will realize that that is also what you do, and what all humans do and have always done, and that what you call “absolute” is merely a psychological crutch you made up in your head to comfort yourself against the terror of uncertainty and reassure yourself that you will be lucky and those decisions you make based on probabilistic uncertainty will turn out ok.
It is your security blanket.
Time to grow up and let go of childish things.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:08 pm
But you have been shown where your ‘god’ was lying in the bible. And you have been shown where your ‘god’ was just plain wrong. So where is your basis for truth?
And which bible does your truth come from?
So if this was not a class assignment, would you still be here?
You are here for a grade for a class given by a liar.
bargearse:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:08 pm
Oh come on! Really? I’ll use small words (or define them) and keep the sentences short
God is logically impossible. You can’t be omnipopent (all-powerful) and omniscient (all-knowing) at the same time. One precludes the other. That’s really basic stuff, if logic is a gift from god then you blokes missed the party.
scorpy1:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:09 pm
You’re not doing a good job, then.
Your group only re-enforces the stereotype of Xians as clueless, liars or as innocently as I can put it, under the spell of a man who has convinced you that reality is a matter of “worldview”.
No one in their right mind will ever take you seriously.
Emrysmyrddin:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Repeating a lie over and over again does not make it true, Eric.
Jadehawk:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:09 pm
if you ever get around to taking that English class, be sure to learn the difference between “believe in [not X]” and “don’t believe in [X]“
cavarly4calvary:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:09 pm
for our last comment the only true Bible is God’s Word. Thanks everyone for the discussion, we have to run.
peace out :)
DPB:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:10 pm
If you actually did give a shit, you would come here and fucking know what atheism is.
If you were trying to change our minds you’d try to understand us first.
If you honestly worried, you’d stay longer than the class allowed.
You would provide evidence instead of demanding it.
You would speak to us as equals, not just homework assignments.
You would be honest, and not come to us with scripted questions.
You. Don’t. Really. Fucking. Care.
You aren’t special. You aren’t unique. You aren’t the first to do this. This is a fucking merit badge to you.
This isn’t arrogance, this is experience. You come, and then you go. You leave after your allotted time and shrug your shoulders, you learned nothing. This experience won’t mean anything to you in the long run. You just come here to speak AT us, not with us.
Jadehawk:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:10 pm
incorrect. evidence is what allows falsification.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:10 pm
How can you fucking stand to be who you are, you dishonest fuckface.
Oh, say “Hi” to daddy!
Render unto Caesar and all that bullshit.
sharculese:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:10 pm
Well that is really just too bad for you, then, darlin’.
Emrysmyrddin:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:10 pm
Whoosh! That was the sound of retreat. Anyone expect any different? Only mildly entertaining in the end, though; bit of a waste of popcorn.
Jadehawk:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:10 pm
no, you’re really not. you’re asking sophomoric, silly questions
Portia:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Hovind, the burden of proof is on you and your little asshole minions. But I guess we can’t expect you to grasp such a simple goddamn concept.
Sarcasm is a useful rhetorical tool. Get the fuck over it.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 26th, 2012 at 12:11 pm
You’re a liar like your father, Hovind: no-one has abandoned atheism.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:11 pm
There is no solid and conclusive physical evidence your imaginary deity exits. You have nothing but delusions if you think you have anything other than a fallacious presupposition.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:12 pm
Which version of the bible would that be?
Strewth:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:12 pm
1peter315 – perhaps if you got around to trying to support your beliefs, instead of just saying ‘just because’, someone might think there was a point to opposing them.
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If I said all unicorns wear galoshes, would it be reasonable for me to ask you to find a unicorn that doesn’t wear galoshes, and show it to me or concede that all unicorns do indeed wear galoshes? You’d think I was being unreasonable, and you’d be right.
Jadehawk:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:12 pm
But you won’t accept that evidence. because that’s not evidence, that’s a just-so story. evidence would require a means to show that the null hypothesis can’t explain observable reality, not that you can make up a story that explains the evidence.
sharculese:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:12 pm
Oh god, lol.
Will there be cake at the pity party?
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:12 pm
One hell of a discussion, that.
/that was sarcasm, kids
apologia:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:12 pm
Thanks everyone so much for the conversation! I appreciate your willingness to discuss this issue.
I honestly believe that we all know there is a God. The issue is simply denial versus acceptance.
I can see this is a very emotional issue for many of you. Please consider all of this carefully, and the implications of rejecting God. I urge you to repent and trust Christ. Your eternal life is at stake.
You can mock this or say what you will, but it doesn’t change the fact that we are all accountable to God.
Thanks again for discussing these things! I hope that you have a great rest of your day.
John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life.”
Amphiox:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:13 pm
If Man, the only known and factually demonstrated intelligent designer cannot produce something because it is too complex, that is NOT evidence for design, that is evidence that some things are TOO COMPLEX to be designed and are therefore NOT designed, but produced by some mechanism other than intelligent design.
To presuppose without evidence that there exists a designer superior to man is a leap of faith.
Jadehawk:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:13 pm
oh fun. since no bible in the word contains “gods word”, I’m glad you agree that no bible is the true bible
:-p
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:14 pm
You really are a condescending sack of shit, apologia.
Emrysmyrddin:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:15 pm
I’d like to extend the invitation to all of Hovind’s students to lurk here on this site regularly. Make use of Thunderdome. Ask your questions outside of class time, and take time to think about the responses you get.
.
If you actually cared about ‘Truth’ and knowledge, you wouldn’t read from Just One Book – you’d study things from all over and then come to a (gasp)informed conclusion.
.
If nothing else, it will familiarise you with TEH Atheist MINDSET!1!!?! and allow you to make improved arguments. Because, students? Judging by this performance, you desperately need the practice.
Jadehawk:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:16 pm
You have failed to show how Atheism can account for truth. irrelevant, since “truth” has not been defined by you, and in common English merely describes a social construct, i.e. something that doesn’t exist in nature but is a human idea. and one that has nothign to do with whether another social construct, “god”, has any basis in the natural world
msbd2:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:16 pm
@insipidmoniker Because God revealed it to us. God is the ultimate authority and the only way I can know anything is if He reveals it to me, any outside source does not have authority over God’s revelation. So the only way I know that God revealed something to me is because God revealed it to me through His word.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:16 pm
What a crock of bullshit from a professional liar an bullshitter. Show your deity really exists Eric. You’ve tried before, and failed spectacularly every time due to lack of ev idence. Presuppostition is not evidence, but rather a delusion, and you are the poster boy for delusional thinking.
onlybygrace:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:16 pm
@Nick Gotts (formerly KG) (#293): On the contrary, the cell’s imperfections show the curse of sin that is upon this world. God created the world to be perfect, then man chose to sin and brought God’s curse upon the earth.
That explains the depravity we see around us. You argue that a “good God” wouldn’t allow this stuff. But it is the result of our sinful choices.
We’re all gonna die someday. You know that just as well as I do.
We’re all going to stand before God, and we’ll have to face Him.
We all deserve hell, because we have transgressed His holy law (and yes, He does have a holy law, and you’ve broken it–so have I).
The only way out is to repent and trust in His son Jesus Christ for forgiveness. He died and was resurrected to pay for those sins.
Think about what we’ve said.
What’s gonna happen to you when you die?
Thanks everyone for the challenging debate.
bargearse:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:17 pm
Just to recap, logic is the gift of god therefore god, nyah, nyah, we win, also you athiests denied atheism. Did I miss anything?
Looks in bowl…throws remaining popcorn.
usagichan:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:17 pm
Wow, life the universe & everything perfectly explained in 20 minutes by zombie J’s little helpers. Reality waved away with an “absolute” magic wand… Opium of the masses indeed!
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:17 pm
What kind of a delusional fuckwit can possibly call what just happened a conversation?
apologia:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:17 pm
Given that I didn’t know about this exact, specific blog before today, no. :) But I certainly do tell people about God when I can.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 26th, 2012 at 12:17 pm
apologia
Why would anyone care what a fuckwit like you believes?
Consider what carefully? None of you have made any point that’s worth considering; you’ve just repeated your stupid script.
The usual empty threats.
Jadehawk:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Sarcasm isn’t going to get us anywhere.oh, it gets me plenty of places
Portia:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:18 pm
That circle you’re dancing around in must be making you dizzy.
bargearse:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:18 pm
do they get a doctorate for this?
1peter315:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Thanks everyone for the engaging conversation about the ONE TRUE GOD, this is absolutely true.
Romans 5:8
“But God demonstrated His own love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:18 pm
How? It doesn’t exist, and your babble is a bookk of mythology fiction until you provide evidence otherwise. And hint, your testament isn’t evidence, but babbling bullshit.
ctbn:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:18 pm
We appreciate the opportunity you gave us to discuss openly and intellectually. We urge you to think about where your world views lead and to consider looking deeper into God and His promises of forgiveness to those who place their trust in Him. God Bless!
Emrysmyrddin:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:19 pm
msbd2:
And this god revealed this to you how? Precisely, please.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:19 pm
This is a “just so” story. You are also combining element that have nothing to do with each other.
You are a muddled mess.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Which version of the bible is God’s Revealed Word?
scorpy1:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Janine #332 said,
Aye that.
Makes me wonder what about their attitude of coming in with presupposationalist horse puckey somehow deserved more respect than a guffaw and a fresh, minty FU.
I know they thought they were speaking for some undefined, indefensible higher being, but I can’t help thinking any undefined, indefensible higher being would be sorely disappointed in them.
insipidmoniker:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Msbd2,
How do you know that’s the only way you can know anything?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:20 pm
We responded intellectually. Your posts were mindless drivel without evidence, words strung together to make meaningless sentences. Intellectual discussion starts with evidence, you presented none.
Jadehawk:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:20 pm
assertion without evidence. again, what actually happens is that you imagine this to be true, and that you believe it. it’s an evidence-free assertion and therefore cannot actually be used in an argument as evidence for anything.
Portia:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:21 pm
Why can’t their god glorify himfuckingself? You’d think he’d at least pick out better representatives than these shitstains.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:21 pm
God told me to skin you alive.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:21 pm
onlybygrace,
I’m so sorry. Really. I’m sorry that you have such a low opinion about yourself and people generally… your loved ones. I hope you’ll realize how foolish you have been and start living a happy life free of unreasonable guilt. Good luck!
DPB:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:21 pm
You massive, lying pile of shit.
I thought it was arrogance to say what other people are thinking?
Why are you immune from that rule of etiquette?
Because you aren’t allowed to play victim?
erichovind:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:22 pm
PZ, Thanks for this opportunity.
See ya at the next reason rally! :-)
Jadehawk:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:23 pm
I honestly believe that we all know there is a God. – apologianobody “knows” any such thing; plenty of people imagine this, and believe it, though. And not all of them. So your belief that everybody “knows” god is fractally wrong.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:23 pm
Nerd, I will not make the claim that I responded intelligently. I was here to mock them.
CJO:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:23 pm
Wow. Unbelievable!
“Today in class, we’re all going to fire up our laptops and post presuppositionalist drivel on an atheist site –only for an hour, mind you– and then declare victory and run away.”
So, what’s on for the rest of the day, besides fingerpainting and macaroni bracelets?
DPB:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:23 pm
It really is amazing how much Christians hate their “loved ones”
I wonder if it is at all possible to love people and gourd at the same time.
Emrysmyrddin:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:23 pm
onlybygrace:
etc. etc. ad infinitum…
So, who told you this? How was this information ‘revealed’ to you? Precisely, please.
Jadehawk:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:23 pm
fuck, why do i suck at blockquoting so much right now.
nobody “knows” any such thing; plenty of people imagine this, and believe it, though. And not all of them. So your belief that everybody “knows” god is fractally wrong.
Amphiox:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:24 pm
If you encounter something that claims to be god’s word, how do you know that it is truly god’s word and not something else trying to deceive you?
Portia:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:24 pm
Fuck, did I really just waste an hour of my life on this?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:24 pm
That is an intellectual response to pure drivel.
broboxley OT:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:24 pm
too late, I guess hovind feks off rejoicing but let me address a couple of things
When you come in here proclaiming that a “scripture is eternal truth and god doesnt lie” you are in a self contained closed circular logic belief system. That is why I used “your” scripture and “your” theologians to show you that your statement was wrong.
Apologia
As noted above, I accepted your argumental premise and stayed within your closed circular logic belief system to address your points. I would have taken your evidence, examined then rebutted as needed. And there is two errors of fact in your quote
Now hovind, quit stealing money off of these credulous students and allow them to do their own thinking.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:24 pm
So you admit that you do not care about any of us here but are only chasing a grade for a lying teacher. At least you were honest that time.
But considering how many different versions of the bible have been, and are, in use, how do you know which bible is the actual Truth about the One True God?
And god bless to you.
(Where I grew up (bible belt), that phrase did not have a friendly meaning.)
msbd2:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:24 pm
Thank you everyone for the discussion, and for being polite in our conversations. I pray that you all will think about the things brought up today, everyone knows that God exists and therefore the choice is to either accept or reject Him. Romans 3:23 says “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”, John 3:16 says that “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life.” Acceptance and repentance brings about eternal life with God. Rejection results in death and eternity in hell. I pray that you will consider this. Thank you for the conversation.
Sastra:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:25 pm
apologia #329 wrote:
Sorry I am coming very late to what looks like an extended conversation. But I’m curious about what you mean here.
Do you think the evidence for God’s existence is so obvious and overwhelming that there is no need for “faith” at all? People who claim to not believe in God are confusingly perverse, like people who would say that they don’t see the sun, or believe in the existence of trees?
Or do you think that the rational perceptual evidence is lacking, sure — but all humans have a sort of ESP when it comes to God, some sort of invisible connection of mind-meeting-Mind, so to speak?
I’d like to ask msbd2 the same question. I mean, YOU are the ultimate authority in deciding that you have had a revelation from God. Other people have been wrong on that subject. How did you become infallible? How do you know?
Thanks.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:25 pm
You are doing your flying monkeys any favors.
But I guess you need to make a living.
Being a grifter would be a step up for you.
Emrysmyrddin:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:25 pm
True, Amphiox; I’ve heard that the hand of Satan is everywhere *nods sagely* *checks under bed*
Jadehawk:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:25 pm
discuss openly and intellectuallythat’s just sad. they probably really do think this was “intellectual” conversation.
such waste of perfectly good brains is just tragic.
dobbshead:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:25 pm
And after my long absence I return to grant salvation in my word. I do in fact know everything, because I am god, but I just choose to not reveal it because it would harm your free will. WORSHIP ME!
Portia:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:27 pm
dobbshead, it was entirely appropriate that you were absent and silent during the time I was claiming you were the all-knowing, all-powerful being that I worshipped.
Jadehawk:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:27 pm
repeating this lie won’t make it any more accurate.
sad how they think the boring old canards they’ve brought here are something new to anyone here.
mythbri:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:28 pm
God is omnipotent, right? So could God, in His infinite power, microwave a burrito SO HOT that even He could not eat it?
O.O
You’re welcome, god-botherers.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:28 pm
Judging from the timing as each comes to say thank you, I’d say Hovindtheliar is handing out grades to all.
And yet none even responded as to which bible contains The Absolut Truth. Pity.
cicely:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:28 pm
In what way is this not hoping to earn brownie points with this alleged god of yours?
-
*nodding*
Yup. It’s the difference between “truth” and “truthiness”.
-
Emrysmyrddin:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:29 pm
Assertion. Citation needed. Also specificity as to WHICH god of the millions that humanity has dreamed up over the years; with reference to a specific holy book. Be precise in your answer, please.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:29 pm
I wonder if he failed the one who said god isn’t omnipotent.
Jadehawk:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:30 pm
seriously; creationist younguns are probably the saddest kind of reality-deniers. there’s just no meat on those chewtoys, and I just end up feeling sad for the forcefully athrophied brainpower.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:30 pm
Eric Hovind:
Did they all get gold stars? Or inflated A’s?
Portia:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:31 pm
Beatrice:
:D
I wonder if he gave extra credit to the one who said “I got these ones to admit they’re not Atheists!!!”
dobbshead:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:31 pm
My absence was quite tasty too… nom nom nom kebob.
…New Apologetics Theory: Jesus is really just having a really awesome lunch, which is why he hasn’t returned!
bargearse:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:32 pm
well that was unsatisfying.
Jadehawk:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:32 pm
And yet none even responded as to which bible contains The Absolut Truth. why, the real one, of course. d’uh. [/sarcasm]
the idea of multiple, competing and amalgamated versions of the biblical texts probably was never explained to these poor, intellectually starved kids.
Emrysmyrddin:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:32 pm
cavalry4calvary is getting a regulation plumbing-line beating tonight, sure enough! Or would he count as a rebellious child, to be taken before the city gates and stoned? Curious minds want to know.
Emrysmyrddin:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:35 pm
Srsly though, Hovind-kids, mockery is not a beating. Mockery is a learning-tool. Stick around on this site. Post more, without Hovind breathing down your necks and glaring at your screens.
.
The Thunderdome thread is always open, to everyone, regardless of topic or question. You’re very welcome to stay and discuss this more, as long as you stick to Thunderdome.
.
I recommend that you read the FAQs as to site-etiquette. Maybe one day you’ll put aside childish things. Hope springs eternal.
Sastra:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:36 pm
msbd2 #372 wrote:
Okay, here is the problem with referring to this as a “conversation.” In a conversation, you have to grant the other person a minimal common ground, assume a little bit of respect for another person who is not lying and is making an honest error.
If you honestly think we are NOT making honest errors, then how do you think you can persuade us to change our minds if we think we ARE sincere? Think about it. A Muslims could tell you that you are wrong about Christianity — but could he really persuade you that you only became a Christian to avoid the responsibility of praying towards Mecca 5 times a day? If he told you that you are already a Muslim and just being perverse, then who is he really talking to? You? Or himself?
You cannot persuade another person that they’re not sincere. You can only go “AHA! I caught you!”
“Aha, gotcha” is not a conversational opener. But it is a conversational closer. If this is your final taunt before you log off the computer, you need to re-think what you’re really doing — and contrast it with what you meant to do.
There is nothing to think about. You have not given us food for thought. Because you didn’t catch us lying.
Even if we’re mistaken, we are not lying.
Choose a new strategy. You could not choose a worse one.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Oh, I’m sure of that. Which is why I kept asking. Maybe one of them will ask Hovind. And after Eric yells at them, maybe they will start looking into the history of the bible. And then, when they discover what abslute bollocks it is, they will join us. And after that, giant winged Bambiraptors will fly backwards out of me arse.
sharculese:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:37 pm
@Portia,356
Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also.
Rey Fox:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:38 pm
Aw geez, is it over already?
Potshots:
And I would urge you consider your denial of…nah, forget it. I could posit the existence of some similarly omniscient omnipotent omni-whatever being named, say, Todd, who happens to agree with my personal convictions (mushrooms are not a foodstuff, for example), and I’d have just as much claim to threaten you with eternal damnation as you do, but I suppose your clown teacher would just use that to claim that I’m not really an atheist because he’s too dim to understand sarcasm, or the use of hypotheticals in an argument. I suppose your religion doesn’t really foster such higher order thinking skills, or subtlety. Or the ability to read and comprehend a paragraph more than three lines in length, so I don’t really know why I’m still writing.
Assuming the conclusion, yet again.
Woah, hold on there. Because man*, who is the only being currently known in our physical existence to be demonstrably capable of intelligent design, cannot create life, then life must have been intelligently designed? Sorry, doesn’t work that way.
* Patriarchal language noted
Too bad you just made him sound like a child’s imaginary friend. Par for the course.
Why does God almost exclusively reveal his wisdom to the children of Christian parents?
It’s like talking to a Chatty Cathy doll.
Keep chasing that tail.
I hope that Hovind’s lesson has at least taught you how your myths appear to people who weren’t indoctrinated into them.
feralboy12:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:38 pm
I’m just glad that God revealed to us how many legs insects have. Saves us the trouble of counting them.
Emrysmyrddin:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Better imagination than anything out of Reve-batshitcrazy-alation…
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 26th, 2012 at 12:40 pm
So, as I said, you worship a psychopathic sadist – which makes you disgusting scumbags, even though your psychopathic sadist is an imaginary one.
feralboy12:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:42 pm
How many legs do they have?
Akira MacKenzie:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:43 pm
(/me reads the whole, pointless, HovindBot/Pharyngula exchange)
Siiiiiiggggghhhh… The sad thing is that there are millions more of those dullards likes these out in America… And they vote.
Akira MacKenzie:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:45 pm
Oops… Sorry for the redundant phrasing of my last post, I just got up, and I groggily broke my rule about posting before caffinating myself.
Woo_Monster, Sniffer of Starfarts:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:47 pm
Even if your imaginary god did know everything, how can you know that you understand “His Word” correctly? Are you infallible?
Revelation is a form of communication. When god is communicating His Werdz to you, how can you be sure that your understanding of His Message* is accurate? You say you are certain, I want you to justify your claim to being a perfect and unerring interpreter of concepts being communicated by another agent.
*I love random capitalization as much as the next person.
This is just pathetic. Sorry, not everyone believes in invisible magic men in the sky.
theophontes (坏蛋):
October 26th, 2012 at 12:47 pm
@ A.R
Still from the new Pharyngula Movie: Picture linky. (Yes an Xwing – you don’t expect originality as well? Actually it is only the wing. One wing. These things take time.)
@ goddists
We have had the whole “relevance of religion” discussion before. I really was arguing your case for a while. ¹ But I have had to reconsider the whole issue of what it is in religions that could contribute anything. I think it boils down to this: that religiousity only has relevance inasmuch as it provides myths. Its major liability ensues when it goes beyond this simple mandate – when it tries to make truth claims.
Any religion can supply the myth. Further (as we noted) any storyline, sufficiently developed, can do just as much (our example was the influence on Science Fiction on the development of the space shuttle). We noted also that there is no requirement that the story (religious or secular) in any way or form needs to be true. Essentially all that is required is that the story must create within society a shared narrative that is concurrently intensely personal. It can thence form a framework for action within society – both as a co-ordinated and an individual impetus. It must inspire. It need not be credible.
The above is pretty much the only value I have been able to discern in religions. I trust you may add to my meagre offering.
…
¹ What has happened to the likes of William James (even as an unbeliever!), advancing arguments on behalf of the religious? Where is something we can sink our teeth into? The current crop of goddists/apologists is less than pathetic. I am almost tempted to show them all how it is done, rather have to endure such weak arguments from the religiously fettered..
chigau (棒や石):
October 26th, 2012 at 12:53 pm
Well fuckity fuck fuck.
I missed the whole thing.
On another tentacle, it was repetitive and stupid.
and sad.
Those poor children.
Rey Fox:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:53 pm
It amazes me that anyone could write this without falling over laughing.
You know what?
Fuck you. Fuck your pious bullshit, fuck your false concern, and most of all, fuck your empty threats.
Do you want to know why this is an “emotional” issue for us (as if you fellows were paragons of Vulcan-like rationality)? Because many of us have lived lives of real pain because of the backwards teachings of the various churches. Gay people forced into the closet for the love of this supposed god. Women forced into lives of servitude for the love of this supposed god. Minds stunted and made fearful of pleasure, of knowledge about this great big world we live in, of people from other cultures, of everything not deemed acceptable by authority figures.
I’m a straight, white male from middle-class suburbia raised in a fairly mild Catholic family. I got off easy. Many of the rest of us cannot say the same. But we’re all together here on this blog to celebrate each other, to celebrate real, tested knowledge, to celebrate life. Life as we know it, life as we experience it, not pie-in-the-sky promises. We stand and fall on our own merits, and the real consequences of our actions on the other people with whom we live.
We got it all. We’ve seen how tawdry and small the stories you’re selling really are. We’re not interested.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:56 pm
chigau,
You really didn’t miss anything worthwhile.
It was sad, though.
Seriously, how old were these people? I called them kids and they sounded like kids, but really?
A. R:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Dammit! I missed the creobots!
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:57 pm
Msbd2 @267:
You’ve already been shown multiple examples of your god lying. Why are you still clinging to the demonstrably false assertion that he cannot lie ?
Moreover, why have none of you kids shown one shred of proof your god exists?
How do you know the baby killing god of the bible you worship (remember boys and girls, if you cause a worldwide flood, lots of babies and fetuses will die) is real? How do you know Zeus isn’t creator? Or Odin?
You don’t have much time left. Instead of asking silly questions that you think we’ve never heard, GIVE US YOUR EVIDENCE.
blogofmyself:
October 26th, 2012 at 1:00 pm
I spent so long typing up a reply that the godbots have already left. I’m glad they’re gone, but I’m going to post it anyway. I apologize in advance for how long the post is and for the threadrupt.
broboxley OT:
October 26th, 2012 at 1:03 pm
Darn, and we never got on to the good question like when was Jesus determined to be divine?
325 AD
If he wasnt divine before then, what was he?
what is the difference between ‘Christotokos’ and Theotokos’ and why is it important?
Why were the ‘Quartodecimans’ attacked?
what does ‘dyophysitic’ mean and why did it take 451 years to figure it out?
Why do you worship a cross when he was sacrificed on a “stauros”?
Inquiring minds might answer those questions and learn a little bit about religion and faith is quite different than religion and fact
blogofmyself:
October 26th, 2012 at 1:06 pm
You want me to consider what my denial of your non-existent god means? Really? It means that I believe in one-fewer untrue thing. It means that I am not so delude as to think that I’m going to live on after my death. When I die, I cease existing. I will be gone forever. My life is a little and mostly insignificant speck in the cosmic perspective. The only thing I have is this life and this Earth, the only support I can depend on is myself and the people around me, and the only way things will ever be better is if I make them that way. Those are the consequences of a universe without god. They aren’t so bad, once you get used to them, and in fact I find them rather inspiring. More importantly, they are based on evidence and truth rather than wishful thinking or ancient superstition.
—
But let me grant you your premise here for a second. What if your god did exist? (He doesn’t. This is a hypothetical thought-experiment. I am not saying he actually exists, so don’t you dare take me out of context.) If your god existed exactly the way you think he does, how would that effect my views on the afterlife? Let me tell you.
If your god were real, that means that he would have create the earth an all the creatures on it. That means that, if he wanted to, he could have made all creatures vegetarians. He could have minimized the painful and traumatic deaths of literally millions of animals all over the world, but he chose not to. Do you know about the wasps in Ichneumonoidea? They are parasites, laying their eggs inside living caterpillars to hatch and eat their poor host animal from the inside out while it’s still living. If you go existed, he could have chosen not to create them, but he didn’t. He could have written the laws of the universe in such a way that no animal would ever have to go through extreme pain or suffering. Populations could have been self-limiting and starvation could have never existed. The world could be a damn good place, but apparently, if your god existed, he didn’t want that. Someone who can chose to prevent suffering and chooses not to is not the kind of person I would want to worship.
I know what your answer to that will be. You think that Adam and Eve were real, and that they let sin and death into the world. I argue that no-one should be punished for the sins of their ancestors, and that what Adam and Eve supposedly ate should have nothing to do with the rights and privileges of their children. Anyone who practices that kind of justice is not someone I would willingly worship. But even given your reasoning, Adam and Eve are not animals, and there is no reason why your god would have had to punish every other creature for the faults of humanity. Collateral damage is not a necessary thing, especially for the being that can create the rules who can do anything. No, your god, if he existed, decided that pain and suffering for every creature was how he wanted his universe to work.
But, you will say, without pain and suffering, how can we have free will? Well, your angels have free will (obviously, since Lucifer was able to rebel against God in the first place) and they live in Heaven without pain or suffering. In fact, according to you, all the souls in Heaven will be without pain or suffering, so does that mean that free will doesn’t exist there? If so, if heaven is a place that you want to go even though it has no free will, then clearly free will isn’t all that important. If not, if there is still free will in Heaven, then clearly we don’t need pain and suffering in order to have free will. Even if you disagree with me on this point, I think an argument could be made that the amount of suffering in the world could decrease substantially without our free will being in danger. If not, then medicine, housing, plumbing, etc, all negatively impact our free will, and must therefore be stopped. No, your god, had he existed, could have made human nature a little nicer, a little more tolerant, a little more cooperative, than he did when he supposedly first created us. He could have made the world have more than enough resources to go around so that we did not have to fight for anything. That was well within his power, being the creator of all things, but apparently he decided that having a peace-loving humanity wasn’t in the plan. Apparently he needed to make us the kind of creature that is often territorial, violent, selfish, and xenophobic. Again, anyone that could have lessened suffering and chooses not to is not the kind of person I would willingly worship.
Your god, your religion, has taken part in many things that I find morally reprehensible. The subjugation of women, genocide, racism, slavery, the squelching of science, the persecution of scientists, and the mistreatment, torture, and death of people who disagree, all of these have been justified by scripture. Your god, had he existed, could have popped his head out of the clouds and said “Hey, that’s not what I want you to do,” at any moment, but he didn’t. No, he sat by and watched it all happen. He, supposedly omnipotent, let suffering occur in his name. If someone so much as injured a person in my name, I would be furious, but apparently war, genocide, misogyny, and all manner of evil in his name are just fine. Again, that is not the kind of person I would want to worship. In fact, that’s the kind of person I would actively fight against.
Lastly, your god, if you are right, judges people after they die, and sends them to either Heaven or Hell. If they are not up to his standards, they spend an eternity in a fiery pit of molten brimstone. Your god believes in eternal punishment for the crimes of an incredibly finite life. He believe in torture, something that most human beings even know is wrong. That is barbaric and utterly unworthy of my devotion.
Not only that, but he doesn’t even give everyone enough information to make what he considers the right choices. If believing in him is necessary to get into heaven, then he should make it reasonable to believe in him. He should show that other religions are false. He should show that he exists through more than a poorly-written old book and some loony theology. He should write out “God exists and his name is Yahweh” in the stars so that people, people not born into Christianity, people who are looking for answers, people who want some sort of evidence, cannot reasonably come to any other conclusion. He should make it so that everyone can believe in him and know the rules, and the only ones who break them do so willingly, in full knowledge. As it is, your god is making life a big test, but he isn’t even telling us the subject. Some people are studying English their whole lives, only to get to the classroom and discover that it’s a calculus test. That is just wrong. It’s disingenuous in every way and entirely not worthy of being worshiped.
“What if God is real,” theists often ask me, “and you’ve been wrong all along?”
If someone came up to me tomorrow with absolute undeniable truth that the Christian god is real, I would believe it. I want to know the truth, no matter how distasteful it is. But just believing in your God wouldn’t make me worship him. People living Soviet Russia may have known that Stalin existed, but they certainly didn’t worship him. No, if your God did exist, I would rage against him for all the wrong he has done, all the suffering he has let occur, all the things he has royally fucked up. If your afterlife really did exist, I would refuse to go to heaven. I would proudly go down to Hell, middle fingers raised high at that tyrant you call a god. I would rather have an eternity of punishment than be complicit in your god’s evil.
Don’t try to scare me with the threat of Hell. It is certainly a better choice than your Heaven.
bargearse:
October 26th, 2012 at 1:08 pm
I’m framing this one. I get a headspin every time I read it
A. R:
October 26th, 2012 at 1:10 pm
Is this a real argument, or a proof of circumference theory?
feralboy12:
October 26th, 2012 at 1:11 pm
A bit of circular reasoning involving god and the bible.
Some argument from ignorance.
Demanding that atheism explain everything, rather than being a rejection of their unevidenced claims.
Quoting scripture at us.
And, when all that failed, claiming that we don’t really believe what we’re saying.
And that we’re going to hell for it.
I can haz PhD? I really think I’ve mastered the material.
broboxley OT:
October 26th, 2012 at 1:12 pm
suggested reading http://www.stoics.com/seneca_essays_book_1.html
blogofmyself:
October 26th, 2012 at 1:13 pm
bargearse: Headspin indeed. I can’t even.
—
erichovind
Oh, FSM, why???
Caine, Divisitrix du mal:
October 26th, 2012 at 1:15 pm
Even this, their ultimate threat by proxy, is complete nonsense. Pretending, for a moment, that their sociopathic godmonster exists, I could see threatening people with death. “Oooh, icky people who won’t get on their knees, you get to die, no heaven for you!”
Obviously though, as sociopathic godmonster wouldn’t be satisfied with that, the icky people don’t just die, do they? Nope, they get an eternal life too.
Do none of you with the pickled brains ever stop to consider the non-stop parade of stupid contradictions you parrot daily? You do have a brain – try, just once, to use the damn thing.
Caine, Divisitrix du mal:
October 26th, 2012 at 1:17 pm
blogofmyself @ 412, post bookmarked for October Molly nomination.
Sastra:
October 26th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
@ blogofmyself #412
Impressive. Hope they’re still lurking and read it.
Theists ask such bad questions. Atheists ask better questions.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
October 26th, 2012 at 1:23 pm
Portia@369:
Think happy thoughts.
Think of DarkInfant :)
kristinc is writing a book called "50 Shades of STFU":
October 26th, 2012 at 1:23 pm
Welp, it looks like Hovind’s poor chumps have left, at least if I’m as caught up as I think I am.
Here’s the interesting thing though: out of 20 of them, what odds do you give that at least one will be back? Quietly? Maybe never telling anyone about it, feeling guilty, but incapable of NOT being fascinated by the questions tapping at the back of their mind?
For that person, I wanted to say this.
Hi. Actually, I agree with you. And that idea was one of the things that led me inexorably to atheism over a period of five or so years. Because our lives are incredibly valuable, each of us has the opportunity, maybe even the obligation, to choose for ourselves where we want them to go and what we want to do with them.
We’re not getting a magical fairyland second start after we die. When we die, that’s it. How could I waste the only life I have in chasing rules cooked up from the sort of, kind of, words of people so long dead even their civilization has crumbled away? Why would I let Kent Hovind, or the Pope, or a rabbi or imam or Mormon “prophet” tell me how I should think and feel? Why would I live inside a box someone else wants to build for me when I can construct a road to walk on?
Don’t feel guilty. People who want to control you will tell you that Satan is tempting you. They will want you to engage fear rather than love of life, and love of yourself. Don’t be afraid to question, and don’t be afraid of answers, and don’t ever be so afraid of anything that you lock yourself in a box to shut the world out. You’re going to be okay and a good person even if you don’t follow a set of religious rules; lots and lots and LOTS of people are. In fact a lot of us are happier and better people than when we tried to follow those rules. Your life does not have to be determined by fear and guilt.
I don’t hang out in the Thunderdome, so I most likely won’t even see replies to this post. I have zero interest in debating anything about it, and if you try to engage me in debate about it, you will be wasting your time. I’m just leaving it here as food for thought.
Portia:
October 26th, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Ha, thanks Tony : )
bargearse:
October 26th, 2012 at 1:26 pm
blogofmyself @412
How I wish Hovind’s hostages could read that, there’s nothing quite like a line in the sand.
Caine, Divisitrix du mal:
October 26th, 2012 at 1:29 pm
And just in case any of you little atrophied godlings are hanging about, here’s a book recommendation (it’s all that God’s word you’re so fond of) – Drunk With Blood: God’s Killing in the Bible by Steve Wells.
Give it a read and try thinking.
Emrysmyrddin:
October 26th, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Hovind’s students will come back at some point; lunch, or after their classes finish, or if they’re still interested in seeing the results of their comments a few days later. Curiosity’s a harmless, wonderful thing.
.
I’d like to ask them what Hovind said to them after the online session, as an activity round-up for the day; how he summarised the learning aims, ran through the class experience during the session, asked about the students’ thoughts on what they had learned, and then closed the class with a reiteration of the fulfillment of the learning aims and their results. I’d like to know how he phrased their ‘victory’ – for I am sure that he called it a victory, correct? You ‘won’ the session. Hi-fives all over. Jolly good, class, A*s all over. Break for lunch.
.
Did he explain to you why you won, if he has claimed that you did, in fact, ‘win’? Did he go through, point by point, explaining the rules of how this argument is supposed to go, highlighting mistakes, awarding strikes for foul language and incivility, displaying that Atheists can only ask questions, not demonstrate 100% that there is no god, and therefore that was why you ‘won’.?
.
I’d be interested in your answer, and a demonstration of Hovind’s effective paedagogy. How he prepares you for sessions like this, gets you ready to put your points across, your hard-learned arguments and surety of the ineffability of god’s love.
.
And then I’d like to ask you:
.
What do you care more about?
.
Winning the argument? or finding the truth in the argument?
.
Saying the right phrase, over and over if necessary, to score a check on your pre-prepared checklist? or listening to what the other person is saying, and thinking slowly and seriously about whether or not they made an effective counter to your phrase the first time around?
.
Passing your class, and pleasing your teacher, by saying the ‘right’ things and relaying on, sometimes word for word, what you’ve been taught? or taking your teachings, looking at them from every angle, finding out what others think about them, researching the origins of your teachings, looking up what and how the very first fathers of your teachings (there will be no mothers) thought when that faith was fresh and new and contextually relevant?
.
Curiosity is one of the greatest attributes you will ever possess. A desire to not blindly believe, but to test, turn around and about, bite, investigate, consider in minute detail, before making a pronouncement. It is not enough to feel. To live a fulfilled life, you have to explore – to compare – to cogitate.
.
Follow the evidence. Be curious. Explore, compare and cogitate. It’s the best gift you could ever give to yourself. Please don’t just rely on ‘they told me’ and ‘I feel’. Your life will be all the smaller and darker for it.
robb:
October 26th, 2012 at 1:38 pm
looks around. hmm.
missed the party.
Emrysmyrddin:
October 26th, 2012 at 1:45 pm
blogofmyself:
Hear, hear.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
October 26th, 2012 at 1:45 pm
Beatrice:
The pi=3 quote from the bible.
Emrysmyrddin:
October 26th, 2012 at 1:48 pm
Also, kristinc at #442.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
October 26th, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Sastra @420:
Use their language: atheists ask GOODER questions.
PZ Myers:
October 26th, 2012 at 2:02 pm
That was it? That was the invasion? A couple of vacuous, lazily written assertions, and then they’re done?
Emrysmyrddin:
October 26th, 2012 at 2:03 pm
Apparently. But hopefully not absolutely.
Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus:
October 26th, 2012 at 2:05 pm
Damn, I missed the party :(
But I have brownies and they are divine
I can believe in the brownie
otrame:
October 26th, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Those poor kids. He’s taught them a set of scripts and told them that if they follow those scripts that no atheist can “win” against them. You could just feel how excited they were to talk to real atheists and prove how strong they were.
Kids, just in case some of you manage to get to a computer where you are allowed to come back here (I’m sure both school and home computers are “protected” from this site) there is something I want to say.
It isn’t even a matter of whether or not there is a god. Hovind is stealing money from your parents. I am sure he is telling them that you will gain a great armor against the evil that is in the world. The trouble is, you are not in the world. You are in a bubble, a bubble carefully constructed by your parents, your church, and that conman Hovind to keep you from learning. When you get a glimpse of the real world, with real people in it, most of whom will have no idea what you are talking about when you start off with “logic” and “revealed truth”, one of three things will happen to you.
1) You will retreat as rapidly as possible and start constructing a bubble of your own and make sure your children stay inside it as long as possible. You will be afraid of reality and deny it at every turn. You will lose so much, but you will never know that.
2) The difference between what you have been taught and what you see around you will be too painful for you. Drugs, alcohol, sex, flight into a completely different but equally reality-denying religion. Eventually, if you survive, either 1 or 3.
3) You will start to think. You will actually try to learn something. At first it will be because you want to prove how wrong we are. Then if there is even the tiniest sliver of intellectual honesty that has not been metaphorically or literally beaten out of you, you will change your mind. You won’t necessarily stop believing in God. Most Christians believe in God and also accept evolution. But you will no longer be ignoring everything that we have learned about reality in the last 200 years. The world will be full of wonder.
How do I know this? Ask the people here. Most of us were not born into atheist families. We made the journey out of religion. Some of us made the journey all the way from where you are right now. That is why the little verbal tricks Hovind told you and your parents were the way to protect you from reality don’t work here. We’ve seen them. We figured out what nonsense they are a long time ago.
I hope you figure that out too. Don’t blame your parents. They are honestly trying to protect you. Most of them are #1s, a few may be #2s that became #1s. They are being cheated out their hard-earned money by a liar, a conman.
That should make you mad.
Caine, Divisitrix du mal:
October 26th, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Seems so. No interest in discussion, just scattershot thoughtless ‘witnessing’ and a claim by Hovind that we abandoned atheism.
I wonder how that works…I still be an atheist over here.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
October 26th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
Emrysmyrddin@426:
Hear hear. Great post.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
October 26th, 2012 at 2:11 pm
Giliell:
Divine they may be, but they are absolutely guaranteed to be HELL coming back out…
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 26th, 2012 at 2:13 pm
Is that all there is to a godbot?
Is that all there is, is that all there is
If that’s all there is my friends, then let’s keep dancing
Let’s break out the booze and have a ball
If that’s all there is
otrame:
October 26th, 2012 at 2:14 pm
I’d like to suggest that next time Hovind does this, we ignore the crap he’s told them to spout and really talk to the kids, even though they won’t dare talk back. Consider that such events are probably the only time these kids have some contact with the outside world.
Keep it very short. Keep it friendly (to the kids, not to Hovind). Keep it honest. I’m thinking of writing up a few paragraphs to save for next time.
Brownian:
October 26th, 2012 at 2:15 pm
Ever since Christians decided Jesus didn’t really mean it when he said all that shit about rich people and sewing camels, getting into heaven’s been easier than getting a payday loan, though with a significantly higher cost to one’s personal integrity.
Ichthyic:
October 26th, 2012 at 2:22 pm
@chas:
Coyne’s blog?
“Bike-riding kitteh”
a bit late, but yeah… exactly.
what better place to send Hovindites?
David Marjanović:
October 26th, 2012 at 2:23 pm
O hai!
Most of the upper teeth of that Tyrannosaurus are too small! One would think that artists would be prone to exaggerating them; but – like with the sickle claws of, say, Velociraptor – many of them just can’t grasp how big they were and understate them.
kthxbai
Win.
LykeX:
October 26th, 2012 at 2:30 pm
Jadehawk:
1peter315:
Jadehawk:
1peter315:
Jadehawk:
1peter315:
*Facepalm*
It’s like Who’s On First – Ultimate Stupidity Edition.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 26th, 2012 at 2:33 pm
Alright, I know there is a lot of slash fiction. Mostly, they play on people’s kinks while using established characters. Well, the names of characters.
(The couple of Buffy slashes that I tried to read, well, none of the characters spoke or acted like the Buffy, Willow, Xander, Giles, Spike, Anya, Cordy or anyone one else that I recognized.)
But sometimes, ones enters the realm of the truly horrific. And being on the slightly sadistic side, I have to share the fucking pain.
Or, as Rob Bricken wrote; For the record, this is a story by Mr. Five, and was sent to me by Kinaras, who I will never, ever forgive.
If you end up hating me for this, I completely understand and cannot blame you.
Ichthyic:
October 26th, 2012 at 2:36 pm
While I could reply with evidence to your claims, evidence isn’t really the issue here is it? You wouldn’t accept evidence even if it was offered, because you presuppose that God does not exist.
Projection. pure, unadulterated, projection.
bloody child abuse is what Hovind is doing. Someday, it will be called like it is.
Emrysmyrddin:
October 26th, 2012 at 2:37 pm
o dear jeebus wat did i just read
.
I know slash and that ain’t slash
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 26th, 2012 at 2:39 pm
Emrysmyrddin, feel my pain!
Ichthyic:
October 26th, 2012 at 2:40 pm
yes, there will be High 5′s. You have failed to show how Atheism can account for truth. You have successfully abandoned atheism in an attempt to defend atheism.
nice burden shifting.
YOU are the door-door salesman that came HERE to peddle your wares.
Who failed to defend your version of an imaginary deity?
why that would be YOU.
LykeX:
October 26th, 2012 at 2:42 pm
@Janine
This is the true beauty of the internet. No matter how messed up you are, you can be assured that there’s somebody out there who’s even more fucked.
If course, most of them aren’t quite insane enough to write ET fanfic about it.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
October 26th, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Janine:
That was . . .
Er . . .
Holy batshit! Somebody actually wrote that? (The ET/Elliot sex story)
You owe me a whole new apatite.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 26th, 2012 at 2:46 pm
LykeX, that was not just ET fanfic. I am scarred for life!
Not once have I even wondered about ET’s genitalia. And what happens there, well…
*collapses in a corner, murmuring random syllables*
Portia:
October 26th, 2012 at 2:48 pm
Janine.
You’ve been very bad.
That was cruel.
ChristineRose:
October 26th, 2012 at 2:48 pm
There is plenty of evidence that could convince me God exists. I don’t know why Christians are so keen on insisting that atheists are incapable of accepting any evidence.
Here are a few examples. These are my personal things–others may think these are insufficient and insist that they might be the work of an alien with a bad sense of humor.
1. The stars spontaneously form themselves into the words “There is no God but God and Muhammad is his prophet (in Arabic, natch).”
2. If Christians who prayed to get well actually got well.
3. If when people prayed sincerely “Dear God tell me what religion to follow” a 3 by 5 index card with MORMON written on it dropped out of the air and landed at their feet.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 26th, 2012 at 2:51 pm
I can be cruel
I don’t know why
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
October 26th, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Janine:
Now if someone was to come up with some T.S. Elliot/ET fanfic . . .
Doug Little:
October 26th, 2012 at 2:58 pm
Thanks Hovind, I’m now stupider for having read your students remarks on this blog, bainwashing is an art form and you are quite proficient at it. Cult much.
LykeX:
October 26th, 2012 at 2:59 pm
Dear diary. Today I learned two new words; ass-vagina and dick-womb. In other news, I’m wondering if electrocuting myself will erase the memory of this day’s event? It’s certainly worth a shot.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 26th, 2012 at 2:59 pm
Elliot Gould/ET.
Elliot Smith/ET.
Eliot Ness/ET.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
October 26th, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Send the Hovindites over to the Elliot/ET story. If that doesn’t burst their protective bubble, not much will.
Well, except for actual reality but they ain’t gettin’ much a that.
Emrysmyrddin:
October 26th, 2012 at 3:21 pm
That ain’t reality
.
That be…genocide
.
*riff*
Caine, Divisitrix du mal:
October 26th, 2012 at 3:21 pm
Audley, Aaw. That’s quite the head of hair Darkling is sporting. Looks like mum already. :D
vaiyt:
October 26th, 2012 at 3:34 pm
If Heaven is for people like Hovind, I’d rather be in Hell, simply because that’s where all the cool people are.
@458: How about “throat pussy”? Courtesy of several fan-translated hentai comics.
Gregory Greenwood:
October 26th, 2012 at 3:35 pm
First off, I am definitely looking at blogofmyself @ 412 for a Molly nomination.
On the off chance that any of Hovind’ ‘students’ are still reading, I would also like to expand on an idea or two from that post. It occurs to me that the Abrahamic god, as depicted in the judeo-christian scriptures, is a spectacularly nasty piece of work. Indeed, perhaps the single most evil character ever conceived of by humans, with attributes associated with abusers, in so far as as it sets its victims impossible goals, and then uses their failure to acheive them as a premise for abuse. The christian god is a celestial card sharp, a trickster god far worse than the likes of Loki from the Nordic pantheon.
My evidence for this? Well, we need look no further than the bible itself. If we grant, for a moment and in the name of the sake of argument, that the bible can be viewed as the authority that theists claim it is, then we find that according to this book of fairy tales, Yahweh is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. It literally knows and sees all, and is responsible for the creation of all things. That sort of implies that god knew what was going to happen before it happened. But then we run into the war in heaven – god creates Lucifer, who later rebels with assorted other angels. A rebellion that, since it was being fought by beings that were less than omnipotent against a being that was, was obviously doomed to failure before it began. But if god is omniscient, he must have known, even before he created Lucifer, that this angel was going to rebel, and that the rebellion in question would fail, and that he would then condemn Lucifer to hell to act as his personal torturer for when the humans came along. God must have known this, and yet he let it all happen. He set Lucifer up, and he did it in order to have a personal torturer in chief he could use against the humans (that he must already have known he was going to create) after the Fall (that he must have already have known was going to happen).
Then we get to the Garden of Eden. God leaves the tree of knowledge of good and evil right there, in front of Adam and Eve – beings that are supposed to be guileless and innocent. Why do that, when he could have placed the tree elsewhere, out of reach? Why claim that the tree is so dangerous, and then do nothing to secure it from Adam and Eve? It is like a parent telling a child not to eat some potentially toxic pills, and then leaving them in a dish within the child’s reach, and leaving the room. Whose fault is that? The child’s? Or the negligent adult who didn’t observe basic precautions for the child’s safety? Why is god – an all powerful, perfect being, remember – held to a lower standard than a human parent or guardian? But just leaving the tempatation right there is not enough. Things don’t really kick off until Lucifer pops back up on the scene, having infilitrated the garden of eden in the form of a snake, in order to tempt Eve.
But wait a second; Lucifer infilitrates the garden? Here’s a question for all the budding theologians – how? How does Lucifer sneak past an omnisicent, omnipresent god? If god knows all, how can he be fooled by a little light shape shifting? The only answer appears to be that he can’t, meaning that god was well aware that Lucifer was slithering into the garden, and that he let it happen. He allowed Eve – essentially a complete innocent – to face temptation from a being that, according to the scriptures, was the ‘Father of Lies’, vastly older and more cunning that she was. How is that a fair test of anything? Why let that happen? Is not the outcome of such a struggle of wits all but inevitable? It seems that, once again, Yahweh was playing the trickster god, deliberately setting Adam and Eve up just as he set up Lucifer before them, and indeed goes even further through the doctrine of Original Sin, by which he condems the descendants of Adam and Eve for an event they had no hand in, when any functional ethical system would reject applying the blame for the parent’s actions to their children as unethical.
According to the scriptures, god deliberately engineered the Fall which supposedly brought death and suffering into the world, which makes him directly responsible for every iota of suffering and every death that has ever befallen our species. It makes him the worst genocidal maniac in history.
And of course, it doesn’t stop there. Not being satisfied with genocide, this christian god supposedly goes on to condemn all those who don’t show proper obeisance to him to fire and brimstone at the tender mercies of satan, that same angel whose fall god engineered, apparently specifically for this purpose. Now, the embrace of torture is unethical enough, but this monstrous god ups the ante by leaving no evidence of his existence, according to the young earth creationists even altering the speed of light in order to make the universe appear older than it is. And when people follow the evidence and conclude that there is no evidence for god? He seizes the opportunity to condemn them to hellfire. He also further complicates matters by allowing the formation of literally thousands of different religions, and yet more thousands of sects of chrtistianity, and yet will condemn anyone who picks the ‘wrong’ faith or the ‘wrong’ sect (even when they live in a culture dominated by a ‘false’ religion or sect) to eternal torment while leaving no indication which religion/sect is the ‘correct’ one. Again, we have a god who delights in setting people up and then punishing them when they fall into his trap.
And yet, rather than being horrified that humanity supposedly exists in bondage to such a mendacious, manipulative and sadistic creature, theists claim that we should celebrate this as some kind of unalloyed good, and worship a being that, according to their holy books, is neither just nor even trustworthy, and has a terrible penchant for violent caprice and causal cruelty.
Personally, I am with blogofmyself. We are most fortunate as a species that god is nothing more than a particularly nasty myth, but if it did somehow exist in defiance of all science and reason, then no ethical person could ever worship it or accept its rule. Better by far to exist as a political prisoner in hell than to sell out every ethical principle and bend the knee before such a tyrant.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
October 26th, 2012 at 3:35 pm
Poor writing on my part. I did not intend to imply that teh Elliot/ET story was reality. I merely intended to say that it might shock them out of their bubble. Reality would be the best way to shock them out of their protective bubble but Hovind et al are preventing that. Does that make sense now?
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 26th, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Vaiyt, would not that be a variation of Deep Throat.
Heh, this is not even close to being the worst thing I referred to today.
Emrysmyrddin:
October 26th, 2012 at 3:42 pm
Ogvorbis, my dear:
.
I am in vino and listening to Bowie
.
No seriousness intended x
Gregory Greenwood:
October 26th, 2012 at 3:45 pm
Darn it – casual cruelty. What is it with me and writing ‘casual’ as ‘causal’?
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 26th, 2012 at 3:46 pm
My cruelty is very casual.
Emrysmyrddin:
October 26th, 2012 at 3:47 pm
god moves in Mysterious wAyS, GregoRy. *nods*
Forrest Phelps:
October 26th, 2012 at 3:52 pm
Damn work! Missed all the fun.
Got to read it all, and it reminded me of long, usually late-night, talks about religion and how much fun they could be . . .
Of course, this wasn’t much fun. Too pathetic. Why didn’t they all just type “Jeebus Loves You!” all the time? That would have been more effective.
Special call out to @412 and blogofmyself. I was going to write:
“If your afterlife really did exist, I would refuse to go to heaven. I would proudly go down to Hell, middle fingers raised high at that tyrant you call a god. I would rather have an eternity of punishment than be complicit in your god’s evil.”
(Or something kinda similar – really, I was).
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
October 26th, 2012 at 3:55 pm
ChristineRose:
I understand what you’re saying, but how would that prove that *their* specific god is real? After all, gods of various mythologies have the power to do all of that.
For me, I don’t know what would be ample evidence to convince me the *Christian* god exists. It would have to be something only HE could do, not any ole god or demigod. Loki could be responsible for your three examples, and people could just believe it was Yahweh.
otrame:
October 26th, 2012 at 4:00 pm
Janine, re fan fiction
Sturgeon’s Law is never more evident. HOWEVER, some of the best light fiction I have read in the past five years has been fan fiction. There is some great stuff out there.
I read a lot of it, but I also learned a long time ago to avoid certain things. Anything involving ET and Elliot, though I have never actually seen any, would get a shudder and a pass from me.
I’m sorry you were hurt.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 26th, 2012 at 4:05 pm
Otrame, I recently started reading Fan Fiction Friday at Topless Robot. I know the risks. I just was not expecting the pain to be so bad.
Touch Me I’m Sick
Owlmirror:
October 26th, 2012 at 4:11 pm
[I originally had a bunch of responses that basically presumed that I am inerrant. But I decided to cut those out for now.]
What is a God? Define your terms precisely.
That sounds like… reality. Reality “knows” everything, because it is everything, and everything maps to itself. It created the universe, because that is in its nature. It reveals itself to all people, because reality is apparent, and it cannot lie because it is what it is.
Why do you write as if reality has a penis?
Ha! We can talk seriously about epistemology, but you would have to go off-script to do that.
Oh, gosh! A bunch of presuppositionalists running a presuppositional script want to play chatbot, and you’re all upset because we don’t take you seriously!
Get over yourself. Presuppositionalism has been around for a few years now, and we’ve seen silly, stupid, repetative scripts like yours long before you started spouting them off.
The scientific method can never be “shown to be invalid”, because in the broadest sense, it is a method that includes self-correction. If some part of it were shown to be wrong, it would be eliminated, and corrected.
Wrong. Scientists accept such laws, provisionally — but if the laws turned out to be changing over time and space, the scientific method would used to make that finding.
Some cosmologists do indeed suggest that the laws may have changed over time, and are looking for the (faint) evidence that this has happened.
Evolutionary epistemology. Those organisms with brains that made incorrect inferences that affected survival, died.
Sure there is. Logic is part of reality.
They don’t have to. They are all just part of reality.
This is illogical. Reality didn’t create logic. Logic is part of reality. There can indeed be logic without reality having a penis.
You could stand in an exit. You could spin in a revolving door. Are you in or out?
You aren’t here to honestly consider anything at all. Therefore, you must be here to get brownie points. That’s logic.
You gain the smug sense of being a martyr. It is indeed all about you.
No, you don’t. You really don’t care if everyone here is condemned to scream in fire forever — as long as you get the cotton-candy clouds of Fun Land Forever.
Heck, you’re not even willing to examine the premise of humans “spending eternity” anywhere.
The God of the bible considers almost everything to be infinitely worthless.
I don’t deny reality. I deny that reality is a penis-having bad-tempered tyrant.
You want to confirm your myths to yourselves, in other words.
You @240: “If your asking if God can do something logically impossible, No.”
That means that God is bound by logic. Logic is more powerful than your invisble sky fairy!
Are you able to talk about God without contradicting yourself?
Nonsense. Logic is simply what is true, and the combination of the negation, intersection and disjunction of truths. God cannot do the logically impossible of making true be false, or false be true, therefore, God cannot have created logic.
No, it doesn’t. Just because humans cannot create something complex is not proof that that something was created by an intelligence.
That’s not a proof of God. Logic and math cannot be proofs of God, because God cannot make true be false or one quantity be the same as a different quantity. Math and logic exist, and are part of reality.
No, it cannot. Your “worldview” is nothing but a chatbot script.
You’re here to pretend that your mythology about reality having a penis and a bad temper is true.
That’s nice. OK, you’ve done that. Run along now.
We all know that there is reality. You want to have a mythology that reality has a penis and a bad temper.
You deny that reality does not have a penis or a bad temper; I accept it.
Because your fairy-tale penis-having bad-tempered tyrant had a human offspring that was itself. That totally makes no sense.
What “eternal life”? Everyone dies.
We are all subject to reality. But reality has no penis or temper.
What a nice fairy tale. You believe that reality has a penis and a bad temper, and did something mean because of that bad temper.
No, it’s the result of reality. And in your myth, it’s because God has a bad temper.
Oh, no! Fear the bad-tempered tyrant!
Yes; of course the bad-tempered tyrant has arbitrary rules that are super-duper special and stuff. They’re so arbitrary that everybody breaks them. So everybody deserves to be set on fire by the bad-tempered tyrant.
Feh. You may like your masochistic fairy-tale, but it’s appalling that anyone with a brain believes it.
Obviously a bad-tempered penis-having tyrant needs slaves and sycophants to blather and drone on and on about how awesome the bad-tempered penis-having tyrant is.
anteprepro:
October 26th, 2012 at 4:16 pm
Well, that was underwhelming. Equivalent to a very fast typing troll using a few sockpuppets. Same inane “arguments”, same inability to grasp counterarguments, same chest-thumping over the fact that we haven’t disproven God (or something), and a fade-away into the same faux politeness. But of course, we are the real groupthinking hivemind borg echo chamber. I suppose accusations of groupthink aren’t as common against people that you wouldn’t dare even accuse of regular think.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist:
October 26th, 2012 at 4:17 pm
Janine,
This is not the first time you lure me there. I’m going to start resenting being sent to those pits of worst fanfiction ever written.
The last time I was at toplessrobot, I read some really disturbing shit. I somehow doubt it will be any different today.
JohnnieCanuck:
October 26th, 2012 at 4:34 pm
Emrysmyrddin @430
I see you have lexdysic fingers, like me.
#422, perhaps?
And yes, they were both great. Also I was quite pleased to see people with the skills so easily at hand to refute their presupposition foolishness, Matt Penfold, for one.
Nicely done, all.
otrame:
October 26th, 2012 at 4:37 pm
Beatrice. Try Kiera Marcos. Some of her stuff is disturbing but at least it is well written.
Emrysmyrddin:
October 26th, 2012 at 4:45 pm
QFFT.
Emrysmyrddin:
October 26th, 2012 at 4:51 pm
JohnnieCanuck:
My apologies; did I mistake somewhere? :) Unless it’s the capitalisation; I figured if it worked for the godbots, it might confer some special benefit onto me. So far, nowt…
ChristineRose:
October 26th, 2012 at 4:52 pm
@Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– #472
I totally agree, nothing I suggested would prove God in any meaningful sense. Loki is hard enough, but you’ll never disprove that wacky god that chooses to micromanage his universe to look just as if there were no god. Of course if you make it part of the definition of “God” that the Big Guy will always write an infallible holy book and make it available to all humans, you can prove God does not exist easily.
For me it’s just about the preponderance of the evidence. Coming up with definitions that support your side gets weak after a while. For example, saying “Logic could not exist without an eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being that exists spontaneously outside of the laws of physics to think it up” seems to be to be cheating on the definition of logic.
mandrellian:
October 26th, 2012 at 4:52 pm
Wow. I just read that “conversation” with Hovind’s pre-sup godbots. Depressing.
Obviously, Hovind is teaching those students nothing more than the usual creationist apologist pre-suppositionalist crap of assuming the conclusion of your argument mixed with the usual gross misunderstandings and misrepresentations of atheism, science, logic and even English, evidenced by their hair-trigger semantic games. He’s doing them an educational disservice and wasting their time and mental energy as they waste their money paying him to do so.
This is your brain on fundamentalism, folks: fundamentally dishonest. Fundamentalism is by necessity and by definition dishonest, in fact. When you decide in advance (of your own volition, via indoctrination or any other reason) that Proposition X is the Truth and that anything in contradiction or opposition to Proposition X is wrong or a lie, you will grasp at anything to justify your pre-commitment to X (even if you don’t do it consciously). And, when the evidence against X mounts, or those who don’t accept X become exasperated by your ridiculous circular arguments or semantics-round-the-mulberry-bush, you attack their tone as evidence they’re wrong or have no leg to stand on, and/or you threaten them with Hell. When all else fails, that’s the clincher: you could’ve spent days arguing politely and using loads of big words but when you can no longer take the heat, you play the Hell card and leave with a smug little smiley and a “God bless you! Hope you don’t roast!”
Y’know, I think there’s a very good (obvious) reason Hovind exhorts his minions to visit atheist threads all in a big group and only for a few minutes at a time (and then go back to the diploma-mill for high-fives for Jesus and Kool Aid, like some grade-school outing to the zoo): if they came here by themselves whenever they wanted and asked honest, off-script questions, they might get honest, thought-provoking answers. Everyone knows, not least people like Hovind, that independent thought is the Achilles Heel of insipid, cartoonish theology and miseducation.
kristinc is writing a book called "50 Shades of STFU":
October 26th, 2012 at 5:17 pm
Ayup. It’s terribly, sadly telling that to interact with people outside their group at all they must stick to rote script.
Again, just in case any “students” are checking back, do you realize that no one — no one! — in the real world has “conversations” like this? Do you realize that what is happening here is that your intake of foreign ideas is being prevented at all costs?
That you are being provided with the illusion of interaction with people outside your religious group, but only under a painstakingly-constructed set of highly artificial circumstances specifically intended to minimize any actual exchange of information?
That just in case the barest scrap of an idea from outside may contaminate you, your “teacher” follows up by re-asserting the in-group reality to scrub you clean?
If you want to actually understand the reasoning of people who live without religion, the way to do that is to read our words as we have actual conversations, usually amongst ourselves, which we have done here for a long time, all of which are available for your perusal. You’re not being permitted to do that, though, are you? And it’s not us atheists who are preventing you from doing it, either. Hmmmm.
I mean this is some serious 1984 stuff, and none of you even seem to realize how patently bizarre and absolutely abnormal it is. You should realize.
cm's changeable moniker:
October 26th, 2012 at 5:33 pm
Me, too. *cough*
Was there some sort of more serious discussion supposed to be going on tonight? /innocently
A. Noyd:
October 26th, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Owlmirror (#475)
Technically, reality does have a penis. In fact, it has all the penises. If god only has the one penis (and maybe a mountain of lopped off foreskins), then reality is (# of penises) x greater than god.
Patricia, OM:
October 26th, 2012 at 5:41 pm
Dammit, I missed the whole teeny trickle of stupidity. Oh well. #412 is really good!
But you Sharculese @221 – That was the funniest remark in the whole thread. Consider it stolen.
cm's changeable moniker:
October 26th, 2012 at 5:45 pm
Andrew Wiles *glares* at you, on behalf of Taniyama and Shimura.
;-)
blogofmyself:
October 26th, 2012 at 5:50 pm
Gregory #464: Awesome comment. I’m keeping that one on file for later use.
Ogvorbis #456: T.S. Eliot / ET fanfiction? I’d probably read that.
Owlmirror #475: Nice.
Matt Penfold:
October 26th, 2012 at 6:03 pm
Wiles proving Fermat was very important, but not as important as realizing that even in maths there is no such things as “absolute truth”.
John Morales:
October 26th, 2012 at 6:11 pm
Matt:
So, your claim is not absolutely true, then. :)
anteprepro:
October 26th, 2012 at 6:12 pm
Absolutely maybe.
cm's changeable moniker:
October 26th, 2012 at 6:15 pm
Definitely Maybe.
mildlymagnificent:
October 26th, 2012 at 7:02 pm
blogofmyself
Seeing as your outstanding piece was presented now rather than three weeks ago, no-one’s going to forget your Molly nomination. No-one.
I’ve already kept it for myself. Brilliant.
And for all those innocents with no training in anything, let alone arguing with grownups, you are welcome to come back any time. Read for a while – not just here – there are several FtBloggers who’d be worth your time.
Go away and think for a while, then come back with your questions. Or not. You don’t have to do what we say, but we all feel that you’d benefit from spending some time with ideas and facts that are new to you or discomfiting to deal with. And you don’t need our permission or any parent’s or teacher’s permission to do some research and some thinking of your own, on your own.
No One:
October 26th, 2012 at 7:50 pm
“How do you know what’s true?”
“Where does logic come from?”
… and Pascals wager…
That’s it? A couple of survival mechanisms and the boogey man? This is what throws your minds in a loop?
Repeat after me kiddies: “Fossil fuels are a finite resource”
Rawnaeris, FREEZE PEACHES:
October 26th, 2012 at 8:22 pm
Am Threadrupt, but I’ve brought the grog.
*Shares Blue Moon around*
Ok, I’m gonna try and catch up now.
Rawnaeris, FREEZE PEACHES:
October 26th, 2012 at 9:15 pm
And…..wow. That was it? I did better back when I was a high school aged godbot.
Thanks all for the excellent snark.
To any of Hovind’s students who might come back, read, read, read. Don’t let yourself get trapped in the bubble of christian music, books and accessories. There is so much more to this world, and it is beautiful.
ibyea:
October 26th, 2012 at 9:41 pm
@Janine
Is it worse than the pokemon entry of fanfiction Friday? (No way in hell I am getting back in there again!)
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 26th, 2012 at 9:52 pm
yawn
1) Empirical evidence and testing and independent confirmation. I care less about whether it’s really really super duper true than whether it’s consistent, useful, reliable, and shared by other parties.
2) Pretty sure the idea of codified logic came from the Greeks.
3) A stupid gamble.
coffeehound:
October 27th, 2012 at 12:15 am
blogofmyself@ 412,
QFMFT. It’s the only choice for any of us not a fool or a coward.
John Morales:
October 27th, 2012 at 2:36 am
[meta]
ॐ, I’ve noticed you take these little sabbaticals.
John Morales:
October 27th, 2012 at 2:53 am
Oh yeah, you
You call that a conversation?
<snicker>
(Tell me that the word Chickenshit considered obscene by you, and it will make my day)
kieran:
October 27th, 2012 at 3:29 am
What was the point of that? Seriuosly what can they learn from that experience? Is it a case of lets put you into the thunderdome and if at the end of it you still can’t think for yourself you get an A and move onto the next module how to ignore the evidence? Also interesting to see Eric staying in the thread doing his pigeon impression, why do I get the image of a class room where each of them had someone on the shoulder reinforcing their every statement. I can’t see the learning expereince or the benifit to it?
Not there to engage rather to talk at as has been pointed before and then afterwards probably a love bomb session to reinforce that stupidity.
ChristineRose:
October 27th, 2012 at 6:30 am
My guess is that they are congratulating themselves for surviving all the hostility, reaffirming the “I’m persecuted because I’m right” fantasy, and classifying any serious challenges they got as insincere and beneath themselves to answer (Of course you need God to get logic. That’s obvious, right?).
Can you tell I’m one of those ex-Christian atheists?
strange gods before me ॐ:
October 27th, 2012 at 6:30 am
John, yes, though I am around. This particular lull is of the seasonal type. The next week and a half offers many opportunities for advancing communism, not to mention
forced marchesexercise, stimulating conversation, and bruised knuckles.Muz:
October 27th, 2012 at 10:10 am
I caught up with the Magic Sandwich show with E.Hovind on it from a few months back. The Pre-Supp stuff is the new black as far as he’s concerned it seems.
He’s not very good at it though. He was on with some guy called Sye Ten something or other (a character from Logan’s Run apparently), who is pretty good at the old verbal joust, even though it’s ultimately the same crap. Hovind by comparison basically either repeated the same rote contentions over and over, or just gave essentially a lot of “Yeah! What he said!”. It went down hill very fast when Sye left the show first. All Hovind could do was… repeat pretty much the same stuff people are spouting here. “You’ve abandoned atheism to make your point.” “You have no basis…blah blah”, without making any argument at all. (the Reasonable Doubts guys dissected the non-argument tactics of Pre-Supps quite nicely).
He seems to have embraced this as a winning rhetorical strategy and is keen to instruct others. That’s kind of interesting to see from the creationist vanguard, I think. It’s essentially a retreat into pure sophistry. Most hard core Pre-Supps Ive encountered have nothing whatsoever to say about science and evolution except that “god is the basis” yadda. Otherwise it can proceed largely unimpeded as far as they are concerned. Increases in knowledge are dependent upon and only reinforce “god’s truth” no matter what they say. The fact that we can know anything at all is the thing, as far as they are concerned.
It’s probably too much to hope that it catches on across the board. I’m sure once they notice it just makes them really easy to ignore completely they’ll go back to ‘creation science’ so fast. (and I’m sure some BS hybrid is more than possible)
slowdjinn:
October 27th, 2012 at 10:27 am
ChristineRose #4
It’s worse than that, it’s the “I’m right, therefore I must be being persecuted” fantasy.
After all the bible (in the person of Paul) ‘prophesies’ that christians will be persecuted.
Sastra:
October 27th, 2012 at 10:32 am
Muz #6 wrote:
Yes — and unsophisticated sophistry, too. I like to call presuppositionalism the “Neener-Neener School of Debate.” They’re not attempting to persuade. They’re just trying to confuse and insult.
“Neener Neener, you can’t justify justification and I CAN! Plus, you’re a liar!”
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 27th, 2012 at 10:51 am
Pre-Supp is codifying the circular argument into a feature not bug. It’s circle jerkular logic.
And as we saw it’s brilliant for apologetics. It’s goal is not to convince but reinforce, so circularity is a feature not a bug. It’s not a net, it’s a gate.
Portia:
October 27th, 2012 at 10:54 am
*snort*
cm's changeable moniker:
October 27th, 2012 at 10:55 am
For some reason (*whistles innocently*), I’m reminded of a Rob Buckman story in which, based on an entirely undeserved reputation for being able to speak Italian, he’s asked to assist with a delivery. After various half-baked attempts (“Le colline della tua follia si spalancano”), he panics (“È pericoloso sporgersi dalla finestra”) and when asked to tell the the woman to push, blurts “Tirez!” (which isn’t even the right language).
At this, she turns to swear at him, takes a deep breath, reflexively pushes, and delivers the baby. Day saved!
–
And only now do I find out that he was, amongst other things, president of the Canadian Humanist Association, and wrote a book called Can we be good without God?
Sad loss.
anteprepro:
October 27th, 2012 at 11:20 am
Wow. Sye Ten is better than Hovind? Sye Ten, the guy who basically repeats versions of “But how do you know ?” over and over again? I guess it makes sense, since Hovind has basically been trying to do a bad Sye Ten impression ever since the two joined forces. But it is still pretty hilarious!
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 27th, 2012 at 11:30 am
Yeah I’m going to intentionally forget the real name and just call him BOX from now on
cm's changeable moniker:
October 27th, 2012 at 6:12 pm
OK, the T-dome’s quiet enough to absorb a monster post. I didn’t do justice to Rob Buckman @#511. In his words:
Yes, I found my copy of Out of Practice, thanks for asking.
strange gods before me ॐ:
October 27th, 2012 at 10:44 pm
Ing,
Yeah, joed might fuck it up worse now. I probably should have posted that to Thunderdome. It’s just that the standard trolley problem has the worse-case scenario already locked in, i.e. Romney will win unless you act. So I was brainstorming for a more accurate analogy to this close election.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 27th, 2012 at 10:49 pm
@SGBM
Does the change really matter all that much? isn’t the point of the trolly dilemma simply to raise the point about mitigating harm and ethical action?
Island Adolescent:
October 27th, 2012 at 10:52 pm
Hey guys, I have a fried (well, not quite that intimate, more of an acquaintance)who has this philosophy that if he uses loaded/gendered/racial/etc terms in a way that doesn’t apply to the classical use of such a term, then it’s fine.
For example, here’s an excerpt of him defending his word usage:
“I use words like “slut” and “whore” in a “derogatory” way (notice I am not in agreement on it being derogatory) because 1) I can. and 2) I do not use them in any way in which they mean “women”. Yes, yes I understand the history of the words, what they’ve meant, and how they were used and are used to degrade women, and that’s all justified if I call a girl I don’t like a slut, but it has no meaning when I’m calling my friend Judcody a slut, when he isn’t a woman, it isn’t being used to in any sense marker his sexual behavior, and has no sense it does when girls call other girls sluts for sleeping with many men.”
I tried to talk with him about this and it basically got down to me saying he doesn’t care about the perpetuation of such things throughout society, which he sort of waffled out of and didn’t fully agree with.
Any advice on how to drill through his fucking head that this sort of shit isn’t okay? He is typically fairly bright, but somehow thinks language is this “complex” thing that allows him to use a word independent of its baggage or other use as long as it isn’t being used in the traditional context. And it’s goddamn annoying.
Island Adolescent:
October 27th, 2012 at 10:53 pm
And fucking hell, I’ve been trying to stop saying “Hey guys/you guys” for ages now, and I still slip up and use that phrase.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 27th, 2012 at 10:54 pm
@Island Adolescent
It’s ok. It makes me more likely to answer as I can imagine you as King Worm from Adventure Time
Hey you guys, I’m just gonna eat your life force now WOWOWOOWOWOWOWOWOWOOWOWOWOWOWOOWOWOWOWOWOOWOWOWOWOO
strange gods before me ॐ:
October 27th, 2012 at 11:06 pm
Oh, I don’t know. Probably not.
strange gods before me ॐ:
October 28th, 2012 at 12:04 am
Island Adolescent,
I would try explaining that the words have their meanings because of their referents. Though your friend’s usage of the terms are really not metaphor but a simple expansion of the set of people who are usual targets for the words, spreading activation is taking place like when metaphor is interpreted (see The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought; search that PDF for “activa”; most instances in there refer to spreading activation).
So when saying “[this man] is a slut”, the listener’s brain will also activate the typical frame, of woman-as-slut, and even if this remains unconscious, the activation will strengthen that frame. In a society where it is widely understood that sluttiness is an issue regarding women — that is, any patriarchal/misogynistic society — you can’t say “[this man] is a slut” without also reinforcing the gendered-against-women association in people’s minds. The very fact that man-as-slut is understood as an exception demonstrates that women-as-slut is the typical frame, though hopefully your friend will not dispute that that is the typical usage.
The effect is that any instance of calling anyone a slut is likely to prime listeners to use more instances of the typical frame, since that frame has recently been activated and thus strengthened; and if your friend wants a world with fewer instances of anyone calling women sluts, then he should consider this.
A less complicated way of saying some of this is that by reinforcing that it is normal to call anyone a slut, other listeners who are perhaps less careful than your friend will be primed to use the word against women as well — because the word is now temporarily more prominent in their minds, and they don’t have the same rules for usage as he does. And that should be an undesireable outcome, which your friend presumably would prefer to avoid.
I hope someone else will give more advice, because I feel sure there are other helpful things I might have said which are escaping me right now.
Dhorvath, OM:
October 28th, 2012 at 12:17 am
I am not so clever as SG. I do tend to ask: “What would it cost you to use a different term?” This has resulted in several good conversations. If not that, my other tack is merely to say: “Don’t say that around me. It’s shitty.” Some people really don’t like to be judged, regardless of rationale.
strange gods before me ॐ:
October 28th, 2012 at 12:28 am
Good advice, Dhorvath.
And you’ve reminded me of this pretty good guide from the SPLC: Speak Up: Responding to Everyday Bigotry
I’m quite sure you are, but our areas of study differ.
+++++
In other news, there’s more
RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAULJILL STEIN JILL STEIN JILL STEIN nonsense going on in this thread at Jen’s, including from a voter in Ohio. God damn.Dhorvath, OM:
October 28th, 2012 at 12:52 am
SG,
What a useful resource. Thanks.
gijoel:
October 28th, 2012 at 3:08 am
Sorry to hijack the thread, but I’ve just read this fucktwaddlery on new scientist, and I feel spleens must be vented. Preferably Michael Brooks’.
It’s the same old accomodationist spiel that science needs to be less confrontational with religion. It starts off with saying scientists need to close the gap with the wider culture. Part of that wider culture is religion, ergo science has to get closer to faith.
I would also argue that UFO nuts, and people who think fluoridation is a CIA mind control plot, are part of the wider culture. I feel no onus to get closer to them. Engaging with the rest of our communities is a good thing in my opinion. But that’s no reason to punt our brains into the gutter.
He then babbles on about a meeting between faith heads and CERN. Apparently some of them were upset because scientist were encroaching on their turf and felt that scientists were to blame for the rise in atheism in the world.
Atheism’s rise has more to do with theology’s utter incompetence at explaining the world, than science’s prowess. Honestly, you would think that the almighty could have done more good for the world by teaching us about antibiotics and crop rotation. Instead of prattling on about loving each other.
I guess the almighty feared that such technologies would destroy us in some horrible Michael Bay/Syfy special apocalypse.
Brooks then uses the UK’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority’s consultations with the public as a role model. Which is all well and good, if you have a community willing to debate and listen to the other side’s point. The trouble is that there is a large section of the faithful whose debate strategy can best be summed up by the phrase “Total War”.
He seems to think every man of faith is like his local vicar. A man who, when Brooks babbled on about Von Daniken’s ‘Chariot of Gods’ proving that prophets existed, or that Godel’s theorem disproves god, chose to react with nothing more than a supercilious smirk.
Unfortunately there are people in the world willing to become suicide bombers because someone went to the wrong sort of church/mosque/temple. Or insulting their beliefs by virtue of their very existence. And even when they don’t use violence to enforce their beliefs, they’re willing to engage in every cheap rhetorical and propaganda device they can lay their hands on. Look at the Discovery Institute. An organization dedicated to overturning 150 years of solid science because it doesn’t fit with their world view.
He ends it with the fretful fear that some Muslim cleric, somewhere, might become offended by particle physics. Which is like worrying about a career in genetics, because a skinhead in a pub somewhere might not like what he’s hearing about you.
He argues that scientists need to drop the superior confrontational attitude. I’d argue that believers need to practice what he preaches.
Owlmirror:
October 28th, 2012 at 10:09 am
What, Hovindites all gone? I guess we’ll have to bicker amongst ourselves.
@Nick Gotts, #143 (previous):
No, your logic is invalid. To rephrase what I pointed out @#475 (previous), the scientific method is a method that rejects what doesn’t work.
Saying that the scientific method “could stop working” is like saying that a sort algorithm “could stop working”. Well, no. A particular implementation of the sort algorithim might crash because an input value caused problems with the hardware that the algorithm is running on — but that’s not a problem with the algorithm itself. As long as the sort algorithm works to begin with, it should work on all possible inputs, with any limits or problems being in the actual hardware that it’s implemented on.
What does “work” mean, for the scientific method? Do you mean that we get working technology from the body of scientific knowledge?
I was just thinking about phrasing it more generally that the scientific method works inasmuch as it generates data that is sufficiently consistent with reality that it can be used to make successful predictions about reality — and the predictions can then be implemented to make tools that we find beneficial to our own survival.
On a more abstract level, the scientific method works because the tools that result from the scientific method can be used in a feedback loop to gain higher resolution scientific knowledge
theophontes (坏蛋):
October 28th, 2012 at 11:55 am
@ A.R
The components are slowly coming together. RL is interfering with my fun. Linky: X-wing.
Sili:
October 28th, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Jesus Fuck! Jamie Ian Smith is annoying.
He’s been interviewed by the SGU, and they’re all busy patting eachother on the back for being pure skeptics.
“Wanna be an atheist? Fine with me! But don’t tell *me* what to do!”
JUST WHO THE SPUD IS IT, WHO’S BEEN BUSY TELLING WHOM TO SHUT THE FUCK UP AND STOP ROCKING THE BOAT?!?!
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 28th, 2012 at 1:34 pm
No, it isn’t, unless all you mean by “the scientific method” is “Do what works” – but I think that would be pretty vacuous. Observation, experiment, repeatability, the hypothetico-deductive method, theory/model design and critique, the construction of instruments and representational schemas, are all parts of what I would mean by that phrase, and since you refer explicitly to the feedback loop of using findings to build new instruments, I think you have to agree with at least some of this.
Now, suppose extremely powerful aliens start interfering with our perceptions, and with our environment. Observations are no longer repeatable; technology stops working. For us, the scientific method would no longer be valid (in the sense that it would no longer work, it’s not valid now in the logical sense, that of being invariably truth-preserving). More radically, suppose the nature of reality begins to change in a way that has the same kind of effects, and that this happens throughout the universe. Then the scientific method would no longer be valid anywhere.
There is no reason at all to expect either of these things to happen, but they remain logical possibilities.
magistramarla:
October 28th, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Note to the Horde-
Ed Brayton has himself a troll calling itself Royt over on his blog. I think that we need to have some fun with this chew-toy.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
October 28th, 2012 at 2:41 pm
Not just a troll-it’s a godbotter!
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist:
October 28th, 2012 at 5:06 pm
Nerd has, for the third time in the same thread, expressed his dislike of non-US citizens sharing our preferences about US presidential elections. I’m finding that very irritating.
Dhorvath, OM:
October 28th, 2012 at 5:07 pm
Beatrice,
Did you mention it there?
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist:
October 28th, 2012 at 5:09 pm
Only with this:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/10/26/one-more-reason-i-have-no-choice-but-to-vote-for-obama/comment-page-1/#comment-480884
Dhorvath, OM:
October 28th, 2012 at 5:14 pm
Ah. Seems a bit off to me. Wouldn’t versus won’t is a bit pedantic, no?
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist:
October 28th, 2012 at 5:17 pm
Sorry, lost you a bit here. What are you referring to?
strange gods before me ॐ:
October 28th, 2012 at 9:44 pm
Understatement.
For your “amusement” — put on a helmet first so you don’t bash your brains against the wall — watch as Kagehi drones on and on about how people who want to decriminalize drugs don’t understand what they’re talking about. And whenever Kagehi encounters a commenter who does understand (that is, everyone here at Pharyngula), well then it’s a good thing we’re not like all those other people who don’t understand anything.
But of course we’re all still morons anyway:
strange gods before me ॐ:
October 28th, 2012 at 9:45 pm
Oh, link:
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 28th, 2012 at 9:53 pm
Told to move it here, so just so everyone knows that the frelling clown is an idiot. Huge surprise to everyone I’m sure.
Dhorvath, OM:
October 28th, 2012 at 10:11 pm
Beatrice,
Sorry, it stood out to me in the thread you linked. Someone said they won’t vote, meaning they wouldn’t, (at least that’s how it appeared to me,) and got the shut up you aren’t voting at all response.
strange gods before me ॐ:
October 28th, 2012 at 10:23 pm
Dhorvath,
There’s a couple of things going on in that thread with joed. One is that he apparently can’t vote in US elections because he either doesn’t live here or isn’t a citizen or something; it’s not clear to me precisely why. This makes it particularly easy for him to declare what he would or wouldn’t do if he could vote, since he isn’t actually confronted with the decision (“easier said than done” and all that). But that’s not the problem that Beatrice is referring to.
Nerd has been saying that joed shouldn’t try to argue with US voters about how we should vote — not because joed is an idiot, but because joed isn’t a US voter.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 28th, 2012 at 10:31 pm
Now Clownboy, let me ask you. When someone says that we need to do something about CO2 emissions because of the environmental impact do you really think they’re talking about suffocating people? Or do you take from the fuckign context that they are talking about something else. I mean, because hearing someone say that a ban on chlorine is needed, most people would not be stupid enough to presume that means someone is stupid enough to think they can ban an element.
And on a similar note, the fact that Capitalism encourages people to actively make the world a worse place (in the example I gave diminishing people’s self esteem needlessly) in order to enrich themselves is why it is fucking evil.
chigau (棒や石):
October 28th, 2012 at 10:32 pm
ॐ re:joed
I’m glad it’s not just me.
I don’t know if joed “cannot, in good conscience, vote for any of these scumbags”
or
if joed “is not qualified to vote”.
—–
and even though I am not qualified to vote in a USA election, I have very strong feelings which I would like to express.
strange gods before me ॐ:
October 28th, 2012 at 10:44 pm
And you should express them. Not only does US policy affect you, but everyone has a legitimate interest in peace, justice and welfare everywhere.
mildlymagnificent:
October 28th, 2012 at 11:14 pm
I think the big thing with US politics being of interest to the rest of the world is about ….. numbers.
People tend to know that the USA is the biggest economy and the richest country in the world. Europeans and English speaking countries tend to think that the US is sort of just like them, only more land, bigger population, or both. It’s not. Apart from the 2 countries with populations over a billion, the USA is the biggest country in the world on population alone. And when you look at the icy wastes of Canada and Russia, or Australia’s vast interior deserts, or the Amazon forests, you’d be left with comparing only China and the USA to find comparable expanses of land within a single country with significant spread/concentration of habitation for a large population.
theophontes (坏蛋):
October 28th, 2012 at 11:32 pm
@ chigau
Hehe. Are you anything like theaphontes? She shouts at rMoney on the TV.
Though I sometimes get quite a fright, I realise that she is just very passionately anti-Mitt. And with good reason too. It is not just women in America who will suffer for his baked-in sexism. Next he will be trying to cut international aid for women (eg: family planning) all around the world. (I could multiply examples of such indefinitely.)
As a non-Usain, if you can influence just one ‘Merkin voter to switch from Mittens to Obama, you will have done a good thing for all of us. We can all try and ensure that his offensive words do not find the opportunity to turn into offensive actions.
chigau (棒や石):
October 28th, 2012 at 11:46 pm
theophontes
My TV crapped-out over a year ago but I’m right with thea.
—
USAians!
DO NOT VOTE FOR ROMNEY!
THE REST OF THE PLANET IS COUNTING ON YOU!
Owlmirror:
October 29th, 2012 at 12:17 am
It’s more like: “Figure out empirically what works, and what doesn’t work, and eliminate what doesn’t work.”
How? And to what extent?
Which observations? See, this is the problem with ad hoc imagined scenarios. It’s easy to write those words, and there’s a vague sense to the sentence — but it’s so broad that it doesn’t really explain what we would be observing instead of reality, and in what situations and contexts.
I would say that these “powerful aliens” are interfering with the scientific method, and making it more difficult for us to implement, but to the extent that any observations can be continue to be made at all, the scientific method will still work for what can be observed
Which technology? How is it stopped from working? What happens instead?
I’ve read (or read about) stories that are based on “technology stops working”. But these are works of fiction. They are ultimately make-believe. It’s a brute fact that our technology is based on the laws of physics to the same extent that our metabolism and physiology are based on the laws of physics. What happens that allows us to keep living (presumably), but doesn’t allow our tools (which tools?) to keep working?
I disagree, even if your proposed counterfactual(s) came about. Inasmuch as we could study anything at all, we could still use the scientific method to find out what still worked and what didn’t, and explore the limits of what was possible with what did still work.
Assuming reality changed in a consistent way, and in a way consistent with our lives not being ended because our metabolism and physiology failed, it is still exactly the scientific method that would be used to analyze and describe what these putative changes were and what they entailed.
I mean, what else would we do? Give up in mass despair?
I think you need more specificity before you can accurately describe them as logical possibilities.
theophontes (坏蛋):
October 29th, 2012 at 1:36 am
@ chigau
[persuading voters]
Holy shit, speak of the devil: In Critical Ohio, Mitt Romney Urges Supporters to Persuade Democrats
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist:
October 29th, 2012 at 2:34 am
Dhorvath,
Strange gods got my complaint right.
strange gods before me ॐ:
October 29th, 2012 at 2:41 am
Ophelia Benson is now mocking Brontosaurusism.
Goddamn her. This is the last straw.
theophontes (坏蛋):
October 29th, 2012 at 3:59 am
@ SGBM
A shocking case of heresy. Ophelia has obviously come under the spell of Rebecca Watson.
(I would propose military action, but I am currently having difficulty getting our armaments into production.)
Owlmirror:
October 29th, 2012 at 7:37 am
Hooray!
I’m so proud of her!
Of course, she might not be the right kind of heretic (i.e., a follower of Boltzmann Megalodonism and/or Philolsophical Zombie Jesus), but heresy must be encouraged! Boltzmann Brontosaurus is a snare and a delusion!
imkindaokay:
October 29th, 2012 at 10:48 am
I appear to be the only person in my philosophy (I know it’s a load of shit) class to accept an objective morality, and I was just wondering what the view of people here is. Does anyone here accept an objective morality too?
Dhorvath, OM:
October 29th, 2012 at 11:03 am
More details perhaps? It’s fairly safe for me to say I don’t think objective and morality play nicely together, but I am unsure where to move from there.
Dhorvath, OM:
October 29th, 2012 at 11:04 am
Beatrice,
My apologies then for focusing on a trivial detail in a larger pattern. I didn’t read deeply enough to catch the rest of the situation and should have kept my comment to myself.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 29th, 2012 at 11:07 am
Please define the term “objective morality” first
strange gods before me ॐ:
October 29th, 2012 at 11:42 am
imkindaokay,
I do. A type of utilitarianism is correct, and we can confirm this by investigating what concepts of good and bad refer to. It turns out they all ultimately trace to the positively and negatively valenced affects (these are broader categories than the pleasure/pain of standard utilitarianism).
I’m too busy/lazy to explain again right now (maybe tonight, if you prod me), but I’ve talked about it here and that conversation continued here — and some discussion of what it means for this to be objective happened here.
Owlmirror:
October 29th, 2012 at 11:57 am
I recently posted this on Leah Libresco’s blog, hoping to at least get an argument or discussion about the definitions or terms used, but she either didn’t read it, or couldn’t think of anything to say at all about it.
One of her commentators responded, but didn’t follow up when I pointed out a problem with the response.
So you tell me: what do you think is wrong about the following, and why?
======
1) “Objective” refers to a fact about reality; something that follows from basic logic and/or empirical evidence.
2) “Subjective” refers to an opinion or perception of facts. That opinion might well be an objective fact about a given agent (“Bob likes broccoli; Bob thinks that broccoli should be eaten.”), about things that are objective facts (“Bob’s taste buds, odor receptors, and brain translate the taste of broccoli into a pleasant experience for Bob, and cause Bob to wish to repeat the experience of eating broccoli”).
3) “Intersubjective” refers to those subjective opinions or perceptions that are held in common by a broad segment of the population. An example of an intersubjective phenomenon is language — while there appear to be some grammar-recognizing/generating module(s) in the brain, the actual instantiation of language is (mostly) what a large enough group of speakers (or gesturers, for Sign) that have the module(s) tacitly agree upon from an otherwise (mostly) arbitrary set of phonemes (and/or body movements), and teach to their children and each other. [Language is probably far more complicated than that, but this is a very brief summary]
4) “Morality” refers to a set of rules for behaviour which “ought” to be followed. While there appear to be modules in the brain that invovle empathy, imagination, compassion, and rule inference and reasoning about consequences, the actual instantiation of morality is (mostly) what a large enough group of people that have those modules tacitly agree upon from the set of actions that humans can perform, and teach to their children and each other. [Morality is certainly more complicated than that, but again, I'm being brief.]
5) Given all of the above, morality is best described as being intersubjective, not objective.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 29th, 2012 at 12:03 pm
until I get a comment on the definition your using I’ll say that for a given set of agreed values there can be an objectively correct decision in leu of evidence available at the time. This isn’t what the religious mean when they say objective. by objective they mean a fiat of “things to do or not do” which I flatly reject as moronic.
consciousness razor:
October 29th, 2012 at 12:30 pm
Morality is objective, in the sense that we can say true things about what is good or bad. We rarely do, but we can, for at least some good things and some bad things.
Owlmirror, I think you’re distracted by the fact that it depends on our feelings or concepts. That’s true, but what’s good or bad is a statement about how something affects our* feelings and what we ought to do based on that. It isn’t simply the feeling itself (or the feeling to the extent it can be shared intersubjectively). Whether we ought to do something is true or false, even though it may be different for different people. You just have to be specific about whether it’s a good thing for this person, because it may not be so for that person.
*Or an animal’s, an alien’s, a Boltzmann brontosaurus’, etc. Obviously, it can be very difficult to know how a Boltzmann brontosaurus feels (though surely he or she must feel something), at least I’m told it is for some; but that is a separate issue.
strange gods before me ॐ:
October 29th, 2012 at 12:51 pm
Just a reminder that mekathleen is an idiot.
Owlmirror:
October 29th, 2012 at 5:05 pm
???!!??
“Taste is objective, in the sense that we can say true things about what tastes good or bad.”
???!!??!?!?
“Whether we like the taste of something is true or false, even though it may be different for different people. You just have to be specific about whether it’s a good taste for this person, because it may not be so for that person.”
One of is unclear on the concept of objective vs. subjective, and I’m pretty sure that it isn’t me.
cm's changeable moniker:
October 29th, 2012 at 6:09 pm
I’m sorry. Gallows humour.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2012/10/storms-and-elections
Stay safe, people, stay safe.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 29th, 2012 at 6:18 pm
No it isn’t.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 29th, 2012 at 6:27 pm
But it’s logically possible that this should stop working: what works today doesn’t work tomorrow, and there is no predictability about it.
No: that’s completely contrary to the scenarios I outlined.
Probably, but that’s not an argument.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 29th, 2012 at 6:30 pm
That doesn’t mean morality is or can be objective (I’m not sure you’re claiming it is, though I seem to recall that you do), because there is no objective way of weighing different goods and bads against each other.
imkindaokay:
October 29th, 2012 at 6:41 pm
Really lots of examples of it being predictable.
First: objective morality doesn’t exclude qualifiers, which I think a lot of people fall into the trap of. Assuming that objective morality can’t be situational probably comes from a lot of derivations of it being religious.
‘It is wrong to kill (except in self-defence)’ is an objective statement – the qualifier makes no difference.
Now with that point, there is lots of predictability about morality. Rape is bad, always. Murder is bad. Theft is bad. Assault is bad. Sharing is good, rehabilitating is good, etc etc.
Completely unfair analogy. We can accurately say true things about what is good for humanity, what leads to happiness and away from suffering.
It is also important to note that just because morality is objective, it does not mean we are going to always be right.
I’m a negative utilitarian social democrat for instance. Is that, objectively, going to lead to the greatest human happiness? It’s certainly better than totalitarianism or white supremacy or some such thing.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 29th, 2012 at 6:56 pm
imkindofokay,
I wasn’t talking about morality at all there – Owlmirror and I have been disputing whether the scientific method could fail.
What if raping or murdering someone was the only way to prevent something that would cause much more suffering? Allied action in WWII killed many innocent people. Should the Nazis have been allowed to win?
Even when food is being hoarded in a famine to raise prices, and people are starving?
Why is human happiness the only concern; what about other sentient beings? What’s more important, maximising human happiness or minimising human suffering? Maximising happiness/minimising suffering for those now living, or ensuring that those not yet born have sufficient resources?
imkindaokay:
October 29th, 2012 at 7:07 pm
I’m a negative utilitarian so I answered your last question and I also pointed out that qualifiers don’t make morality non-objective.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 29th, 2012 at 7:19 pm
imkindaokay,
Well my last question was about weighting current or near future against further future, so I don’t think you did. But the most effective way to minimise suffering, if it were possible, would be to exterminate all life instantaneously. Would you advocate that?
imkindaokay:
October 29th, 2012 at 7:30 pm
You are right. I completely misread. Preserve resources for future generations.
Would I kill everyone? Nah, I wouldn’t.
People may disagree, but that’s the same with almost all facts. It’s not difficult to accept that a world in which the weak are killed and people are killed because they’re Jewish is a worse world. Nor is it difficult to say that letting someone die due to selfishness is bad.
How do you, a subjectivist person, accept laws? After all, you can’t prove to someone that being a serial rapist is bad, or so you suggest.
consciousness razor:
October 29th, 2012 at 7:42 pm
Owlmirror:
Sorry, it is you, because “objective” doesn’t mean “absolute.”
Rather than “taste” (whatever that means to you), it seems more useful to compare or contrast ethics to something we both agree involves objective facts about the world, which probably means something scientific.
How about gravity? It’s not the case that exactly the same gravitational force is applied to everything everywhere. Obviously, gravity works the same way everywhere, so it’s consistent and universal in that sense. However, at the same time, that doesn’t mean there are exactly the same effects for everyone, everywhere, all of the time. The point is that merely being different in some way for different people, or merely varying due to other factors, doesn’t mean something is subjective. Not unless you want to say gravity is subjective too, but I don’t think anyone wants to say that.
Nick:
It seems like you’re saying none of that would make a difference, because nothing really is good or bad. So those are odd questions, if you ask me. If there’s no answer (according to you), why does it matter which wrong answer (according to you) is given?
But to give an answer to the first, I can’t imagine a situation where raping or murdering someone would be the best (or only) way to prevent suffering. You could flesh out the kind of situation you have in mind if you think it’s worth it, but I’m not going to do it for you.
For the second, Allied action in WWII was wrong in so many ways. They shouldn’t have bombed civilians, for example. They could have acted differently and won the war against the Nazis (and the Japanese). It was “self-defense” to some extent, but no matter why you’re going to war, you risk lives (“innocent” or not) which by itself is bad and something that should be avoided.
But WWII as a whole involves millions of people taking who knows how many different actions. It’s easier (and less likely to give a shitty answer) if we stick to one or a few actions at a time.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 29th, 2012 at 8:02 pm
There is no definitive answer, but we can rationally debate and critique the merits of different answers. To think that the only possibilities are that either there is one correct answer, or that everything is arbitrary, is a fundamental error. In much the same way, there is no definitive answer to a question such as:
but literary critics can and do argue rationally about such questions, citing depth of characterisation, richness of description, vividness of metaphors, coherence of plot, depth of social insight and so on. Both ethics and esthetics are neither mere matters of taste, nor matters of objective fact.
Ethical statements, such as “Murder is wrong” are not, contrary to what you say, about our feelings. Rather, they are specifications of how we intend to judge actions, proposals, motives, or people. Our feelings certainly influence them, but that is not what they are about.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 29th, 2012 at 8:16 pm
Really? With regard to murder I’ve already given a clear example – unless you think it’s not really murder if you drop bombs on innocent people as part of a war. With regard to rape, you must surely know that people have indeed been given the choice of raping someone, or seeing everyone within reach killed. Of course you might argue here that the person physically carrying out the act is not the “real” rapist; but they may still have to make the decision whether to subject another to penetration without their consent.
But if they had refrained from bombing German civilians, the war would almost certainly have lasted longer and involved even more deaths: the bombing disrupted armaments production, and forced the Nazis to divert weapons from the eastern front to try to defend their cities.
I agree that war should be avoided if the alternative isn’t even worse, but sometimes it is – and sometimes (as in WW1 for example), it’s not clear whether it is or not.
vaiyt:
October 29th, 2012 at 9:10 pm
Here’s what I always think about that argument when applied for the atomic bombs: if ending a war is worth wiping two cities off the map and killing four hundred thousand civilians, where do we draw the line? What if they refused? Would the Americans drop bombs in Osaka and Tokyo? Irradiate Japan back to the feudal age? Now that would make sure Japan would never initiate a war again. Would it be advisable?
Dhorvath, OM:
October 29th, 2012 at 9:35 pm
Vaiyt,
It’s safe to say that the war did end and the toll exacted was the most that we might consider acceptable, yes?
consciousness razor:
October 29th, 2012 at 9:40 pm
I’m not making that mistake. I thought you were. I’m a pluralist (i.e., there can be more than one right way to act), and I’m also a realist (i.e., there actually are right ways to act). Those do not conflict. To think that they do is a fundamental error, or at least a confusion about what terms like “objective” are supposed to mean.
Please, let’s not talk about Eliot and Dickens again. I don’t think we got anywhere with that the last time. Although if I’m not mistaken, you were saying then that it isn’t subject to rational scrutiny at all, so maybe you’ve changed your views somewhat.
Do we need to talk about sociopaths again?
I don’t think I’m saying anything different, if you don’t cut off the end of the statement. I said it’s “a statement about how something affects our* feelings and what we ought to do based on that.” They are about what we should do.
My point was that ethics itself isn’t simply a bunch of feelings or concepts. It doesn’t have the property of being “subjective” like an individual’s feelings or concepts, having their first-person perspective, having their memories, etc. Ethical propositions are “about” them in that we can judge our actions based on them, but they themselves aren’t simply those feelings divorced from everything else. So, they shouldn’t treated as if they were. So even if ethics is subjective, that couldn’t be the reason why.
Yes, really. I said we didn’t need to do that and shouldn’t have done it, whether they were innocent or not. If you don’t agree for whatever reason, we could talk about that.
A person in that situation is not doing the same thing as a rapist, that’s true; but in any case, they still have a choice to not do it, as you said. The person threatening them could be stopped some other way. It’s not as if I’m in that sort of situation and therefore have all of that information so that I’d be able to say exactly what the right thing to do is, without you conjuring up (with as much justification) some variation on the imagined scenario showing why it could be the wrong thing to do. Is that the sort answer you expect from me?
The point is simply that there actually is a right thing to do (or more than one). We can’t just throw up our hands and say there isn’t one, because it’s hard to figure out or we personally don’t know.
imkindaokay:
October 29th, 2012 at 9:49 pm
Hundred percent this. And we’re clearly on the right path, even if their is a blip with the rise of the American far-right and David Cameron’s ‘big society’, but I imagine things will improve a lot in this lifetime.
imkindaokay:
October 29th, 2012 at 9:55 pm
*there…
I can only apologise.
Owlmirror:
October 29th, 2012 at 11:48 pm
There’s no reason that the process of figuring out what works should stop working. OK, “what works” changes unpredictably. So you add ‘”what works” changes unpredictably’ into the process of figuring out what works.
Let me rephrase that: Assuming reality changed in way that leaves at least something consistent, which it would have to because life and consciousness depends on biology → chemistry → physics behaving consistently … it is still exactly the scientific method that would be used to analyze and describe what these putative changes were and what they entailed.
Oh, yes it is.
/Monty Python
Owlmirror:
October 30th, 2012 at 12:33 am
It’s certainly a statement, but hardly an objective one.
We can accurately say that all else being equal, things that taste good lead to happiness and away from suffering.
You haven’t shown that morality is objective, merely asserted it.
Can you address what I wrote @#59?
======
I’m pretty sure that it’s you, because I defined what I meant by objective @#59. What definition are you using?
But taste and other subjective opinions also involves objective facts about the world.
I agree that gravity is an objective fact. But you haven’t shown how morality is like gravity.
The point is that it being a matter of opinion, makes it subjective. Inasmuch as that opinion is shared by others and supported by society/culture, it makes it intersubjective.
chigau (棒や石):
October 30th, 2012 at 12:56 am
If you people are going to have a sensible argument without calling each other names, can you takes it elsewhere?
This is The [Thunderdome].
chigau (棒や石):
October 30th, 2012 at 1:01 am
golly
I just asked people to take it out of The [Thunderdome].
(it must be the booze)
chigau (棒や石):
October 30th, 2012 at 9:05 am
huh.
I worked, though.
Owlmirror:
October 30th, 2012 at 10:03 am
<invective>
Sea-gherkin! Popinjay! Sycophant! Logarithm! Faddist! Pot-clanger! Turtle egg!
</invective>
Dhorvath, OM:
October 30th, 2012 at 10:08 am
Hey now, that made no manner of sense at all.
(Digging deep for insults.)
Owlmirror:
October 30th, 2012 at 10:14 am
@Nick Gotts:
Another thought on the scientific method continuing to work under problematic conditions:
To continue the analogy above about a sorting algorithm, it seems to me that you’re positing, by analogy, that either the storage medium for the data being sorted is so corrupt or damaged that the data spontaneously randomizes, or that there is another process running that is deliberately going into the data structure containing the data and either randomizing it, or deliberately unsorting it.
But I insist that while it would appear that the algorithm isn’t working (because of all the wrong data/unswapped data showing up), there isn’t anything actually wrong with the algorithm itself — and as long as you do still want sorted data, you should keep running the sorting algorithm, which will still sort data properly.
If you posit that the corruption is so pervasive that it interferes with the sort program itself, well, that’s analogous to the changes in reality being so severe that they interfere with consciousness and life.
imkindaokay:
October 30th, 2012 at 10:29 am
We can. And therefore we should strive to make sure people eat food that they enjoy.
Dhorvath, OM:
October 30th, 2012 at 11:16 am
Should? Where does that should creep in from?
Dhorvath, OM:
October 30th, 2012 at 12:11 pm
imkindaokay
How so? Is it objectively so that killing is wrong? What is wrong? What is killing? I get nervous at statements like this because they are too pat. I can see something along the lines of when someone plays a role in another person’s death we can evaluate that some wrong has been done, but that we are limited to subjectively evaluating how great the wrong.
By which you mean most moral systems and the ethical statements that accompany them follow regular patterns? Or do you mean only those which stem from your primary goal?
Fair enough, we don’t have the full picture, and may never. However, if it doesn’t mean that we can make better decisions as time goes on, I don’t know as objective means anything when talking about morality.
AndrewD:
October 30th, 2012 at 12:17 pm
Hi People,
I seem to remember that Strange Gods lives in NYC, so…
PAGING STRANGE GODS, are you OK? I hope you have survived with minimal damage.
Recreant:
October 30th, 2012 at 12:22 pm
I know I’m a bit late to the game (curse that whole “needing to work”) but I’ve tried to identify and examine the assumed premises of the Hovindites “argument”. It’s a little rough, but you can look at it here:
http://theleaveneddead.blogspot.com/
Comments and criticisms are welcome.
chigau (棒や石):
October 30th, 2012 at 12:29 pm
I thought strange gods before me ॐ was on the left coast.
(I don’t know why I think that.)
but a little note would be nice
Dhorvath, OM:
October 30th, 2012 at 12:31 pm
I always pictured SG as a roving reporter, checking in from where happenstance has him this week. Secretive too.
chigau (棒や石):
October 30th, 2012 at 12:48 pm
I expect he always wears black and has one of those flash-forget pens.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 30th, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Owlmirror,
What if your memory gets corrupted, so you misremember what worked yesterday and what didn’t?
But maybe after the change, life and consciousness don’t depend on that.
You are making a very strong claim: effectively, you are claiming that “the scientific method will always work” is a necessary truth. I don’t think you have got anywhere near showing that.
With regard to the sort algorithm, if you can’t use it because data swaps itself at random, that means it doesn’t work, even though (and this contrasts with the scientific method as you defined it) it is logically necessary that if you could implement it successfully, it always would.
Dhorvath, OM:
October 30th, 2012 at 1:03 pm
KG,
So at that point, all the scientific method could tell you is that it doesn’t work?
cm's changeable moniker:
October 30th, 2012 at 4:19 pm
No!!!, don’t Gödel the scientific method, Dhorvath! *flails* ;-)
—
AndrewD, you might be thinking of SC, who, I think, does. (Not sure.)
*keeps fingers crossed anyway*
John Morales:
October 30th, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Nick,
It can’t be necessary, because it is predicated on nature being consistent.
(So far, so good, but)
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 30th, 2012 at 4:59 pm
Indeed, it is so predicated, but Owlmirror seems to regard it as a necessary truth that nature is consistent.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 30th, 2012 at 5:01 pm
Not even that, I’m afraid, if memory is sufficiently fucked-up.
John Morales:
October 30th, 2012 at 5:36 pm
My personal opinion is that the existence of apparent physical constants* is no less metaphysically suggestive than the evident technological achievements engendered by science is empirically suggestive that (within the part of reality we can perceive) nature is indeed consistent.
–
* Their constancy is what allows scientific theory to make specific predictions.
John Morales:
October 30th, 2012 at 5:43 pm
Dhorvath, allow me to introduce you to Captain Archibald Haddock.
John Morales:
October 30th, 2012 at 6:03 pm
1. From what you say after this, you merely don’t understand it viscerally (aka emotionally) but wish to understand it intellectually.
2. Because the most professional are the best players, and they are more entertaining. Duh.
3. I see you speculate about that, immediately after asking.
(Better rhetorical form to ask after speculating)
4. Perhaps different people have different reasons?
5. De gustibus non est disputandum
6. Perhaps you’d be a lot of fun to me. :)
Owlmirror:
October 30th, 2012 at 6:07 pm
You’re still basically arguing about what happens when the “system” (the person or persons) that is “running” the scientific method becomes corrupted. That’s a problem with the system, not with the scientific method itself.
Inasmuch as life and consciousness exist, they do depend on something to be consistent. I suppose you could posit that all consciousness become inconsistent; i.e., insane, but that’s still a problem with the system rather than the scientific method itself.
I think I could tentatively posit that if the “system” running the scientific method became pathological, the scientific method running on that pathological system would not work — although, to the extent that any part of the system worked, the scientific method would work for that part of the system.
Why wouldn’t the same be the case, by analogy, for the scientific method? I mean, I’m using “method” analogously to “algorithm”. And I think a more rigorous case could be made that the scientific method is basically an algorithm; an interactive proof-system. As I recall, you’ve argued that science does prove things — you haven’t changed your mind on that, have you?
===
Not exactly.
Inasmuch as it’s posited that life and/or consciousness exists, there has to be something consistent underlying them.
If you posit that all of empirical reality is utterly uniform and unchanging, or utterly chaotic, changing with no connection whatsoever to prior states, there is nothing for the scientific method to “work” with, but there’s also nothing in such a posited reality that is a system (a conscious intelligent person) that could “run” (or use) the scientific method.
alexanderjohannesen:
October 30th, 2012 at 6:50 pm
@john_morales:
1. I’ve never understood sports emotionally, so my initial verbiage indeed is genuine. I’ve played sports at various points in my life, never understanding how people connect to teams beyond the skills of individuals.
2. “Because the most professional are the best players, and they are more entertaining.”
A broad, sweeping statement that can’t possibly be true; I’ve been told that further down the divisions is where the nasty entertainment bits are. Again, rugby and AFL.
3. “I see you speculate about that, immediately after asking. (Better rhetorical form to ask after speculating)”
This is Pharyngula, not a dissertation, thus I did not mean to be particularly structural and clear as to avoid the general pissoar bouquet in here we all love so well. :)
4. It was an invite; feel free to tell me yours.
5. Phy! Fabulae!
6. As tackle practice? Oh, and did I mention that Aussie sausages are a disgrace to sausages everywhere?
A. R:
October 30th, 2012 at 6:51 pm
[A. R plugs extension cord into LOLstar wall outlet to power geocentrist attractor prototype, power on LOlstar flickers, A. R unplugs prototype, goes over to load distribution computer, sees that teh tardigrade's quarters are drawing an abnormal amount of power.] theophontes, what are you doing in there?
Owlmirror:
October 30th, 2012 at 6:59 pm
Something about a “blender”, I hear — making a fruit smoothie? Many fruit smoothies?
/naïf
John Morales:
October 30th, 2012 at 7:14 pm
alexanderjohannesen, it is not I who seeks to understand why people enjoy sport or to what extent they become tribal about team sports, I am content to accept and note it happens.
But you gotta admit the degree of linkage between your personal inability to grok people’s attachment to teams and the brain damage issue is not sufficient to merit your inquisitiveness about it there to be topical.
alexanderjohannesen:
October 30th, 2012 at 7:42 pm
@john_morales: Sorry, mate, but the perceived lack of linkage between my rhetorical ponderings and my use of colloquial grokking (as in “yeah, I get it, but I don’t get it”) in order to promote discussion about sport and tribalism in general – “sport” being the thing that creates brain damage, distorts university and college funding, promotes tribalism, shifts focus away from the purpose of the educational institutions, all of which the OP was about – is far more on topic than your own narrowing it down to only “brain damage” and what you yourself think is the correct scope in a Pharyngula comment section. Why this weird policing?
Or, TL;DR; “uh, what?”
cm's changeable moniker:
October 30th, 2012 at 7:49 pm
Dodgy connections, I guess.
(Yes, terrible pun. Sosumi.)
John Morales:
October 30th, 2012 at 8:35 pm
alexanderjohannesen,
Pointless question, since it is not policing and it should not seem weird; I thought it (and think it) off-topic and better discussed here.
strange gods before me ॐ:
October 30th, 2012 at 9:23 pm
I’m fine. SC does live closer to the scary place than I do.
strange gods before me ॐ:
October 30th, 2012 at 9:26 pm
And I haven’t been online all day so I don’t know if she’s checked in anywhere.
strange gods before me ॐ:
October 30th, 2012 at 9:36 pm
Uh, so this doesn’t come up again: I’ve mentioned that I experience hurricanes. But I live far enough inland that the worst things are downed trees and power outages. And there is no tree near enough my home to hurt me.
chigau (棒や石):
October 31st, 2012 at 1:10 am
ॐ
I’m happy to see you.
I haven’t seen SC today but I’m still in catch-up mode.
theophontes (坏蛋):
October 31st, 2012 at 3:31 am
@ A.R
Yes, I have been hogging all the cycles on teh interwebz. But for a good cause. Link here. It is costing a lot of energy, but we are going to need lots of special effects for the Great Pharyngula Movie.
@ Owlmirror
If only Blender ™ made fruit juice!
For every 2 steps I move forward, it drags me back 1.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999….steps. WTF,call it “2″, I don’t seem to be getting anywhere fast. There should be a warning on the packaging: “Do not try to learn this from scratch!”
@ cm’s
What I really need is a render farm …
HEY! … you are onto something there…. {a devious smile starts to filter into the tardigrades evil stare.}
[prepares hecatomb to the Boltzmann Brontosaurus]
John Morales:
October 31st, 2012 at 5:13 am
theophontes,
Since ‘move forward’ must implies a change of position in a particular direction, it must refer to a position vector change, however infinitesimal.
Since ‘drags me back’ clearly denotes an opposite change to the same position vector but can only apply after the original change, you must be engaged in oscillatory motion — further, your quantisation into two steps means your oscillatory amplitude is one step to other side.
(Looks like a rather simplistic dance to me)
A. R:
October 31st, 2012 at 7:41 am
theophontes: Very impressive! [Diverts moar power to teh tardigrade's quarters]
md:
October 31st, 2012 at 8:18 am
Pharyngulites, please have a read. Its a polite invitation to a spirited conversation that so many of you feel strongly about. Please, id love to see you all extend that conversation out of the echo chamber (nothing wrong with echo chambers, mind you. they have their place) that is pharyngula. Id love to read the back and forth, here or over there.
cheers,
md
strange gods before me ॐ:
October 31st, 2012 at 9:39 am
*dons Pope hat*
*dons second Pope hat, Matryoshka style*
*
prayssends magic packet to Low Orbit Brontosaurus Cannon*theophontes (坏蛋):
October 31st, 2012 at 11:11 am
@ John Morales
No worse than the merengue!
@ A.R
That’s the stuff, get me some! (I am now learning to texture the surfaces. There is potential here. Linky.)
@ SGBM
Hehe. But not (only) that.
(Hint: Guanxi —> render farm…)
Rutee Katreya:
October 31st, 2012 at 11:26 am
This should actually be a thing. It’d be an improvement.
I hate the church for its asshattery, but I love hats.
@md: Why don’t you just bring your jackassery over here? Disrupt the echo chamber and all. I don’t go out of my way to meet bigots.
theophontes (坏蛋):
October 31st, 2012 at 12:13 pm
@ A.R
Storm clouds on the horizon: Linky
@ md
What Rutee said.
A. R:
October 31st, 2012 at 12:19 pm
theophontes: The LOLstar’s power grids are currently having some issues due to the stupid shielding subsystem nearly being destroyed by a comment by former FEMA director Brown. Thus You may experience interruptions in power while the system recovers (this is day two of the attempt to bring the shield power above 25%, and we can’t take another hit like that one.)
erikthebassist:
October 31st, 2012 at 2:54 pm
I read your bigoted blog post MD, you’re not worth having a discussion with until you understand the difference between being critical of someone’s beliefs and being prejudiced against the way people are born.
Kindly go fuck off.
cm's changeable moniker:
October 31st, 2012 at 3:41 pm
Er, this laptop overheats at the mere typing of youtube.com.
I’d be honoured to, but unfortunately [etc.] …
strange gods before me ॐ:
October 31st, 2012 at 3:57 pm
Cloudy with a chance of sauropods.
strange gods before me ॐ:
October 31st, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Geolocating
targetperson of interest.A. R:
October 31st, 2012 at 5:30 pm
SG: Have you considered integrating the LOBC into the LOLstar? We offer all of your superweapon needs, including a large power source, reflective stupid shielding, remote command and control, and comfortable quarters with internet, cable, and rather nice beds. Also an open bar on the promenade.
John Morales:
October 31st, 2012 at 6:36 pm
md:
You would, would you?
Tough shit.
–
As for this place being an echo chamber, you do realise how utterly foolish that contention is, no?
(Hotbeds of disputation are not echo chambers)
chigau (棒や石):
October 31st, 2012 at 6:53 pm
John Morales
but We™ all agree about md.
therefore
herefor
erefo
ref
e
cm's changeable moniker:
October 31st, 2012 at 7:23 pm
Weird. Quiet neighbourhood in a low-crime area. Car pulls up in the road, two 20-somethings get out, start wandering (maybe drunk?) into people’s driveways. As I’m taking out the garbage, the one wandering into mine says “sorry mate, wrong house”, and re-routes to next door.
A few minutes pass, a few more security lights come on, then they re-enter the car and drive off.
*worried*
Not immensely, but …
A. R:
October 31st, 2012 at 7:27 pm
cm: Most concerning.
cm's changeable moniker:
October 31st, 2012 at 8:12 pm
I LOLed:
chigau (棒や石):
October 31st, 2012 at 8:45 pm
re cm #136
*takes off mittens*
+2+3+3+3
*takes off socks*
+5+5…+5
David Ohman is probably correct.
cm's changeable moniker:
October 31st, 2012 at 8:46 pm
RAP NEWS 15: Big Brother is WWWatching You (feat. George Orwell)
Yeah, I got that from the other bearded squid-fascinated person.
John Morales:
October 31st, 2012 at 9:46 pm
Three Little Kittens
chigau (棒や石):
October 31st, 2012 at 10:09 pm
John Morales
You are so weird!
:)
[c'mon, sing it with me... Mee-ow, mee-ow, mee-ow.]
John Morales:
November 1st, 2012 at 3:10 am
chigau, I admit I prefer Mother Hitton’s Littul Kittons.
cm's changeable moniker:
November 1st, 2012 at 3:35 am
I’m alive! And un-burgled. Phew.
Fionnabhair:
November 1st, 2012 at 4:28 am
Anyone wanna help turn a poll around? It’s from a Sun Media paper, which is Canada’s Fox News, so I didn’t have high expectations, but it’s still early and there’s plenty of time to send it in the right direction.
Basically, a parent has complained about Gideon Bibles being distributed at a school in British Columbia. They’re only given to students who have permission slips signed by their parents (and most parents decline- there’s hope for the future yet), but bibles shouldn’t be given out in schools, period.
Here’s the poll as it stands:
Here’s a link to the article, poll is at the end. I don’t recommend reading the comments, as they’re the typical privileged assholes you would expect to see commenting on something from Fox News North, complaining about Christian persecution and being racist and so on. Unless you like a bit of pain, in which case, jump right in.
mildlymagnificent:
November 1st, 2012 at 6:11 am
Spirited? For pity’s sake.
All that stuff about formation of stereotypes and prejudice is utterly standard. Completely routine content of staff training packages in equal opportunity/client sensitivity back when I was presenting them in the early 90s.
If you want spirited, or interesting at least, you need to get something original from somewhere. Anywhere.
strange gods before me ॐ:
November 1st, 2012 at 9:40 am
SC returned my email. She’s fine!
strange gods before me ॐ:
November 1st, 2012 at 9:48 am
A. R,
Surely you agree on the importance of separating church and state.
While I am unwavering in my support for the Tardigradian Revolution, it is vital for the One Wholly Caffeinated Metabolic Church of Boltzmannbrontosaurusism to maintain its own sacred war machine.
Come to think of it, the One Holey Cadaveric Vitriolic Church of Quantum Boltzmannbrontosaurusism needs its own military capacity. I shall have to commandeer the LOLstar. Don’t worry; we are a 501(c)(3)², so your generous tithe is tax deductible.
chigau (棒や石):
November 1st, 2012 at 9:48 am
ॐ
That’s good to know.
chigau (棒や石):
November 1st, 2012 at 10:02 am
About SC, I mean.
But sacred war machines are good, too.
theophontes (坏蛋):
November 1st, 2012 at 1:09 pm
@ SGBM
A LUTA CONTINUA!
(More specifically: with this damn propaganda movie. I have got the planet pretty much finished (Linky) and worked out some of the green-screening. X-wing to get textures and colourscheme this weekend. Then the big challenge: building and animating a tardigrade model.)
…
We could adapt these lyrics?: Miriam Makeba
A. R:
November 1st, 2012 at 1:09 pm
[A. R fires low-yield LOLbeam at SG]
BOOM!
A. R:
November 1st, 2012 at 1:17 pm
theophontes: Have you started on the LOLstar model yet? I would be happy to consult when you do. Especially for the firing and shield effects.
anteprepro:
November 1st, 2012 at 1:28 pm
md, inviting us over to The American Conservative? That’s nice. I’m sure it will be a nice, fruitful discussion with people who are completely informed. Not miseducated or delusional or blinded by their own privileges…
(Reads second fucking sentence of article)
Holy shit. The REVEREND WRIGHT and the RACISM AGAINST WHITE PEOPLE series continues in the conservative brain, 4 years later? Serious business is serious.
Oh, and gotta love the phrase “black folks” in the next fucking sentence. I think I read all I needed to in order to know that you are a waste of fucking time, md.
md:
November 1st, 2012 at 3:57 pm
anteprepro,
Too bad you couldnt get to the third sentence.
It continues in a similar vein. I guess there wasnt enough venom to keep you entertained. Thanks for trying though.
A. R:
November 1st, 2012 at 4:09 pm
md: If you want a dishonest debate go somewhere else.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 1st, 2012 at 4:18 pm
MD is too stupid and dishonest to admit most of us here know its prejudices and vapid/bankrupt ideology. And have no intention of paying any attention to what it says or links to, except to mock it and the site. Other than a chew toy, it has no function.
Rutee Katreya:
November 1st, 2012 at 4:38 pm
MD, trusting white people not to be racist is not virtuous; you fools haven’t stopped anytime in the last century. It’s just stupid. You’re not helping yourself.
But keep on trying, I’m sure you can redeem white people with your sterling example of not being a racist asshole. Or at least, possibly amuse.
cm's changeable moniker:
November 1st, 2012 at 6:03 pm
Laptop’s hard drive seems to be on the brink of failure.
Doing monster backup now.
md needs to read this (and TNC generally).
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist:
November 1st, 2012 at 6:31 pm
/rant, feel free to ignore
I’m starting to consider “everyone is an asshole until proven otherwise” approach to online conversations. No more benefit of the doubt when someone’s first comment might be just clumsy and not intentionally trollish/derailing/assholish. It always turns out I was just wasting my time and good will.
/end rant
erikthebassist:
November 2nd, 2012 at 12:30 am
MD won’t read that CM, he’s too busy patting himself on the back for being above racism.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 2nd, 2012 at 1:00 am
cm @157:
So I clicked on your link. Interesting stuff there.
I made the mistake of clicking one of the links in that article. It took me to a TakiMag article by John Derbyshire. http://takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonblack_version_john_derbyshire/print#axzz1rC3fsLMv
I really want to scrub my brain right now. Along with drink a bottle of vodka. Along with break something.
Excerpts:
Fucking racist scumbag this guy is. Of course I see that Pat Buchanan is a columnist for the same magazine. Ugh.
theophontes (坏蛋):
November 2nd, 2012 at 1:00 am
@ AR
I have dabbled a bit, but not started the real model yet. It is very dependent on textures to get right. Also, the LOLstar, other than in shape, looks quite different to a Deathstar. (There are two versions of LOLstar too, just to complicate matters.)
The general ideas are there though. Shape, materials, power supply, basic weapons system … though I could add more if you have any suggestions. I imagine it will grow incrementally. I have a shield for the tardigrades’ petri-dish, but none yet for the LOL-star.
@ cm
What are the specs? You might be able to run it without the hard drive.
…
Here is a unique angle: Why Jimmy Wale’s (created Wikipedia) does not vote
chigau (棒や石):
November 2nd, 2012 at 1:19 am
theophontes and A. R and ॐ
Where do I (2ICBDFL) fit into this new scheme?
theophontes (坏蛋):
November 2nd, 2012 at 2:06 am
@ chigau
As 2ICBDFL you get to customise your
intergalacticinterwebz mode of transport. (You are not limited to flying petri-dishes, bamboo dumpling steamers, X-wings, LOLstars … or the like)chigau (棒や石):
November 2nd, 2012 at 2:18 am
theophontes
hhmmm
I wish to be coated in quantumn-kittens.
(humanely, of course)
(kittens to be treated well and sent to good homes as their cute-rating drops)
(how this relates to ‘transport’, I’m not sure)
(but, Kittens!)
John Morales:
November 2nd, 2012 at 2:26 am
Kittons.
chigau (棒や石):
November 2nd, 2012 at 2:35 am
kittonnes
theophontes (坏蛋):
November 2nd, 2012 at 2:49 am
@ chigau
A Hello-kittehz X-wing? This can be arranged.
chigau (棒や石):
November 2nd, 2012 at 2:55 am
theophontes
oooooh
yes.
(me bed)
theophontes (坏蛋):
November 2nd, 2012 at 3:18 am
Arranged!
(arrange … arrang …. arran … arra ….arr .. ar .a… My Brontosaurus… it IS an echo chamber!)
Lofty:
November 2nd, 2012 at 5:45 am
Brontosaurus!!??
http://xkcd.com/636/
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 2nd, 2012 at 6:22 am
Md, please fuck off. A glance at any one of several recent threads would show anyone just a little less stupid than you how ridiculous your characterisation of Pharyngula is.
PZ Myers:
November 2nd, 2012 at 6:37 am
md is asking us to read Rod Fucking Dreher? Are you kidding me? He’s an apologist for pedophiles; he’s blamed the Catholic child rape scandal on a secret network of gay priests that have infiltrated the holy church. His day job is as a shill for the Templeton Foundation. And the American Conservative is a racist evil rag.
Oh, yeah: NEW THREAD.