This is Thunderdome, the unmoderated open thread on Pharyngula. Say what you want, how you want.
Status: UNMODERATED; Previous thread
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
This is Thunderdome, the unmoderated open thread on Pharyngula. Say what you want, how you want.
Status: UNMODERATED; Previous thread
@ SGBM
I certainly cannot do that (there are many animals that can both talk or otherwise communicate (eg Odin’s Hugin and Munin)). I fail to see why only snakes but not other animals would have to be a criteria.
Well, it is kinda an itch that needs to be scratched. My suggestion to myself is to sit down and read Genesis again, carefully and without my mind going into overdrive.
BUT,BUT BUT!!! :(
What I am more comfortable with, is digging up snake references (and there are many). I trust this will not become too much of a distraction:
You will likely know of the World Snake, Jormundgandr, enemy of Thor (and Odin). This Snake is the child of Loki. Irrefutably, earthquakes are caused by the writhing of Loki when snake venom drips upon Him.
…
And I would know this how?
People can and do get talked out of their positions. It is not as if StevoR does not have the wherewithall to change.
You might say I am naive in this, but what is the alternative? No rehabilitation ever? The likes of joe4060 and StevoR make me despondent in this regard but I cannot see how we can just back away from the fray. (I realise you face this shit far more than me and that my idealism may come across as wishfull thinking. I don’t tend to meet such overt, rabid xenophobia in the people I deal with in RL nowadays.)
@ Caine
Caine, Rutee, SGBM: Sadly it appears I am wrong in thinking there is any way to redeem this person on FTB.
Further, why should we put up with such people while we wait for them to get a clue? Some things are just not worth the effort.
{shows thumbs down sign}
(My initial response to SGBM wrt StevoR has been overtaken by my reconsiderations.)
My old friends and Pharynguliltes.
I think the most important person in history is Genghis Khan, whom slaughtered the ruling class, the landowners and politicians and spread the enlightenment throughout Eurasia.
Do I have any allies here that are in favor of violence and hanging Wall Street fucks to the horizon? I am cross-posting this to the slymepit
nope
I could swear I had scooter in the
killhushfile already.Oh well… *click*
Kerestilanatos
“Why not????”
If something had a beginning that means at one time it did not exist.
How can some that does not exist bring itself into existence?
No, it doesn’t – if by “had a beginning” you mean “has not existed for an infinite length of time”. The special and general theories of relativity (which have been extensively tested) imply that time is part of the universe: it cannot exist separately from space and energy. So, even if the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe, there was no time at which the universe did not exist.
Virtual particles come into existence all the time, without external cause. Lawrence Krauss suggests, in his book A Universe from Nothing, that the existence of the universe itself is due to this process – but this is speculative. However, the simple fact is that according to well-tested scientific theories, things do come into existence without external cause.
BTW, joe, how would a disembodied mind work? How would it be able to create a physical world? How could it either have existed forever, or have “brought itself” into existence? You’re very fond of asking questions (without, of course, ever trying to understand the answers), but since you insist (wrongly) that unless the scientific account of the world is complete, there can be no reason to believe any of it, let’s see you fill in some of the gaping holes in the theistic picture.
Beatrice, Scooter is an old-timer here, but yeah, you can only go by what you read.
(There’s more there than you see, and he out-rednecks regular rednecks)
joe4060:
This is incoherent, as can be easily be determined by simple substitution: “If
somethingnon-existence had a beginning that means at one time it did not exist.”(heh)
John Morales,
Hmm. Ok.
nigelthebold
“The Bible does not have an account of its origins”
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Gen 1:1
“Oh, sure, you claim to have an account of it’s origins. Were you there? No I thought not. So why should I believe you?”
Aren’t you standing on it right now?
“Farce” meaning it was an experiment to try to prove that God does not exist. The experiment only replicated a fraction of what happens out in nature anyway. What did it prove? Nothing. It did not prove the origin of life. Nice try but.
“Amino acids in the tail of a comet” does not prove that God did not create the universe.
“Four corners of the earth” means all nations and people; as in ‘travel to the far corners of the earth.’
“13-billion-light-years-away” was already answered before in #260
“You are the one trying to claim to speak for God, to know God’s will, to know the history of God.”
As per his word in scripture.
“THE UNIVERSE CANNOT COME FROM NOTHING OF ITS OWN ACCORD WITHOUT CAUSATION”
“I never claimed that Joe”
I never said you did. It is just part of my argument.
“I am not sure why you keep bringing it up. It has nothing to do with evolution.”
But it does, because it shows that evolution does not have a cosmological origin. It has simply tried to hijack what was already there.
“That is what science is all about”
Science is all about putting EVERYTHING on the table and seeing where the evidence leads. This is what I meant by “It’s how we INTERPRET reality that matters.”
Evolutionary science spends much of its energy trying to uphold its world view by intentional misinterpretation of evidence.
(Watch Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed by Ben Stein)
A couple of good books to read are, Refuting Evolution and Refuting Compromise by Jonathan Sarfati. Ph.D.
Here is a slightly simpler version of my argument again.
Something cannot come from nothing, of its own accord, without causation.
If something had a beginning, then before its beginning it did not exist.
Something that does not exist, cannot bring itself into existence.
1. Everything that begins to exist (comes into being) has a cause
2. The universe bagan to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
The cause of the universe would need to be transcendent, uncaused, timeless, changeless, and immaterial (outside of time and space). There would need to exist beforehand, a personal, all powerful, unembodied mind that could cause everything to come into being from nothing.
1. Evolution does not have a cosmological beginning (something cannot come from nothing without causation) for it to become established in.
2. Therefore, evolution does not exist
All “evolution” can do is to try to claim the credit for something that was already there anyway.
The distortion of time due to mass in the universe (the theory of relativity) has been measured to a high degree of accuracy. The concept of time before the Singularity of the Big Bang is totally meaningless. Therefore the Big Bang caused itself. All the time that has ever existed is within this universe.
joe4060:
That has nothing to do with the Bible’s origins, since the heavens and the earth are not the Bible.
You really think Nigel is standing on the Bible as he posts that? ;)
What?
You imagine that was an experiment to try to prove that God does not exist?
You really are clueless, ain’t ya?
<snicker>
No, it merely proves natural processes can create amino acids.
(It is most amusing that you imagine God’s existence depends upon mere chemistry not being able to produce amino acids — does it pain you that the evidence shows this is the case?)
—
Well, I guess I shouldn’t hog the fun — so I’ll leave it at this — yet another retort to which you have no response.
(Tell me more about how non-existence cannot have begun and therefore cannot have existed)
—
But hey: ou are a meaty chew-toy, you are, if bland.
(Carry on)
No, but he WAS a philosopher! Obviously he didn’t call himself that, but if your vocation revolves around thinking things about stuff and then saying the things you’ve thought about, you get a lot of latitude when it comes to granting yourself titles, since that is not an important vocation.
If we’re going to anthropomorphise things like thermodynamics and relativity… why stop there? Chemistry would be so much more engaging if we were allowed to describe fluorine as a “nasty, bitey” gas belonging to the group of elements known as “Electron-Munchers”. King of the Munchers, that’s what fluorine would be.
Why does anything have to “bring itself” into existence? Where is the step in your argument that proves causality necessitates a Prime Mover, that logical patterns precipitated by intrinsic properties of energy and matter are not, alone, sufficient to explain the universe as we observe it? You don’t believe the Earth is flat; good for you. Why do you think gravity is insufficient to explain why it’s spherical, when the preponderance of evidence suggests that all celestial bodies are spherical because of gravity? Maybe I missed a Pslam that deals with gravitational accretion, and if so could you point me to it? And I don’t mean a series of words from the King James translation which could be interpreted Nostradamus-style as being possibly indicative of the existence of gravitational accretion; I mean a viable explanation of why it’s impossible, or why physics is insufficient to explain it, or, more compelling still, why it works perfectly well everywhere else in the universe, yet for some reason couldn’t possibly account for Earth, hence the need for God to create one spherical planet in a universe of spherical planets.
“Where did the intrinsic properties come from”, right? If you want an answer to that, you’ll need to join the growing mass of intellects dedicated to scientific scrutiny of the universe’s origins, because uncritically scrutinising a tendentious translation of some 2,000 year old book isn’t going to tell you, any more than it’s going to tell you about the function of mitochondria or the laws of electrolysis.
All atomic theory can do is claim credit for something that was already there anyway. All orthopedic medicine can do is claim credit for something that was already there anyway. All mathematics can do is claim credit for decribing some things that are already there anyway.
What point are you trying to communicate with this folderol? That stuff isn’t valid or trustworthy unless it’s been fabricated from the ground up by humans? Yet there you are, drinking water and eating food like a big Biblical hypocrite.
How can you keep asking the same questions over and over and expect a different answer? That is stupidity of your arguments. They are presuppositional bullshit without any truth to them.
Joe, here are some the presuppositional lies you keep repeating:
His imaginary deity exists.
His babble is anything other than a book of mythology/fiction.
His OPINION can refute science.
His unevidenced and illogical presuppositional argument can refute science.
Anything other than more science can refute science.
That a million scientific paper can be dismissed with a sweep of OPINION.
That it has an argument that isn’t nothing but presuppositions
That presuppositions are irrefutable and don’t need to be shown to be true.
That evidence explained by science (natural processes) are evidence for the stupornatural.
That its deity is eternal.
That the creation of the creator doesn’t have to be explained.
That evolution isn’t scientifically a fact
That natural selection isn’t a powerful tool that doesn’t need deities to work.
That beginnings means a creator.
That it isn’t a delusional fool who should shut the fuck up.
Xe claimed that a million scientific papers are refuted by creation.com.
Amount of evidence you have shown that your imaginary deity actually exists: Zero, zip, nada, nil, nothing, empty set. Ergo, it doesn’t exist and never existed. The evidence kills your arguments, which are nothing but bullshit.
Fred Salvador
When I go back to university, I’m going to refer to fluorine as King of the Munchers, and if my professor objects, I’m going to tell him he’s discriminating against the anthropomorphic chemistry part of my religion’s dogma.
I suppose that makes lithium and sodium Electron-Losers, so I’ll just call them Losers for short.
And my equations will go like this:
Big-time-Loser (sodium) + Vice-Muncher (chlorine) -> That Guy Ubiquitous in Food (sodium chloride salt)
This all makes a lot more sense than joe4060.
But Nerd of Redhead, repeating something several times makes it true, didn’t you know? That’s why all those incantations in stories need to be repeated at least 3 times.
So yeah, ‘Evolution is false’ repeated ad nauseam will make it magically true.
Duh.
It worked for Dorothy.
Joe4060 is a presuppositionalist idiot.
Joe4060 is a presuppositionalist idiot.
Joe4060 is a presuppositionalist idiot.
Hey! It works!
JOE.
You have said evolution doesn’t exist.
You have also said that it’s a description of “what’s already there”.
Either it does exist, and is therefore already there, or it does not exist, and therefore doesn’t describe anything.
THEY ARE OPPOSITES. YOU HAVE TO PICK ONE OR THE OTHER.
Ogvorbis
The magic of magic.
Is the Abrahamic god omnipotent or omnigood? They are mutually exclusive but most sects of modern Christianity insist you must believe both so there is precedent for such idiocy within hir own inspired-from-god-and-never-wrong-though-frequently-misinterpreted holy book.
Brownian, David is the Anglo spelling/pronunciation of Dawid. Sounds different as well.
Dawi, Dawi Crockett, King of the wild frontier.
Got your point. It started Hebrew
Ignoring opposites is a mark of True Faith. You can’t be Truly Faithful if your opposites are mutually exclusive.
See joe# is spouting his creationist rhetoric but still wont give up how jesus is related to david. Especially since the bibble writers are worse than hobbits and mormons for genealogy listings
rq:
So Cognitive Dissonance is an essential component of Faith?
Why do this? We’ve already responded to your dumbass arguments. You need to deal with those responses.
What exactly is impossible about something coming from nothing? What makes that impossible? Answer the question. Do not just assert this. Explain what you think makes it a true statement.
Like Nick Gotts and others have already said, something’s beginning may be coincident with the beginning of time itself, meaning that there may be no such thing as “before its beginning.” So this is false.
Why not? Your god doesn’t exist. So it cannot bring itself into existence? Your arguments certainly aren’t making a god exist.
Do you understand that we know things do happen without causes all of the time? Again, others have already brought this up. Why don’t you respond to them?
How do you know this? Explain what you think makes this a true statement.
Does not follow.
None of that follows. If there were a “cause of the universe,” not a single one of those things would need to be true about it. Not one.
What the fuck does that even mean?
God doesn’t have a cosmological beginning, therefore God doesn’t exist? Baseball doesn’t have a cosmological beginning, therefore baseball doesn’t exist? You don’t have a cosmological beginning, therefore you don’t exist?
All you can do is masturbate furiously while making the cosmological argument.
Yubal
Cool stuff. I read about molecular dynamics a fair amount, and it seems that there can be a lot of challenges involved, even when you aren’t investigating a structure as complicated as a protein. Convenient anecdote.
The computational work that I’ve actually done is more related to electronic structure. MD is really useful for investigating polymers but I’m content to leave that approach to the dedicated theorists.
AHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHA!
Ogvorbis
I would say, yes!
This fascinates me. I will accept the uncaused, I know that things right now happen with no trigger, so it’s uncontroversial to assume that has been the case for things we haven’t observed. Timeless is pretty easy to accept as well, given the effect of extrapolating what we see backwards in time the word time lacks meaning before 13.7 billion years ago. Changeless is bizarre though, clearly some change occurred: that of instigating our universe. It seems rather easier to just say that it’s in constant flux, thereby sidestepping the need for it to change once. Immaterial is interesting, at high enough energies matter as you are likely thinking here basically doesn’t exist. We have a working theory, inflation, with some good predictions that fits those four attributes and has predicted subsequent observations of our universe. Given natural extrapolations from those four attributes, inflation would almost certainly transcend our universe given that it would generate other universes via similar processes.
And there is nothing about this which suggests intelligence, let alone personal attributes.
Right from step one, you’re wrong.
Things do this all the frickin’ time.
This has been pointed out to you several times, and you keep ignoring it. Please open your eyes, look up and face the fact – the observed fact – that stuff pops into existence spontaneously constantly.
It’s time to become an adult about this topic. It will be hard. It is scary. It will hurt.
That’s growing up for you.
Nope, wrong.
Observed fact disagrees with you.
Understanding you’re simply wrong about something is uncomfortable – but it’s only as painful as you make it.
Time to grow up.
Wrong, sorry.
Time to grow up.
Wrong, sorry.
Time to grow up.
The cause of the universe is completely unnecessary.
Sorry. There is no Big Space Daddy who spanks bad boys and gives candy to good boys.
Time to grow up.
You are wrong.
Time to grow up.
No, you are wrong.
People who know more about the world are telling you are wrong about it.
You might want to start listening. It is time – more than time, past time, some might say – for you to grow up.
#10 joe4060
What did god do before he created the heavens and the earth?
yubal #33 ran the never ending crap game in the mens room of the celestial central station. He used a succession of jack rusell terriers to keep order.
Not if it describes a personal being with a mind (or which is a mind and nothing else). If it describes some necessarily true abstract principle, then sure, it’s easy enough to say that sort of thing is timeless. But it doesn’t.
It’s just an artifact of Platonism (like all this other crap). A few millennia of apologetics has kept that assumption because … well … just because.
That’s not what “immaterial” means. Immaterial things aren’t energetic at all.
It would be more accurate to use “non-physical,” or better yet “supernatural,” to avoid exactly this sort of confusion with modern physical concepts. But the godbot doesn’t understand anything about modern physics, so he continues to use the older terms which fit well enough with his nonsense. It’s not like he’s coming up with original arguments of his own and really using these terms to make an argument which he’s actually thinking about. He’s just recycling old, stale apologetics. And repeating it over and over to us.
I don’t see how inflation has anything to do with timelessness, changelessness (like you just said!) or immateriality. Not even really “transcendence,” as it’s usually understood.
As for timelessness, inflation is a function of time, right? I admittedly do not understand the math behind it, so that may be wrong. Isn’t inflation something that occurs in time?
So that would be a big stretch. Of course, all of this is already a big stretch. (Gah… no pun intended about “inflation” being a big stretch.)
Also, we don’t know that inflation was “uncaused.” I guess it could be, but I don’t know of any reason why it would need to be (whatever “uncaused” means in that context). So while we do know there are things which are uncaused, that by itself doesn’t mean we can say inflation makes any predictions that fit that criterion.
Joe, joe, joe…
The long time regulars of this blog are familiar with that mocumentary. The owner of this blog is familiar with it also. In fact, the makers of the film lied to him about why they were filming it.
Here is a little taste of the history.
Joe, you really are a delusional fool.
joe4060:
Nope. We are standing on a 4.5 billion year old planet.
How can a Christian claim YHWH is ‘changeless’? They’re the ones flogging the tripartite god; even if you accept the holy spirit was always there, Jesus joining the other two was novel.
But but but…without a First Cause, then I have no reason to live and go to a building every Sunday morning! WAAAAHHHHH
No reason to go to a building on Sunday? You mean…you’re not a season ticket holder?
Two words: cognitive dissonance.
AFAIK, they claim “the Son” is just as “eternal” as “the Father”, who nevertheless “begot” him (you’re right, it makes fuck-all sense).
What seems to me even more bizarrely stupid is the claim that this supposedly tripartite, unembodied, changeless, omniscient, omnipotent entity is a “person”. Have you ever met a person who’s any of those things?
joe4060:
Either the Bible is taken literally, and the “four-corners of the earth” represent the actual corners of the earth — or it’s taken as an analogy as you suggest, and anything in the Bible can be an analogy. That means that both of the origin stories in the Bible might just be an analogy for things that were then unknown.
You are again trying to have it both ways: Genesis is a literal account of the creation, but other parts of the Bible are poetic analogy. It seems like you don’t even take into account THE WHOLE Bible, let alone the WHOLE of God’s creation.
Considering you are using Expelled as part of your defense, I’m unsurprised at your lack of self-awareness. Your sheep-like following of what other people tell you to believe is part-and-parcel with the lies and misrepresentations and very poor logic that Expelled relies on to make its point.
Look, Joe, if I said there were no black swans, what would it take to prove me wrong? Why, finding a black swan! That’s it. Just one bird would prove my claim wrong.
If I claimed that hydrogen dirigibles were perfectly safe, what would it take to prove me wrong? One disaster in which the hydrogen burned, and people died as a result.
If I claimed that evolution didn’t happen, what would it take to prove me wrong? Just one instance of observing evolution in action.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t other ways of proving these various assertions wrong. But this is the most convincing: seeing examples that are exactly counter to my assertions.
We’ve presented facts here, Joe. Facts you haven’t yet refuted, nor explained. All you do is insist things that are patently untrue, that are proven wrong by actual observation.
Observations such as:
Particle and anti-particle pairs coming into existence all on their own, with no known cause. These virtual particles were first observed via the casimir effect, which I pointed out early in this discussion. Your claim that things cannot come into existence without a cause: refuted.
Evolution happens. We have observed it. We have observed evolution in action for one-hundred and fifty years or more. What’s more, we have observed new species evolving, and mapped out the specific mutations that led to the new species. Mutations that were beneficial. That is, helpful mutations that introduced new information into a genome. Your claim that evolution doesn’t happen: refuted.
The universe is full of light that has travelled over 10 billion years. We have observed galaxies over thirteen billion light years away. Your assertion the universe was created 10,000 years ago: refuted.
The Miller-Urey set out to discover if organic molecules could form from inorganic molecules under what was then considered the conditions of a young earth. This is exactly what happened. Your assertion their experiment was a farce: refuted.
There is not one instance of your Bible supplying accurate information about something that was unknown. Everything that related to reality in the Bible was known to bronze-aid goat herders. There is not one instance of the Bible giving us new information.
Look around you. You know all these medicines that have extended life expectancies so tremendously? That’s all due to science. More than that, much of it is based on the theory of evolution through natural selection.
You know the computer you’re typing on? Science. Specifically, physics. The same physics that led to the conclusion that virtual particles pop in and out of existence all the time — with no cause.
Your repetition of refuted arguments is tiresome. If you want to support those already-refuted arguments, you’re going to have to do more than simply repeat them while ignoring the evidence and logic that refute them. You’re going to have to explain how things popping into existence without cause doesn’t refute your assertion that things can’t pop into existence without cause. You’re going to have to explain how our observation of evolution resulting in increased information in a genome doesn’t refute your assertion that evolution can’t add information to a genome. You’re going to have to explain how light from a galaxy thirteen billion light years away took less than 10,000 years to reach us.
And I mean a real explanation. Don’t tell me the gremlin in your car doesn’t leave room for all that internal combustion nonsense. Don’t tell me Ben Stein told you it was all a lie. Don’t tell me a wombat ate your biscuits, proving definitively that God loves jam and so evolution couldn’t happen. Give me good scientific arguments.
So far, your only argument has consisted of, “I only believe things I want to believe, in spite of the evidence of God’s creation.”
Janine:
Yeah. I’d read the occasional Pharyngula article before that, but that was the article that caused me to become a regular here. I lurked for a while, of course, but I started reading Pharyngula religiously* after that.
The producers of Expelled had to lie to get it produced. It’s not surprising it’s basically made entirely lies and misrepresentations and Ben Stein’s bitter tears.
* Yeah, I’m using that word all ironically and shit. I love doing that.
You mean that evolution is a description what is already there in reality?
Well yes, that is exactly what it is.
Evolution is an accurate description of reality.
Thank you for conceding the entire argument, joe.
You may go away now.
nigelTheBold:
I really could have used your technical expertise, experience and skill at arguing last night in my hotel room.
Post sex.
Gay shame.
Deep religious discussion.
I’m pretty sure they do it mostly because Christian gods are supposed to be “perfect” in every way. If it’s perfect and it changes, that apparently means it could no longer be perfect.
And it can’t start out being imperfect, then change to become perfect … because they say so. Maybe because imperfection is supposed to be so far infinitely removed from perfection that becoming perfect is impossible? It probably depends on who you ask, but it’s often because of that sort of bullshit.
In contrast, everything in the natural world does change and is imperfect. That is, except celestial bodies, until it was decided Galileo wasn’t a heretic and that celestial bodies do in fact change, so that now they do count as part of the natural world. Because apparently the very last thing you’d want to do is reconsider the idea that divine or supernatural things don’t change. You just shuffle some definitions around and pretend it was never a problem, if you can’t find any way to infect people with your mind virus anymore.
By the way, isn’t it weird that joe4060 claimed even a beneficial mutation is “bad”? What does that mean? It’s a mutation, ergo it is a change, ergo it cannot be perfect and good and real and true and blah blah blah… Anyway, if it were true that nature is inherently changing (and decaying, etc.), shouldn’t evolution be exactly the kind of thing to expect from a theory about the natural world? “Expect” is hardly the right word, though — you’re practically demanding it.
Well, you’re forgetting that 3 = 1. Or maybe it’s more like 1 + 1 + 1 = 1. Jesus was always around somehow, being the perfectly benevolent god of the OT, hanging out in non-time and non-space with his other two selves.
But what happens in reality stays in reality, you know? Being born, doing miracles, dying and resurrecting, etc. — those don’t actually describe the real Jesus. The real one never does anything.
Nigel:
The ongoing dialogue with Joe reminds me of a scene from Futurama’s The Honking:
I was thinking more along these lines:
http://www.cardiogirl.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Far-Side-cartoon-what-dogs-hear.jpg
*looks at pet wombat*
Ok, but…
I’ve often wonder why religious leaders didn’t decide to attack sports as the “new secular religion” and instead chose science.
I mean, team sports has all the same aspects of religion:
dogmatic fans
charismatic leaders
temples
etc
Ichthyic:
That one’s easy. First, sportsdom is imbued with religious and superstitious belief and science contains the capacity for evil – for real, in the sense of developing weapons and in the sense of actually answering questions, which is anathema to religious belief.
And could you ever, in your most wild and unfettered imagination, imagine Einstein Tebowing?
Although, now that I think about it, that would make a really surreal t-shirt. Which would be totally misunderstood by the joe4060s of the world. So never mind.
LOL
yeah, i suppose the competition for souls between christianity and the NFL is tempered by the fact that so many players invoke the xian deity within the sport.
OTOH, don’t xians claim there are many religious scientists, too?
True, most of them don’t thank Jesus for their latest success in a PCR run, but still…
Can you image a scientist after a successful Southern Blot or PCR spiking a test tube and pointing at the sky?
Oh, wait, that would indeed make another great tshirt, now that I think about it.
Considering some of the stuff that can be in test tubes, that would lead to a much more rapid turnover of lab personnel.
And now I just had a really disturbing vision of a behavioural psychologist spiking a rat that just ran through a maze in record time and now I feel really ashamed that I not only thought that but actually wrote it. Sorry.
Ogvorbis:
Eh, I’ve had visions of doing much worse to them…
Well, Bible Jim back at my alma mater had “sports nuts” on his big list of hellbound sinners along with all the usual suspects.
Sadly, the wombat ate aaaallll joe4060’s biscuits a long time ago. On present showing, he will probably spend the rest of his finite existence utterly bereft of biscuits. It’s very sad, really.
Seriously, he has shut down the functioning of his brain so thoroughly that now he may never succeed in generating a new thought in his entire life – complete rejection of the human capacity to reason; a tragedy in miniature.
A. R #449
It stopped snowing.
Ogvorbis, you are a surely dangerous and powerful person. Tebowing that poor little rat…..you caused me to blow coffee through nose. Please exercise a little restraint (as in spare me lord) the wrathful extent of your powers.
No, spiking the rat, not Tebowing the rat. Far, far, far worse.
I read a Christian book once that was decrying sports. It described little Billy getting “filled with the spirit of football” instead of getting filled with the Holy Spirit. But it made the Holy Spirit sound like nothing more than a passing enthusiasm, instead of a tangible aspect of the Trinity.
nigelthebold
“Either the Bible is taken literally…”
Your materialistic world view does not allow you to understand scripture except at the most basic level. It precludes you from anything but the most straight-forward verses. Anything outside of this and you are completely lost. In other words, you try to make theological arguments but you are no theologin.
“Just one instance of observing evolution in action”
Give me an instance
“Evolution happens. We have observed it. We have observed evolution in action for one-hundred and fifty years or more”
“Evolution has been observed. Its just that it hasn’t been observed while its happening.” Richard Dawkins
“The Miller-Urey set out to discover…”
Evolutionist admits that chemical evolution is a failed paradigm:
‘Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception on the ideology of its champions.’
‘The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it. Nevertheless, in order to make progress in science, it is necessary to clear the decks, so to speak, of failed paradigms. This must be done even if this leaves the decks entirely clear and no paradigms survive. It is a characteristic of the true believer in religion, pilosophy and ideology that he must have a set of beliefs, come what may. Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative. In science it is a virtue to acknowlege ignorance. This has been universally the case in the history of science as Kuhn (1970) has discussed in detail. There is no reason that this should be different in the research on the origin of life.’
Yockey,H.P., Information Theory and Molecular Biology, page 336, Cambridge University Press, UK, 1992
“Look around you. You know all these medicines that have extended life expectancy so tremendously? That is all due to science. More than that, much of it is based on the theory of evolution through natural selection.”
Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last hundred years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowlege of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, vetinarians, farmers…” Evolution actually HINDERS medical discovery.
Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits human kind?
“You know the computer you’re typing on? Science…”
Er… It was designed and built by an intelligent being.
“Particle and anti-particle pairs coming into existence all on their own, with no known cause”
…is easily refuted with: Something that does not exist, cannot bring itself into existence. Besides that, “With no known cause” does not mean that there isn’t one.
“Your claim that things cannot come into existence without a cause: refuted.”
This is logically incoherant. This is not science, it is just wishful thinking.
When I said that honest scientific endeavour helped to validate the Bible, this does not mean that the Bible has to have science IN it in order to be validated by science.
joe4080, virtual particles, all the time, everywhere. look it up.
hells. I don’t think Joe is capable of understanding even the simplest of information or questions posed to it.
let me try this:
Joe?
How big a number is 4060?
…whereas your imagination is limitless!
joe4060 still waiting for jesus lineage to be linked to David for him to be the messiah. Somehow I suspect it will be a long wait
looks at watch, taps foot “lineage boy!”
except evolution also deals with how populations vary in the here and now, not just looking at common ancestors in fossils.
so either you have misquoted the man, or the person you are quoting understands evolutionary biology about as well as you do, which is to say not at all.
joe4060
If you type
<blockquote>paste quoted text here</blockquote>
this will result.
It will make your comments easier to read.
It will not help you make sense.
joe4060:
Joe, you’re not interested in debate. Anyone of meager intelligence will be able to see where I’ve pointed out instances of evolution. Hell, I’ve done that in response to your Dawkins quote. So now you’re just lying.
Nice try, but that doesn’t cut it. You are cherry-picking your scripture, and you know it. You’re only defense is, “Only someone with my advanced intelligence can understand the Bible. Those of lesser intellect, like you, can’t understand the awesomeness that is the Bible.” That still doesn’t get around the problem of cherry-picking the bits you take literally, and the bits that are taken as metaphor. Doing this, you demonstrate the elasticity of belief. You show how the Bible fails at epistemology. You are a living example of how the Bible can mean anything you want it to mean. All you have to do is claim you have the appropriate interpretation.
Since all you do is ignore me, Joe, and try to preach, I’m afraid you’ve demonstrated your inability to actually engage the argument. If you want answers to your questions, feel free to go back and actually read what I have written. I’ve answered your assertions in several posts. The fact you ignore me does not render my responses invalid. All it does is demonstrate you have no real rebuttal.
For instance, there’s this:
Logically incoherent? How? We’ve observed particle pairs popping into existence, Joe. We’ve observed it. How is observation logically incoherent? All you’re doing is ignoring the evidence because it is uncomfortable for you. That’s not logic, Joe. That’s not even rational. Hell, it’s not even wishful thinking. It’s simply not thinking at all.
So until you’re ready to actually address what we’ve actually observed, I don’t think you’re ready for a debate on science.
Science indicates the Bible isn’t true, Joe. There was no world-covering flood (which isn’t logical anyway: where’d all the water come from, and where did it go?). The universe is over 10,000 years old (which isn’t even in the Bible, so I’m not sure why folks you like keep insisting it). Bats aren’t birds. Pi is around 3.14, not 3. The Israelites were never slaves of the Egyptians. There was no Exodus. This is historic fact.
But that isn’t what you said before, anyway. You keep trying to bolster your scientific arguments with bits of the Bible, as if you really do believe the Bible has something to say about science. So you are contradicting yourself. If you’re going to talk about knowledge gained by science, the only way to refute it is with more science. You keep bringing up the Bible as if it were relevant.
So which is it? Does the Bible have something to say about science (that is, the study of the nature of reality)? Or does it not? And if it does, why doesn’t it have some real science in it?
Joe4060
What did god do before he created the heavens and the earth?
hey, Joe, if you think modern medicine is not served by evolutionary biology, you might consider going and pestering these guys:
pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/02/evolutionary-co.html
my sides hurt from laughing at you so hard; it would be good to have a break from you for at least a little while.
Damn it. “Your only defense is…” in paragraph three. I edited that sentence from something a little more awkward, but left the homonym in there.
Your “scripture” is nothing but mythology/fiction until you show otherwise with solid physical evidence. No evidence, presuppostitional argument which *POOF* will be dismissed as fuckwittery. Which is all you have presented to date.
joe4060:
Okay. Here’s a challenge. Forego all I’ve written before, and answer me this question:
How is the Lenski experiment that resulted in a new species of e. coli able to metabolize citrate not an example of evolution in action?
Take your time. Go ahead and visit Answers In Genesis, as I suspect you don’t understand biology enough to answer it on your own.
Can I have a link to that israel in aegypt issue plz? Nigel
There was no Exodus. This is historic fact.
So what is the real background of passover?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipuwer_Papyrus shows a potential for a nation in crisis that could be the basis of the story
however these people disagree http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t893728/
I would suggest that there is enough there to warrant a basis for the story. Similar to the American Thanksgiving myth
yubal:
That comes from the book Jesus, Interrupted, an excellent book that tries to examine the history of the Bible — specifically the New Testament as it relates to Jesus, but Bart Ehrman covers some of the Old Testament, as well.
Basically, there is no evidence outside the Bible that the Israelites were enslaved en masse. There is no record in Egypt itself of either an enslavement of the Israelites, nor of the subsequent exodus. The details in the Bible are suspect, as the description of Egypt in the Bible sounds more like third-hand gossip than any kind of first-hand account, even one that’s been passed down through oral tradition.
I’ve found an article here that discusses this, as well as the fact we’ve found no archeological evidence of the enslavement nor of exodus. Basically, and event as big as the exodus would’ve left some archeological evidence. Evidence we just don’t find.
(Note: this was just a quick Google search. I didn’t go looking for a detailed scholarly article.)
This is also touched on in Asimov’s Guide to the Old Testament, another book I highly recommend.
Joe, you obviously don’t know what a presuppositional argument is. It is an argument where you try to define you conclusion in your premises. Never mind how correct your “premises” or axioms are. For example, if you presume the babble is inerrant, you can reach a conclusion. But, if one presumes the babble is a book of mythology/fiction, another conclusion can be reached. Now, how does one show the truth of the presumptions. By evidence. Show us the evidence your babble is inerrant. Conclusive physical evidence from outside of the babble that the exodus really happened. Funny how the Egyptians never mention such a stupornatural event, or that the Hebrews were even numerous slaves.
Likewise, can you show from the peer reviewed scientific literature geological columns on all the continental cratons, a one-time-all-continent-flood-that-caused-total-extinction? You can’t. Which brings the presumption that your babble is inerrant crashing down around your ankles. Which brings into solid question all your other presumptions. Almost all of which you can’t support with third party evidence.
This is why we laugh at your “gottcha”. It only works with those who share the same delusions you do. If they don’t, like we don’t, you have no evidence to back up those presuppositions, and we know that. You simply look stupid with your impotent willy hanging flacidly in the breeze.
joe4060 to nigelTheBold:
Translation: I know something you don’t know but I’m not going to tell you what it is, I’m going to repeatedly assert that it proves you’re wrong.
Joe, your pitiful mewling and repetition remind me of this scene, where somebody couldn’t accept reality…You are the black knight at the end, making noise, but not able to do a damn thing…
broboxley:
I’d say it’s more similar to the proposition that the flood (and other bits of the decalogue) were taken from the legend of Gilgamesh. Or, the two divergent origin myths in Genesis. Two accounts taken from a single source.
But yeah, based about as much on reality as our Thanksgiving myth. There might be a spot of truth to it, but it’s damned near impossible to extricate that from the mythology that’s accreted around it.
Joe, I suspect that you don’t even believe your own twaddle. If you did, you wouldn’t need to lie and misrepresent people.
For example, that quote from Kirshner was not implying that evolution is irrelevant to biology; he was exhorting specialist biologists to look outside their specialist niches, and work more closely with evolutionary biologists. He was not saying that evolution is not useful.
As others have pointed out, particles do indeed pop into existence out of nothing. Science is a process of figuring out how the world works, with the guiding principle that what is claimed needs to be verifiable to be accepted. Wished-for conclusions just don’t cut the mustard.
Believing in a deity for which there is no evidence whatsoever, that you could not even give a coherent description of even if you tried: now that is wishful thinking.
Joe, you keep asking how something could bring itself into existence, and rightly concluding that such a thing would be very difficult. The problem is you, of course. You phrase your version of the case in a way that implies a conscious decision and an act of will that goes back in time, which is bloody difficult, even for your god.
But a particle that somehow required its own existence wouldn’t HAVE to be conscious. Nor would there be any will needed in a particle that went travelling backwards in time, then reversed into normal time—it would seemingly appear, in and of itself.
You really do have your mind fixed in a little channel. When you say that we don’t comprehend scripture, I hear you saying that we aren’t yet insane. You really are acting like your brain has slipped its hinges and is just bashing about like a god-obsessed loose cannon.
So, stop asking questions that assume your god, and start trying to work with reality. You’ll like it here.
Joe:
Why did an omnipotent being need to rest on the 7th day?
Why did it take an omnipotent being 6 days to create everything?
How were plants created before the sun?
Why was Adam created twice?
Menyambal, no I don’t think joe4060 would find reality comforting at all. I honestly think that forced exposure, without careful guidance, will result in lasting harm to his mind, that is drive him even more bat sh!t crazy. Like most people, he is looking for absolutes.
Because he never developed the ability to think for himself, even illogically, all he can do is respond like a chinese room. If the output from his brain is found wanting, he looks for an absoulte source of athority, to tell him he is right. In Science, their is no absolute athority, save the universe itself.
Since christianity reject all material things as corrupt, the universe is no source of athority to them.
You can’t change him, don’t bother trying.
http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2012/201211/news29/20121129-20ee.html
See Joe? It has been written down. It must be true!
I don’t know about you, but I’ve had a fair bit of instruction on biblical interpretation, along Jesuit principles. One principle about interpreting Jewish writings is to know that they were written to be readily understood by those who were in the know, but not so blatant that they could be used as proof of insurrection against a Roman regime. Interpretation was the role of the Rabbi/priest, a tradition that was upheld until the Protestant split. Similarly, Roman viewpoints are also reflected in the gospels. An example of this is the benign character of Pontious Pilate, who was so bloodthirsty that Caligula had him removed from office.
In real history, any descendent of Mariam, the last Hasmodean princess who was Herod the Great’s second wife, would automatically be King of the Jews. Herod had Mariams family killed, and married her to ensure his line would be accepted as rightful heirs. However, he feared that his children had a greater claim to the throne than he did, and killed his own children by Mariam. Earlier, Joseph, Herod’s brother, was accused of adultery with Mary while Herod was away in Egypt for a year.
It’s not hard to see the character of Jesus to be presented in the Nativity stories as one who might be descended from Mary (Mariam), therefore born King of the Jews. It’s a powerful story to tell during the Roman occupation, and I think there is far more to the story than is presented in Nativity plays.
It is possibly like a King Arthur story: a useful tale told to quiet an angry, defeated populace. Or perhaps it is something else. But should it really be considered sound enough to form the basis of a billion people’s beliefs two thousand years down the road, given there is no contemporary evidence of a historical Jesus?
As an example of a genre of story used to placate and control a population, this one was extremely successful.
It sure didn’t take very long for joe to get reduced to recycling the same refuted arguments all over again, ignoring all the previous refutations given to it, just as all creobots end up doing, since they don’t have any actual good arguments to speak of.
But even compared to other creobots that was quick.
There’s only so many times one can say “that’s easily refuted” but then go on to fail to provide any refutation that any toddler could dismiss before one is exposed as a pathetic attention seeking idiot.
Hey joe, have you forgotten so soon? You’ve already admitted that evolution is an accurate description of what is found in reality. You’ve already conceded the argument. Thank you. You can go now.
Conclusion of the article about the unicorn lair:
echidna:
Joe shows us how that’s done: simply ignore reality. That way, any contradictions reality makes don’t exist, because you’ve successfully ignored them.
It’s simple, really.
echidna, well obviously, if it were a real unicorn lair you’d be able to tell from the deposits of *sparkle* and *awesome*. ;-)
—
My slightly-obscure point is that all mythologies have stories (and most, writings) which testify for the mythology. Doesn’t make them true, of course. My current favourite is from the Yanomamo people of the Amazonian rainforest:
http://www.innovationslearning.co.uk/subjects/re/information/creation/Yanomamo_Sanema.htm
Didn’t mean to argue with you. My slightly-obscure point was that finding historical artefacts that indicate people believed something does not make the object of the belief true, and although the papers are full of “Archeologists confirm unicorn lair”, the archaeologists are not supporting the actual existence of unicorns.
I am going to bed.
theophontes, I will respond later. Briefly: joe4060 doesn’t have the same sort of problem — potentially, we can help him, because doing so is less likely to require helping him make meaningful interpersonal relationships (although it couldn’t hurt).
Broboxly OT
Mathew 1:2-16
My slightly-obscure point was that Joe’s description of “understanding scripture” sounded a LOT like going bonkers. Yeah, I know I’m wasting time talking to him.
Joe, I know you think you are bringing up stuff none of us have heard before, but I once had this entire discussion while cleaning an industrial oven. The guy said the same damned thing about not really understanding the bible until after accepting Jesus. It sounded like taking one’s faith on faith, before getting any reasons for believing, AND it sounded like one had to go insane to be a Christian. He’s also the guy who exactly fit the description of “psychotic” because of his Christianity.
He also is the guy who, when we had time to kill and played computer Jeopardy, turned out to read really poorly and to know almost nothing. But dang, if he wasn’t a Christian, and enthusiastic Christian and very contemptuous of everything I said or thought.
Regarding the Jeopardy game: I’d not even bother to read the questions, I’d just buzz in, assuming I’d know the answers. Then I’d read the question in a few seconds, give an answer immediately, and be right 99% of the time. After I told him what I was doing, he started buzzing in right away, then slowly reading the question, painfully formulating an answer, and wind up wrong half the time. The guy was stupid.
Theologically, he sounded good, but he only had a few poorly-understood arguments he had memorized, and a really snotty attitude about them. One night he trotted out Paley’s Watchmaker, which I’d not heard of at my young age, and I came up with a counter-argument that he laughed at. A few years later, I was sitting in an Honors-level Philosophy class, and the professor told us about Paley’s Watchmaker, and I recognized it. Then the professor said that one of the best and oldest refutations of it was that the universe looked grown, like a cabbage plant, as was said by the great man Wotsit, … and it was my argument, almost exactly! I’d used a tomato plant, but I’d come up with it on my own, and that Christian guy back then had just sneered at it and at me.
And he isn’t the only Christian I’ve talked theology with. Nor are you, Joe, the first of your kind on this blog. We’ve done you, we’ve done your friends, and we’ve been wasting our time. Except for the fun we have, and the folks who aren’t blinded by Jesus–they listen, they learn.
Joe, you are wasting your time. Seriously, you are making us and the lurkers here realize more and more that Christians like you are stupid, your arguments are stupid, your religion is stupid and all religions are stupid. Some people are going to read what you write, and turn away from Jesus in disgust, and your holy book says your god will hold you responsible for their fall, and he will punish YOU for misleading them.
You really want to go to Hell for hanging out here, Joe?
Luke 3:23–38
Leviticus 11:10.
But I really like shrimp and crab and lobster. So fuck the Bible.
Exodus 21:1 – 36.
But I don’t like owning slaves.
Deuteronomy 23:13
Excellent advice!
Genesis 9:18-10:32.
But I don’t think it’s a big deal if someone sees me naked when I’m passed out from too much wine. Though I think it’d be funnier if they just drew on a humorous moustache with a Sharpie™.
@nigel
You’re not lucky enough for a moustache
Did someone mention reality?
The probability of life from non-life
The ingredients required
20 amino acids
387 proteins for the simplest possible life
10 conserved amino acids on average
The chance of this occuring all together at one time is 10 to the minus power of 5035
This is one chance in one followed by over 5000 zeros; so it would be harder than guessing a correct 5000-digit PIN on the first try.
Is time really ‘the hero of the plot’? No:
10 to the power of 80 atoms in the universe
10 to the power of 12 atomic interactions per second
10 to the power of 18 seconds in the universe, according to the fallacious big bang theory
Only 10 to the power of 110 interactions possible. This is a huge number, but compared with the tiny chance of obtaining the right sequence, it is absurdly small: only 10 to the minus power of 4925.
The former athiest Sir Fred Hoyle abandoned this view when he considered the absurdly small probabilities:
‘Imagine 10 to the power of 50 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling of just ONE of the many biopolymers on which life depends.
‘The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on the earth is evidently nonsense of the highest order.’
Hoyle, Sir Fred, The Big Bang in Astronomy, New Scientist 92:521-527, 19 November 1981
2 Peter 20-21.
In case Joe is still insistent that he alone knows how to interpret the Bible.
joe4060:
Math. You’re doing it wrong.
Logic. You’re not even doing it.
wait
That number
Specifically the chance being expressed as one number
That’s from Kurt Hasting’s book. It’s the same exact error of basic math.
Ing:
I’m just sayin’ it’s funnier. I mean, cursing someone? Really? That seems excessive.
Cursing their offspring is just way off the hook.
joe4060:
How is the Lenski experiment that resulted in a new species of e. coli able to metabolize citrate not an example of evolution in action?
Seriously. It’s a simple question.
Oh wait Kurt said Ten ^50
But ti is just odd to phrase it as 10^-50.
As you know probabilities are stated in terms of factions. So one in 10^5000 is the standard not 10^-500
Oh, and Joe? I’d be careful using Fred Hoyle as a source for your arguments. He didn’t believe in God. He believed that panspermia was responsible for life on earth.
And since we’ve found amino acids in the tail of comets, that idea isn’t as wacky as it sounds. (Also, the fact we found amino acids in comets puts the odds of life considerably in our favor, reducing your naive attempt at statistics to a rather pathetic whine.)
Needless to say though phrasing the odds in such a way shows a profound alienation from actual understanding of the maths.
nigel
Where should this moustache be drawn?
Ing:
Exactly. And it shows a complete ignorance of chemistry.
You can’t measure the odds of a particular molecule forming in terms of atomic interactions per second. That assumes that any two atoms are just as likely to form a bond as any other two atoms. This just isn’t the case. Fuck, that’s Chemistry 101. Gold isn’t likely to bond with lead. Argon isn’t likely to bond with a goddamned thing. Carbon is promiscuous as hell, and will bond with just about anything that moves (ergo, the amino acids we find in space).
Joe’s attempt at proving abiogenesis illogical through statistics is about as funny as watching a squirrel try to fuck a cat. There’s a certain kind of amusement in the whole thing, but you know it’s not going to end well for the squirrel.
chigau:
The most amusing place possible.
I’ve seen it placed above the belly button, so it seems like a startled ‘stache. But then, there’s always the Elephant Stache. That’s a classic.
nigel re:moustache
I suspected as much.
All right. It’s been fun. I’ve had more than enough beer, and I’m heading off to bed. (Santa’s Private Reserve, from Rogue Brewing Company. Not their best, but pretty damned good.) Please don’t hurt Joe too badly while I’m away.
Ah, fuck it. He’s pissed me off, just ignoring everything. His cutting-and-pasting these devastating arguments is just too much. I hate movies that try to make you laugh through embarrassment, like Dumb and Dumber and Meet The Parents. And that’s just what Joe’s tryin’ to do, get me to laugh through his cringe-inducing antics.
All it does is make me sad. And a little pissed of that he doesn’t even try. It’d be one thing if he demonstrated he was trying to think for himself. And that’s what I’d hoped for: a creationist who didn’t just cut-and-paste arguments from various creationist websites. A creationist who bothered to engage the actual science. A creationist who could handle the simple concept of observation.
I am doomed to disappointment on this quest for an intelligent, thinking creationist, aren’t I?
Anyway, I don’t care anymore. Chew him up.
Menyambal…God has predestined all. So if Joe winds up here and causes other Christians to fall well then it was all part of God’s plan. After all, it does plainly say that God created the wicked for the day of destruction. somewhere in Job I believe.
Nigel, unless you are of Jewish decent the dietary laws do not apply to you.eat all the molluscs, catfish you want you want, mix butter freely with your blood sausages…and dont forget the pulled pork…yummy!!!!
Joe, Leviticus 11:10 forbids the eating of shrimp and crab and lobster. But I don’t like them, so I don’t eat them. Do I still get credit for obeying God?
And why does it forbid the eating of shrimp and crab and lobster? Is it okay to ask why? And does Leviticus only apply to Levites in the priesthood, or does it apply to all of God’s people?
By the way, I get nasty hives when I accidentally eat shrimp and crab and lobster. Couldn’t God just have struck people who eat shrimp and crab and lobster with hives, instead of burning them in Hell forever for liking to eat something that he made taste so good?
Does catfish count? It doesn’t have scales.
Why is this not clear? Why do Christians disagree about what their book means?
Joe, why won’t you discuss theology instead of repeating bad authorities who were wrong about science.
Half the people here know more about Fred Hoyle, or know what was wrong with his argument, or his math. But you, joe4060, just just find some mad bugger who sounds impressive to you, you trust him and you paste his work in here, even though you do NOT understand it, and you get laughed at, and you make Christianity look bad, and you make God angry at you, Joe, and that’s worse than eating catfish.
@ joe4060 #66
6FIFY:
Incredible how the authoritarians all sound exactly the fucking same.
@ yubal
You are forgetting god has Penis ™ …
@ nigelTheBold
First off: Kudus for your patience and writings in helping learn more about the world. Perhaps he will crawl out of the religious well he was thrown into and walk with us in the sunlight some day.
One theory I’ve read is that it was actually a small group that escaped. They joined with those others living on the marginal lands about Israel. Their stories became absorbed (hell, they are very exciting adventure stories after all!) into the tales of the (proto) Jewish peoples.
In “A History of the Arab Peoples”, Albert Hourani gives an excellent account of the ebb and flow of power in MENA countries throughout history.
Essentially I can summarise as follows:
The power centers of the nations in these areas are the cities and the prime agricultural lands. About these are peoples struggling to make a living in the mountains, marshes (in Egypt, often home to escaped slaves) and arid badlands. There is a distinct difference in character between these two types of peoples. Though marginalised and harbouring deep seated resentment, those “outside”, feel a strong sense of being pure, honest and the true carriers of the faith. In time (this occurs with predictable frequency) the peoples in the city become corrupted and their power fragmented. This creates an opportunity for the outsiders (often in alliance with the urban disaffected) to seize power for themselves. The cycle then repeats itself ad nauseum.
IMO: The Jews, at the stage we are discussing would have absorbed escapees of Israel quite readily – along with their stories. Biding their time and later turning the tables.
@ SGBM
Slaap lekker!
The strongest argument imo was Caine‘s pointing out that we may in effect be giving StevoR a platform (and a respected one at that!) by allowing his irremedial bigotry about FTB.
joe4060 does not display such nasty vindictiveness, so my original argument can still apply in hir case.
Joe,
So Frank Hoyle was wrong. He found the Big Bang unlikely, with some flaws in his reasoning. It’s not unusual for scientists to be right about some things, and wrong on others. Scientists are human, after all. Science is not limited as much as humans are by human fallibility. It is the process where we can sort out ideas that are right from those that are wrong without appealing to authority.
You can state that so-and-so said such-and-such, but that’s not really important, unless you also say why it’s correct, and why others are wrong. What is important is that scientific theory is backed by evidence, with no contradictions. If there is a contradiction, then more research needs to be done.
Examples of scientists being wrong:
Newton thought of gravity as a force, where Einstein thought of gravity as a curve in space-time.
Einstein also found some of his own work unconvincing (even though he was right in the mathematics.)
Schroedinger’s cat was a story Schroedinger told because he wanted to demonstrate the ridiculous implications of modern physics.
All of these scientists were brilliant, and changed our understanding of the world. None of them were infallible.
But although we do you the courtesy of addressing your arguments, you are not returning the favour. Responding to your arguments is like talking to a brick wall covered in incoherent graffiti.
Joe, we don’t know exactly how life began, but we do know that evolution is not the same as abiogenesis. A lot of you lackwits call everything from the Big Bang onward “Evolution”, which is silly wrong—evolution is about how living things change, not how life or how the universe began.
Fred Hoyle was wrong about the chances of life beginning, but a lot of creationist clotpolls copy-and-paste his work, or just claim it as their own, without knowing anything at all about it.
As was said, we see amino acids floating in space, in big clouds, even, and amino acids are building blocks of life, so to speak, and they form all over the place. In space, even. Which shows that life elements are very likely to form.
The trick is that if they form here on earth, right now, something eats them. Back in the good old days of abiogenesis, there was nothing alive to eat them. Things were different then. Amino acids could tumble around until they met up with something they attached to strongly, and become even more like life as we now know it.
Sorry, my brain hurts trying to phrase such obvious concepts in a way that Joe can understand, knowing that he will refuse to understand, just because of his precious religion. Besides, the dog has pissed on his bedding again, and dealing with that feels cleaner than dealing with joe4060.
Have a good night.
joe4060
Is not known.
It is more how to mix and cook them together than the ingredients themselves. The ingredients are: carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorous and tiny amounts of other stuff that is typically more common.
We are talking ~4 ribonucleic acids ~1-5 lipids and a few amino acids for the first step. after that it should be pretty much downhill. DNA comes much later, protein somewhat in between.
That number does not apply.
It is much lower since you do not need to go from carbon to life in one step.
carbon and other stuff (check)->molecules (that was boring)->molecular assemblies(that is the fun step)->cell.
Each step has a much lower probability than 1:10^5035 given the number you cited is accurate. By some thousand magnitudes I’d assume thumb-wise. And anyway, rare events happen all the time. Question is, how often/fast do those events occur? And we know that chemistry works MUCH faster than the average McDonald’s employee.
As soon as you have a system running (not necessarily a living system, just chemistry still) that can consume energy (aka provide entropy) out of the environment you are set. From that moment on you can train/evolve a system by its ability to lower the energy of its environment. This compensates many times more for the rather pathetic entropic cost of building up a localized chemical structure compared to the amount of entropy you can generate by having a structure that is chemically active.
In case you wonder, the amount of “informational energy” in your body translates roughly to the chemical energy in a sandwich (no mayo, no cheese, just mustard, salad and cold cuts). I don’t know who came up with that calculation but whenever someone tells me how enormously complex humans are I think “sandwich”.
Joe, the probablity your imaginary deity only exists between your ears is 1.0. Discuss your delusions.
Oops, made the mistake of reading what was posted while I wrote.
theophontes has a very good point about the possibility that the exodus was not as written in Exodus. I want to add that the alleged 40 years in the desert supports that idea very strongly. If some mangy desert dwellers from nowhere wanted to take over Canaan, they could easily have hijacked a 40-year-old story about some escaped Jewish slaves and said, “Yeah, that was us.”
joe4060, please discuss that, seriously and theologically, instead of pasting in hilariously-bad attempts at science. Show us how it is impossible, please.
‘Night.
Menyambal:
If you have time, could you
laminateelaborate on your professor’s refutation of Paley’s Watchmaker ?Wrong.
The simplest possible life consists of one (1) self-replicating molecule, most likely some sort of nucleic acid, and ZERO proteins.
387 proteins is the current estimate for the simplest possible PROTEIN-based FREE-LIVING INDEPENDENT life. Note those additional requirements? THOSE are what require the additional complexity of those 387 proteins to bring about.
There is absolutely NOTHING that states that the very first organism had to be protein-based, free-living, or independent.
And in fact, there exist today billions, if not trillions of examples of non-free living non-independent life that has FAR fewer than 387 proteins. We call them viruses.
I suppose joe might respond to this by claiming that viruses are not alive, but that would simply betray his ignorance yet again about what he is talking about, and demonstrate that he is trying to argue about the origin of life without even knowing what “life” is.
Though I’m giving 50:50 odds that joe is not even sophisticated enough to take the argument that far.
It is amusing as well to see joe so ignorantly try to quote-mine Fred Hoyle, seeing as Hoyle was using those arguments to try to argue for his own theory of the origin of life on earth, panspermia.
Which is yet another origin theory more likely and more parsimonious that joe’s creator-god.
Incidentally, the total entropy in a human being is less than the total entropy of the equivalent mass of the prebiogenic precursor molecules from which life arose, mostly H2, CO2, CH4, NH3, and few others.
Evolution is a natural elaboration of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
It’s been quipped among abiogenesis researchers from the chemistry side of the field that the secret of life on earth lies in the equation:
H2 + CO2 CH4 + H2O
Which is an energetically favorable reaction that occurs spontaneously. All life, biology, and evolution is in the arrow.
yubal, the probability of (carbon-based) life from non-life is 1, since it is known that life exists and it is known that the early universe lacked condensed matter.
Oops. Looks like my attempt to make an ASCII arrow got eaten by the html tag.
That should be H2 + CO2 [two headed equilibrium arrow] CH4 + H2O.
Amphiox ,
As much as i would love to agree with you, but viruses are actually not considered to be lifeforms. They are unable to reproduce by themselves and they do not posses a catabolism.
Amphiox, HTML entities are your friends.
The code for ↔ is
↔John Morales,
1 out of what ?!
On a planet like ours circulating a sun like ours with outer gas giants to catch comets and asteroids and a disproportionally large moon like ours I’d guesstimate the probability of abiogenesis to be about 1 out of 100 per 1 mio. years. That is why we should focus on solarsystems like our for the search of extraterrestrial life. Life can occur in other circumstances as well but will be probably much different from us.
Oops, and the code for the equilibrium arrow ⇌ is
⇌(but I don’t know its mnemonic).yubal, the probability of any event after it has occurred is 1. ;)
that is actually a GREAT video on the last question
http://youtu.be/SMUDXO4xkW8
Billion of galaxies.
Trillions of planets
countless numbers of possibilities
and only ONE individual experience for all of us.
humility. learn to love it.
what is the probability of having 100 tails out of 100 coin flips?
that does not change after you produced it once.
yubal: But the probability that 100 coin flips can yield 100 tails, having once achieved that feat, is 1.
(And you can know that regardless of how the coin is biased)
@ Menyambal
There are of course other highly deleterious effects to being forced onto marginal lands. One issue that would be interesting to pursue, is that mountainous and inland desert areas (sound familiar?) are prone to a lack of iodine, as it gets leached out. This can lead to low levels of iodine in the body and low thyroid conditions. Effects¹ include:
The above is pretty much a list of traits a person would require in order to create a death-cult like that of YHWH. That later priests who wrote up the babble had better diets? They may well have developed a taste for low iodine desert salt.
Note: I don’t know if anyone has pursued this line of reasoning. It certainly won’t be me. I just raise it as an example of how the early wanderings might have had very unusual effects on the world-view that came to define the babble.
/pure-speculation
¹ The UN has many programs in place to alleviate this situation. Sadly, lack of iodine and all its consequent effects is still a worldwide problem.
bollocks, the probability does not change after the event occurred.
yubal, the probability that the event occurred is 1.
I dare you, reproduce the 100 out of 100 after you managed to do it once and don’t tell me that works in the first attempt because we all would like to see how that happened in your hands. ;)
the “probability” that an event DID occur once is not a probability it is a fact.
That depends entirely on what specific definition of “life” you use, as there are more than one. It is not that different from the multiple definitions of “species”.
Another definition of life that is sometimes used is “a self-replicating chemical entity capable of Darwinian evolution”, and viruses qualify under that.
And it pertains to the subject in which I brought that example up, namely that habit of creationists to cherry pick the one single definition of something with many definitions to most conveniently fit their narrow dishonest arguments (though not infrequently they botch that one definition too)
Now of course in the broader subject of abiogenesis, where we are talking the transition of non-life to life, the varying available definitions and their stringencies, become relevant. As you move up from chemical entities with none of the disparate properties of life, through chemical entities with more and more of the properties of life, at what point do you arbitrarily say “this is the dividing line past which it is alive and before which it was not”. Nature does not always provide such clean distinctions, but human thought processes requires them (we have to give a label to it in order to conceptualize it and communicate it). So within the abiogenetic spectrum you will find entities that may fit some of the less stringent and demanding definitions of “life” but not the most stringent and demanding definitions of “life”, until you finally get to something that fits them all.
The virus example is actually telling. Modern viruses consist of a relatively short string of genetic information and a small subset of proteins that perform structural and metabolic functions (some viruses do have their own enzymes and thus do in fact have a catabolism), but of course they rely on and exploit the pre-existing biochemistry and metabolism already present in the host cell. Because the host cell “does the job for them”, the virus can afford to be much simpler.
There are lines of abiogenesis research that are looking at the possibility of the earliest organisms being virus-like in this regard, in that they do not possess in themselves all the metabolic capabilities that allow for free-living, but only a subset, and survive in an environment which, like that of a virus in a modern host cell, provides those metabolic services for it. So for example, within the vicinity of hydrothermal vents, where mineral formations provide septations that can act as cell membranes, with minerals providing catalytic services, and natural chemiosmotic gradients produced by the vent activity itself providing a ready-made mechanism for energy production.
<snicker>
What is the probability that rolling a die will result in one of {1,2,3,4,5,6) showing?
(And how is that different to saying that it’s a fact that rolling a die will result in one of {1,2,3,4,5,6) showing?)
@ yubal
Hint: Check John’s wording carefully.
{*gollum voice*} Tricksy, our John isssss…
Re: your question up thread (what did god do before creation?).
Now consider what happened if god is really triune! (If you are not at work and feeling brave, you can google “dutch rudder”)
Once an event has already occurred, it is no longer coherent to talk about its probability of occurring at all. Neither does it make much sense to talk about something occurring a with probability of 100%, as we may as well say that it has already occurred.
For something that has already occurred once, it only makes sense to talk about probabilities when we are discussing the probability of it occurring again.
Amphiox:
Of course it is, when the claim is that it was too improbable for it to have occurred.
So, if I say there’s a probability of 100% that you will eventually die, you are dead?
(Wow!)
Hey, it was not I who claimed that life from non-life was too improbable to have occurred within the lifetime of the universe so far. ;)
It is the claim that something that has already occurred is too improbable for it to have occurred that is incoherent.
(I do not consider debunking such talk as incoherent to be the same as talking about probability of the event occurring, as one is simply pointing the incoherence of the prior statement. The statement “the probability of something occurring that has already occurred is 1.0” is actually a reductio ad absurdum that illustrates the incoherence of the original statement)
Snake:
Isaiah 27:1 KJV
YHWH is Odin?
(Picture or it didn’t happen.)
@1.(?) theophontes (坏蛋) – 2 December 2012 at 1:51 am :
You are slandering and misjudging me. I’m not a hateful person, simply one who supports Israel and the West and their rights to exist and defend themselves against Jihadist Islamic attacks.
I may have said a few silly things when I’ve been drunk,emotional and overtired but that doesn’t make me a fucking nazi or a bad person.
You = Caine there.
Still reading comments here.
I think people here are too quick to wrongly judge and condemn people simply for disagreeing with them on certain issues eg. Israel’s right to defend its people, the threat of Islam and the Jihadists.
@Fred Salvador – The Public Sucks; Fuck Hope – 1 December 2012 at 9:24 pm :
See :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend
@ StevoR
That is a sad excuse for an apology. Are you going to solve the Palestinian women’s problems by killing them with bombs? Are you going to explain to a little Palestinian orphan that she is Muslim (she cannot even conceive of what this means, for fucks sakes) and therefore it is cool her parents died … and that she is next?
Palestinians are simply Jews who converted to Islam. They are family of the very people who are killing them! Have you ever taken the time to speak to Palestinian people? Have you ever talked to a Palestinian atheist? Have you ever stopped your bile for long enough to realise these people are no different than the rest of us?
Why don’t you just fuck off and swallow a daisy cutter?
@Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls :
That simply isn’t true of course. I’m NOT a bigot or paranoid.
Accusations that I am are lies and character assasination at its worst. You know it. I know it.
Me being me I’d actually know. Unlike you who do not know me in RL or really at all and aren’t willing to give me a fair hearing but instead will simply dismiss me because you don’t like to hear any perspective that is not your own.
Of course if you’re not willing to hear what those who disagree with you on a few small points say – people like me – if you deny yourself the opportunity of actually hearing the other side of the argument, then I guess you’ll never know and remain ignorant and, ironically (?) enough bigoted or at least prejudiced against those like (& including) me won’t you?
StevoR, begone, lest I bully you.
Oh come on you don’t know me in real life? If you don’t want people to form opinions about you, don’t post on internet.
Also, I don’t consider lives of thousands of people “a few small points”.
Your points, StevoR, have been heard and dismissed as hateful rubbish.
@theophontes (坏蛋) – 3rd December 2012 at 3:45 am :
Its a statement of fact. I’ve already apologised and clarified my meaning quite a few times actually.
Your questions answered – Numbering added for convenience :
No and never my suggestion or position.
Its Hamas that is responsible for Palestinian women, men and kids being killed en masse not me. They get brainwashed by Hamas, they get used as human shields by Hamas jihadists, they get exploited, murdered and tortured by Hamas. Hamas and islamic ideologymake stheir lives hell not me.
You care about Palestinian women? Fight Hamas not me.
Strawperson much? Of fucking course not.
I hope Palestinian orphans stop being Muslims and aren’t next. I hope they escape their unfortunate circumstances – and what Hamas and Islam have in store for them.
Are they? Citation needed. From what I gather they are mostly Syrians and Egyptians who emigrated into Israel as the early Jewish settlers started making the region more inhabitable by famously making the desert bloom.
Would I survive the experience? You know what they do to their enemies right? Do I sound suicidal?
Are there even any Palestinian atheist to talk to? name three if you can! If there are I’d be willing to try and who knows they may even agree with me.
In what sense? Biologically sure. In terms of culture, well they worship homicide suicide bombers and Islamic extremism. They’re the ones trying to committ genocide – not me. I would love it if they realised one day that I am human too. That Jews and isarelis are as much human and deserving of life and freedom and peace as they are. I’d love them to value their own lives more and Jewish / Israeli / Westerner deaths less. Think that will ever happen? I really hope so, really do, but am not optimistic.
I lack the equipment and the inclination to do so.
CR,
I was starting from Joe’s first set of words which didn’t include a reference to personality or intelligence. It’s interesting to me that the phrases resemble concepts used in discussing inflation, not that Joe’s underlying concept and mine are the same thing. Some fruitful conversations that I have had with creationists have grown out of this resemblance.
StevoR, you are so like unto joe4060 that it is uncanny.
(Reality is beyond you)
—
So, can you overcome your cowardice to attempt to answer the questions I earlier posed you?
StevoR:
Liar.
These Palestinian women to whom you refer are part of Islam, those who you fear so, those whom you would pre-emptively destroy to appease your fear of Islam.
StevoR:
Such blinkered ignorance.
It is Hamas who provides funding for schools and orphanages and healthcare clinics and soup kitchens in Palestine, it is Israel that blockades it — yet you think so little of the Palestinians that you imagine they are too foolish to see this as a bad thing.
(But then, I know you by now; why let facts get in the way of your ideology, right?)
@Beatrice :
Well neither do I in fact.
But we’re talking here about political issues not “thousands of lives” although yeah, thousands actually even millions of lives *are* ultimately at stake including innocent Israeli and Western ones I’d like to see saved. Anyway, you know what I’m saying I hope.
We disagree on only a couple of topics I think. I think you and share most views about most things. We just disagree when it comes to Islam and Israel.
No, I don’t think they’ve been heard – I think they’ve been mischaracterised, strawpersoned and misunderstood.
And if you really think that what I think is “hateful rubbish” rather than something very different, well, that’s my proof of exactly that sort of misunderstanding and mischaracterisation of them and me.
As John Stewart famously noted : “I may disagree with you but I’m pretty sure you’re not Hitler!” Well I’ve been metaphorically accused of being Hitler – or at least a follower of his – and I’m absolutely fucking well not and I fucking well do resent that and reject it and think that’s grossly unfair.
Hint no.1 that someone is NOT a nazi – they support Jewish people and the existence and cause of Israel. Because y’know nazis were not that fond of Jewish people and culture and the survival of the Jewish state.
StevoR:
So, you admit you are their enemy, and that you fear them too much to speak with any of them.
(Coward is cowardly; what a surprise)
StevoR:
StevoR:
Oh look, StevoR is a liar. Surprise!!! (not)
@164. John Morales :
Which questions where?
You know, if you were actually in a position to go out and kill Palestinians, I would read this as an obvious threat.
@169. Beatrice :
Note context – and gallows humour.
And the fact that the alternatives are worse.
Were you also metaphorically taken behind the shed and shot*?
* I can’t remember who accused us of this, but they were funny
StevoR,
The point of gallows humor is that it’s made by the person with the noose around their neck, not by the cheering mob.
StevoR earlier:
You can’t even predict your own behaviour, yet you prognosticate about others’?
(You are embracing that which you purportedly hate, and seek credibility thereby. Good going, O hypocrite)
What? The alternative is that you torture them first?
StevoR:
The questions I posed you after your initial flatulence, fool.
(Did you post a drive-by without following up, or have you merely forgotten?)
—
I suppose if you care to admit you’re too incompetent to read the responses to your posts yesterday, I can link you to them.
StevoR,
Beatrice, be fair.
StevoR is dreadfully afraid that the Islamic Jihadists are poised overwhelm not just Australia, but the entire West — and therefore must advocate for pre-emptive smiting ere our very way of life is devastated by this clear and present menace.
(The end is nigh!)
@171. Beatrice : Well that’d be a total mischaracterisation and misreading of it then.
I’m not a violent person. I’m not out to harm anyone unless they’re immediately trying to harm me or those I care about. I’m not going to physically attack or harm anyone unless I’m forced to in cases where its strictly self-defence or protection of those I love.
So unless that orphan is coming at me and mine with a bomb or knife or whatever, they’re entirely safe from me.
I’m just some person on the internet with an opinion on this issue (& many others) just like you are.
@168.
Would *you* ever travel to Gaza and risk being captured by Islamic extremists, held captive and then murdered? You realise they’ve done that even to Westerners who strongly support them let alone people who disagree with them like me – or did you miss hearing about the case of Vittorio Arrigoni?
There’s bravery and there’s stupidity. I’m no coward but I’m also not stupid.
I’ll speak to Palestinians happily if they’ll let me survive it, if they’re willing to respect and listen to me. I’m not going over to Gaza and being butchered for who I am. Why would you expect anyone to do that?
@179. John Morales : And your evidence to the contrary would be ..??
have you not heard of a little group called Al Quaida and the many similar Jihadist groups and do you know nothing of their philosophies?
Maybe they can’t succed in their horrendous goals but they can and are actively seeking to kill plenty of us -you as well as me – trying.
Do you know nothing about the well known hatefullness and violence of Islamists as shown repeatedly throughout history and in their “holy” book and the life of their “prophet”?
BTW. the comment # 168 I addressed in #180 was also by John Morales for clarity.
Morales,
Oh dear, I really should hurry and buy a couple of niqabs for after the 21st.
StevoR:
Why no, I am not such a fool as to wander into an occupied territory where the populace is terrified and desperate and oppressed by a blockade from a country supported by a super-power.
You are not worthy of respect, O hypocritical coward.
—
PS have you yet worked out what questions I asked you? :)
You do realize that you have now opened the door for everyone who wants to lecture you about everything from the crusades to Hitler, not to mention slavery/murder/genocide in the Bible?
StevoR:
You really are an idiot, aren’t ya?
Yes, Al Quaida is such a threat to the West!
<snicker>
Hume did it well in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.
It’s not really a refutation. Part of the argument is just thinking of an analogy which works better than “this natural thing seems like a designed thing.” If some part of the world looks like something designed by a person, while other parts do not, then generally the properties of one part (e.g., looking-like-it’s-designed) do not give us a good idea about the properties of the whole. You can’t pick out one bit of evidence to support your idea, while ignoring lots of other evidence that is inconsistent with it.
The whole thing is worth reading, and it’s much easier to follow it as a dialogue if you do. It goes on lots of little tangents and covers a lot of other ground; but based on a quick search, one of the meatier bits about the design argument starts near the reference to page [176] in the linked version. (Don’t panic: Dialogues isn’t 176 pages long. My guess is about 50 normal pages. Whichever edition that’s referring to, it included other works before it.)
Beatrice
I have several niqabs in stock, available in black, black, and ummm… oh, black!
StevoR: so, have you yet worked out which were the questions I asked you after your initial eructations?
@174. Beatrice :
And that “person with the noose around the neck” would be, metaphorically speaking, Israel and its supporters. The cheering mob would be Hamas and the Gazans.
You don’t see that? (Shrug) Then you’re seeing it wrong.
@176. Beatrice :
No. The alternative that I specifically listed in the part you quoted in # 169 – from, if memory serves thread on Ed Brayton’s blog.
Again :
Emphasis added.
If group or individual X is inevitably going to suffer and die then is prolonging misery better or worse than ending it quickly and relatively humanely?
I say the latter is ethically better.
Doesn’t mean you don’t wish there were better options but out of the two choices you have there, well maybe daisy-cutters beat a lingering, painful, worse death. I’m actually being merciful there if anything. Quick clean death to terrorists not torture and lingering agony for them.
Yes I was talking about terrorists specifically there.
No it wasn’t necessarily a serious suggestion – hence the gallows humour note.
I dunno. I despair. How else can you solve it when they won’t accept anything but the total destruction of Israel? What do you want Israel to do? If they keep repeatedly trying to wipe Israel out and refusing all offers of peace. Give me a better realistic answer and better option, I sure can’t see one.
@175. John Morales :
I am reluctantly here on thunderdome because there’s no other way /venue to hold this particular discussion. Because, hell, maybe I have got sucked in when people are accusing me of being all sorts of horrid things that I know I’m not.
I’d rather discuss this on the lounge thread but we’re apparently – well, no, PZ has outright stated -that that isn’t the place for me to defend myself against others false accusations. The original comment thread where “Pelamun” (sp?) first made his nasty remarks against me is closed. So what else can I do to argue my case here? Really. Tell me and I’ll do it.
@188. John Morales :
Not yet, no. Still responding to other comments. Happy to answer them if and when I find them.
Oh, so they must be murdered. But you would be so generous to grant them a quick death.
NO, you were not talking about terrorists, you were talking about the whole Gaza. I can read, you know.
You really are scum. Fuck.
StevoR,
YOU FUCKING MASS MURDER APOLOGIST, YOU WERE JOKING ABOUT DEATHS OF PALESTINIANS!!!!
IT WAS PURPORTED GALLOWS HUMOR ABOUT THEIR DEATHS.
GO FUCK YOURSELF.
See, now I am emotional. I’m not drunk, but I am pretty fucking angry.
Still, I manage not to wish death to you, StevoR. I only wish you stopped writing here. Because I am not a piece of shit, like yourself.
StevoR:
I see you don’t dispute you were wrong when you claimed you would “probably just put this up for others to consider and do little or no more here.”
(Indisputable fact: You can’t even predict your own behaviour, and so you attempt claim the high ground even as you creep in the gutter)
Maybe? Maybe?
You got sucked in because you’re a sucker; you’re a sucker because you got sucked in.
(Sucker, you are, and no about it)
Heh. Were you not such a dolt, you’d realise that you’re accusing others of false accusations — and it takes a special kind of dolt to imagine that an accusation is self-defence.
You’re right that this is the place to argue your case (such as it is), but you were dead wrong when you imagined you’d resist the temptation to do so.
(Besides, you’re more fun than the oblivious godbot, because you actually attempt to engage others. Do carry on!)
@166. John Morales :
(Double take) Are you seriously suggesting Hamas are good people?! (rechecks, blinks repeatedly, triple checks.)
Are you seriously calling fucking Hamas some kind of nice kind, non-profit benevolent charity here? Looks like it.
You realise that it is also Hamas who is responsible for them being in the awful situation they are in the first place? By y’know, firing rockets into Israel and sending homicide suicide bombers into Israel and even by murdering people who go in there to help just because they’re Westerners. Its Hamas that brainwahses them and bullies and brutalises them and exploits them. John Morales, WTF?! Hamas are NOT good people!
Well, yes and no. Israel try to stop military supplies going in to Gaza and things that can be turned into miltary uses. They do allow in humanitarian aid otherwise if Israel were the ogres they’re painted as being then Gaza wouldn’t be around today. Israel are far nicer, more reasonable and more compassionate to the Gazans they the Gazans are to them. Not that they’re ever acknowledged or thanked for that natch.
Sheesh, some people sure do have this whole issue turned mentally upside down and inside out!
What facts? Also huh? It is fact that Hamas actively brainwash the children and the whole population into the vilest, most self destructive anti-Semitic hatred possible see :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eTGbP55HGi8
It is fact that Hamas murder dissenting people and those merely suspected of “collaborating” with Israel. See :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/13/hamas-gaza-murders-abduction-torture
Hell, the Hamas charter still calls for the total destruction of Israel :
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/4877_62.htm
and “to raw, unadulterated Jew-hatred.”
So are these really people you think atheists and progressive pro-human rights people should be defending and supporting?! What The Fuck?!
StevoR:
So you really are utterly incompetent, yet you can’t bring yourself to face the reality of this.
No surprise there.
(Heavy hint: my first question was the very next comment after your last in your little self-serving salvo of indignant bluster — that being your previous since this little lot right now. So very tricky!)
*blink*
StevoR, were you not so incompetent, you’d learn to use anchor tags.
(So very technical, that is!)
StevoR:
You really don’t read what I write, do ya?
(How you imagine I wrote anything about supporting Hamas is beyond me, but then, I’m dealing with a specimen that imagines the Middle East is Hamas is Islam is Arabs)
@192. Beatrice :
Joking. Gallows humour ie. not to be necessarily taken as serious.
Gallows humour is kinda traditionally about deaths and horrible thinsg, kinda goes with that territory y’know.
Sorta like joking about sending Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly on a one way trip to the Sun or about atheist eating babies.
Meant sardonically /ironically.
What part of that don’t you get?
Don’t you also get that it automatically contradicts the first part of your claim that I’m a “mass murder apologist”? Which I’m not.
I’m a human being who despairs at what I see and know and wishes there were better ways but there don’t realistically seem to be.
There’s a horrible situation, there’s no way out. Joke about it because you can do nothing else and might as well. I don’t think anything is beyond humour.
I don’t think that makes me a bad person. A person whose sense of humour you may not always agree with maybe, but that’s a totally different thing.
Anatomically impossible and not my desire.
@ 198. John Morales : Anchor tags? Never heard of ’em. What are they and what do they do?
StevoR,
I explained to you what gallows humor is.
What you did was not gallows humor.
@ John Morales – 3 December 2012 at 5:54 am
I directly quoted you. Your own words in blockquote.
You were the one saying Hamas were good guys by building orphanages or schools or something like that. Making them sound like a charity and forgetting the evils they do and constantly strive for.
Hint: A Palestinian is the person with the noose around their neck, you are part of the mob in that example.
If they are joking about dying, that’s gallows humor. When you are making jokes about how they can be murdered, that’s not gallows humor. That’s cruel and horrible.
I even provided a quote and a link to the explanation of gallows humor.
StevoR:
<snicker>
(So very clueless, so very incompetent)
@202. Beatrice : Well I think it is. Guess that’s something else we’re going to have to disagree to disagree on.
You seem to see Hamas as the metaphorical “victim” wearing the noose.
I see Israel in that position instead.
Have you never heard the common truism / adage* that goes something like “if the Arabs put down there weapons there would be peace, if the Israelis put down their weapons there would be a masssacre and shortly afterwards no Israelis?”
I think that’s the reality. Guess you must live in some alternative universe where it isn’t true – or so you seem to think.
* Not sure of the source, read in quote a few places.
Typoo fix, getting tired sorry – that’s :
For clarity.
nigelthebold
2 peter 20-21 actually refers to the scriptures not having been written by just a bunch of goat herders.
creation.com/Lenski
Answering some criticisms of the Bible and the God of the Bible
Not everything that is IN the Bible is CONDONED by the Bible; but is necessarily included in order to be able to relate the story. There is no story about life and history that would even be realistic or valid that does not have the good, the bad and the ugly included in it.
The events concerning Noah’s flood and Sodom and Gomorah, the Canaanites and other events described in the Bible prompt many to accuse God of being a murderer and a hypocrite. But there is a vast difference between the murder of an innocent and the execution of a criminal.
The events relate to a Righteous and Holy Judge executing judgement on criminals for often extreme criminal behaviour and after much warning.
All infants and children that were killed were spared the inevitable involvment in their parent’s sins and consequent eternal ruin. In this respect God’s judgement was also merciful. The inherited sin that all children are born with (no one has to teach children to lie and steal; it comes naturally to them) being covered by Christ’s work on the cross, which covers all of human history.
…of the Lamb slain from the foundation [beginning] of the world. Rev 13:8
Another point that can be made for the reason for God’s judgement was to prevent more children being born into a society and a life that would end up destroying them.
For example, a God who did not judge Canaanite evil would not be a God of mercy, love and compassion (the Canaanites bag of sins/crimes being full, with, among other things, frequent child sacrifice – idolatry at its worst).
The view of some that the bible or parts thereof are evil is caused by removing and isolating verses from the surrounding scripture and comparing and criticising them out of their context.
This done out of either:
(a) Ignorance, in which case the underdeveloped reasoning and logic of a child is being used to try to understand scripture.
(b) it is being done wilfully, which is the same ‘editing’ technique that is used by the media in order to make a better story and/or to discredit someone.
Why would an all-powerful, knowing and loving Creator allow mans fall into sin and death?
The ability to willingly resist temptation, to prevent taking the wrong option and avoiding catastrophe was built in and was more than capable of resisting any attempt at being led astray.
If he had made man so that there was no possiblity of this occuring then man’s love and obedience to his Creator would not come from a genuine willingness but would just be robotic.
God does not make robots or puppets in his own image.
All warnings and threats from God that are described in the Bible are for our protection and benefit. But these warnings and threats also come with an equal measure of encouragements, demonstrating that overall, he has our best interests at heart. at the same time it also points out the seriousness of our condition and also demonstrates the extremes he will go to, and against his nature, in order to save us.
Did I write Hamas? I could swear I wrote Palestinian.
*checks*
Oh look, I did!
Write Palestinians, that is.
Suuuure.
That’s what they constantly strive for? Since you make them sound like fucking demons rather than real human beings, and since I don’t believe in demons, I’m not going to believe your bigoted nonsense.
@204.Beatrice : If they are joking about dying, that’s gallows humor. When you are making jokes about how they can be murdered, that’s not gallows humor. That’s cruel and horrible.
So the jokes about executing O’Reilly as seen in a recent thread and atheist eating babies and so on are under what classification then? (shrug.)
Grim humour? Gallows humour? Sardony (sp?) /irony? Whatever.
Point is, they’re humour okay. Not serious.
What is the solution to Hamas? Fucked if I know. Fucked if anyone does. It seems pretty fucking hopeless. They kepe trying tokill us. They won’t seem able or willing to stop? Where’s that going to fucking end for all sides?
Maybe there are no good options.
Probably why we – & I’m certainly not the first or only person to have come up with such ideas – resort to jokes about nuking it or sending each side to the opposite ends of the Earth like that’s possible or whatever.
Your deity doesn’t exist, and your babble is book of mythology/fiction. Since there is no evidence for either proposition, you must presuppose that your imaginary deity exists and your babble is inerrant. Which means you accept them as true without evidence. Typical behavior of liars, bullshitters, and delusional fools. We aren’t fools. We don’t believe liars and bullshitters without third party evidence. Your word/testament is just so much bullshit.
StevoR,
You know how sexist and racist jokes are off limits here? Your kind or “humor” is right there too. It’s bigotry, and you’re the only one here laughing.
joe1080, you’re a poisonous twit. Your unholy babble is mind rot.
StevoR the paranoid islamophobic bigot won’t shut the fuck up? Why it thinks we don’t see its bigotry is beyond the ken of normal men. It needs to move on, as it won’t convert anybody here to its delusions.
Nerd,
Could you please not call people “it”?
@213. consciousness razor :
Did you look at the sources I linked for y’all?
Hamas aren’t demons, no.
But Hamas are not exactly reasonable, good people either and if you’re going to claim they want peace and can be bargained with and trusted the *you* are going toneed some pretty convincing evdience if that.
I sure don’t see any.
Israel has repeatedly tried making peace. hell, they pulled out of gaza unilaterally and ended the so-called Occupation years ago. What did they get in return? More hatred, rocketfire and terrorism.
I keep asking and getting no good answer – put yourself in Israel’s position : What is Israel realistically supposed to do?
Committ another Masada ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masada#History ) mass suicide? Seems to me that’s the only thing that would satisfy its Arab and other Islamist enemies.
Are you only happy if that comes to pass and, if so, how the blazes do you figure that makes *me* the bad person here?
@215. Beatrice
Who said it made me laugh? Wry smile maybe – and as I’ve already noted similar humour is often expressed here at other targets eg. republicans. (& eating babies and previously the whole deceased porcupine anal insertion thing.)
Anyhow my point is, whether you found it funny or not, it wasn’t a serious suggestion I’ve since corrected and clarified that repeatedly.
@217. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls :
I’m not the one who is deluded, mate.
I never claimed hams were some kind of nice charity. Islamophobic is an internallycontradictory nonsense wrod given everythingwe know about the irrational beliefs and terrorist practices of Muslims. They’re not associated with terrorism without reasons you realise. Their repuation is made by themsleves and theri own actions and behaviour seg. jihads, fatwhas, ruiots, and well terrorism.
Its not “bigotry” when its true.
Calling me a bigot is a false and disgusting lie. OTOH, saying Hamas are bigots is probable fact – and if you don’t believe me then look at the youtube clip and other evidence in my comment #195.
So – and I want to make certain I’m not misunderstanding you – it is perfectly moral to kill an innocent before they actually commit a crime, yes?
Is it then moral to allow an innocent to commit a crime?
1. Merely joking about this marks you as pretty heartless.
2. In some of your comments you claim you are joking, in the others, you call for death of Palestinians (the way you equate Palestinians and members of Hamas is also quite telling)
What vast difference? Should criminals be executed? No, they shouldn’t. It turns out your ethics is broken, and you’ve decided that your god’s must be broken too.
Couldn’t this god of yours have made criminals not commit criminal acts? He certainly could have. That would’ve spared the supposed “need” for any punishment of anyone in the first place (much less eternal punishment), which isn’t even a need because punishments do not make anything better. They are just piling more suffering onto the situation, not making less suffering or preventing suffering.
And since in the end we all die, doesn’t this god condemn us all to death just the same, regardless of our “innocence”? If you turn to heaven for a rebuttal to that point, then where is your evidence of heaven or of any kind of afterlife? For that matter, if a benevolent god can make heaven, why shouldn’t we (or whichever beings exist) be living in heaven right now? Why should there be a world full of evil and suffering before a world which is good and doesn’t need any suffering?
Your god resorts to giving warnings? What sort of weak-tea deity is this? You say it designed everything exactly as it wanted it to be. Did this god not have a choice? Does it have no free will to make the world as it wants, which (if it’s benevolent) would be a world without criminals, suffering, death, hate, or any other evil?
How pleasant. But how do you know that anyway? Why should we believe you?
And what did anyone’s parent ever do to have “eternal ruin” as a necessary consequence of their behavior?
But not in respect to what mercifulness actually is, just in respect to your broken sense of ethics.
So people don’t actually lie and steal? Somehow a person getting tortured to death (you call this “work”) is supposed make it all go away? Or are those things no longer bad?
If doesn’t mean any of that, then in what sense is any of it “covered”?
Why not? How could our free will (but not his?) be so good and so important that it overshadows every bit of suffering people have ever experienced? Does your ability to choose whether or not to lie in some situation outweigh the suffering in the Holocaust? Is there any need for you to be an apologist for genocide as well as an apologist for an absurd religion?
Did your god not have a choice?
That’s :
saying Hamas are bigots is provable fact – and if you don’t believe me then look at the youtube clip and other evidence in my comment #195.
&
“Islamophobic” is an internally contradictory nonsense word given everything we know about the irrational beliefs and terrorist practices of Muslims. They’re not associated with terrorism without reasons you realise. Their reputation is made by themselves and their own actions and behaviours eg. jihads, fatwahs, riots, and well terrorism.
Something is only a “phobia” if its irrational. Being terrified of snakes is a phobia if we’re talking about harmless pet python, but not applicable if we’re talking about a hissing angry cobra poised to strike your face!
Natch.
I skipped joe’s comment, so when I was reading what turned out to be his quotes in consciousness razor’s comment, I didn’t immediately recognize whether quotes were from joenumbers or StevoR.
That’s quite telling too.
Why is it that all Muslims are associated with terrorism my Muslims, while not all Christians are associated with terrorism by Christians?
Or all Buddhists not associated with terrorism by Buddhists?
addendum to #225
… as John Morales already noted
Anri @221
According to joe4060, children aren’t innocents, they’re born into sin, which makes it just fine to kill them. And anyway, as he says later, children don’t need to be taught to lie or to steal (I would beg to differ somewhat, but then I only have a sample size of 3, so what do I know).
Beatrice @225
Telling, indeed. :/
@222. Beatrice :
And merely joking about eating babies makes athiets reallycannibals or heartless too? Come on. Joking about something doesn’t necessarily mean anything at all.
Thing is there is a pretty huge overlap there. All members of Hamas are Palestinians far as I know and a pretty huge chunk (up to two thirds maybe?) of Palestinians are Hamas members. (with the remianing third being Fatah and other more “moderate” groups which still have a long bloody history of committing terrorist atrocities eg. the PLO.)
PS. Gotten sidelined and still haven’t found your questions John Morales. Will answer them when I find them.
StevoR,
In a world where babies aren’t on the menu in parts of the world. In a world where Palestinians are being killed every day. Not that you consider the second part bad.
Also, baby eating jokes are made as a response to being accused of similar ridiculous things by religious fanatics.
Would you defend someone making jokes about rape? No? Then stop pretending your bigotry and hate are jokes.
StevoR is a joke. His bigotry and hate are bigotry and hate.
Being drunk or tired or emotional doesn’t explain it either, StevoR. Do you really think we’re as fucking stupid as you are?
@165. John Morales :
Wrong.
Women are women.
A religion is a religion.
Women are not “part” of a religion.
(Women may of course believe in a particular religion but that doesn’t make them a “part’ of it – just a ‘follower’ some could even argue ‘a prisoner’ of it.)
Any specific woman (including Palestinian ones) is an individual who can reject a religion and choose to change her circumstances if she is sufficiently empowered, educated and made able to choose.
Religions of course strive to deny women this choice and disempower them – and Islam is especially extreme and notorious in this regard as well as irredeemably misyognist.
The most ethical thing we can do, the best way we can help Palestinians women is to free them from Islam and from the likes of Hamas. To educate and empower them and enable them to escape what Islam and Hamas have done to them.
What are “parts” of religion? Doctrines, dogmas, prophecies, scared books and such like tripe.
Women (& for that matter also children and men) are not “parts” of religion although religion may imprison them in “mind forged manacles” (to quote one famous poet whose name I cannot now recall.) and worse.
FIFY.
You keep saying that you aren’t a racist scumbag genocide apologist, and keep contradicting yourself right after.
But it they don’t, well, fuck them. Kill them all.
Death to
AmericaPalestine!Death to
IsraelIslam!AllahIsrael is great!–
Holy shit, you sound like a 16th century colonialist. The guys who were genuinely afraid that natives were all cannibal gluttons and could eat them at the drop of a hat.
–
Butchering Palestinians for being who they are, on the other hand, is totes acceptable, right?
In the interest of fairness, how about all Anglo-Saxons die in a fire for bringing the scourge of Evangelicalism to my country? I don’t see your country, your people or yourself making any particular effort to get yourselves rid of that shit, so I’m going to conclude you’re all supporters of hateful, blinkered religiots, and advocate rounding you up and killing you all.
–
Sure, Israel, with their nukes and giant tanks, is soooooooo defenseless and suffering under the tyranny of Hamas.
It’s still not gallows humor because you’re joking about the Palestinians dying, you fucking racist shitnugget.
–
Nuke Palestine until it glows, then shoot the survivors in the dark, of course. In self-defense.
StevoR, so you give Palestinians the choice of dying or converting to Judaism? How generous of you.
Kinda difficult to empower people when you’re bombing the shit out of them, fool.
Yes, the men and women and children and orphans are part of the religion. When you advocate preemptive war on Muslim countries to destroy Islam, who do you think is going to die?
Nope, sorry John Morales I’ve looked but I can’t find your comment with questions in it to me. Scrolled back and forth and tried to find but so many here.
Got a comment number of time stamp? Or link?
It may have to wait till tomorrow.
nigelthebold
Beer and shrimps
It is important to point out that a distinction needs to be made between the general commands given to all of mankind, and some of the numerous and seemingly odd comands which were specific and unique only to the nation of Israel in the time of Moses (Mosiac laws) in the Old Testament i.e. Deuteronomy and Leviticus.
The reason for these laws, rules and regulations, was that, being the nation through which the Messiah; the Christ, was to enter the world, Israel needed to be kept separated from, and undefiled by the idolatrous and often vile practices of the pagan tribes that surrounded them.
In other words, Israel needed to be kept in one piece in order to get Christ to the cross. This can be seen in the geneology of Jesus (God was manifested in the flesh 1Tim 3:16) in mathew 1:1 and also in Luke 3:23-38, which goes all the way back to Adam.
And Satan, being well aware that the Son, the Redeemer, Christ, had been promised through a line of descendents of israel, did his best to sabotage this line by any means possible. This being the central theme of the Old Testament, from when Adam rebelled and separated himself from God, all the way through to the New Testament. And this is also the reason for God’s sometimes severe judgement and even extermination of some of the surrounding pagan tribes, whom satan had recruited and was working through in trying to ruin god’s plans for the redemption of mankind.
Many of the Mosaic purity laws concerning food, drink etc. were specifically put in place for Israel only (even then, some rules or standards were only for the priesthood, so that they were clean enough to enter into the inner sanctum of the temple, the holy of holy’s, where God’s presence resided. In other words, the peoples representives before God were required to be neat and tidy out of respect to God) until the time of Jesus and in no way apply to us today. Only those universal commandments and prohibitions in the Old Testament which are also found in the New Testament apply in today’s world.
For example, some prohibitions that universally apply (they dishonour God since we are made in his image) are:
Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 1Cor 6:9, 10
Whereas, Mosiac rules concerning food and drink are dealt with as follows:
So he [Jesus] said to them, “Are you thus without understaning also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart [spirit] but his stomach [body], and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?” Mark 7:18, 19
It is what is in a man’s heart that defiles him, not what he eats or drinks.
“For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. all these things come from within and defile a man.” Mark 7:21-23
Alcohol
The Bible makes it quite clear in many places that it is the excess consumption of wine leading to drunkeness that leads to problems…
Wine is a mocker, intoxicating drink arouses brawling, and whoever is led astray by it is not wise. Prov 20:1
…not with the consumption of wine/beer itself within its proper context and quantity…
Here is what I have seen: it is good and fitting for one to eat and drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labour in which he toils under the sun all the days of his life which god gives him; for it is his heritage.
Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart; for God has already accepted your works… Eccl 5:18; 9:7
…that is, for our health.
nerd of the red head
“Your diety doesn’t exist…”
Prove it
Yes, let’s move on to talking about beer and shrimps.
Let’s not talk about your apologetics in support of any kind of suffering that anyone has ever experienced.
And let’s address everything to nigelthebold in a public conversation on a blog with lots of different people, for no apparent reason.
Renounce their “Choosen People/Jewish Homeland” bullshit, fold up their government, pack up their bags, give the region back to the people they stole it from, and leave!
Why not? While it’s no less probable than your expectation for the Palestinians to abandon Islam, it has the virtue of being just.
nigelthebold
Our position in the universe
It is assumed by many that we could not possibly warrant the importance ascribed to us by the scripture’s, and that the Creator would not turn up in the flesh to our tiny corner of the universe because we are simply too insignificant in relation to the rest of its vast size, stars, galaxies etc.
three points that refute this:
The size of something has no bearing on its importance
We are made in God’s image, unlike the stars and galaxies which are basically just coloured lights (albeit very impressive) and which were specifically created to demonstrate and put us in awe of the Creators infinite power, majesty and good nature.
God turned up on the earth in the flesh (Jesus) because this is where all the sinners are
Now it all makes sense.
So eating pork and shellfish, wearing fabric made of two different fibers, sowing fields with more than one crop, and having sex with a woman who is having her period is pagan, idolatrous, and “vile?”
Minds exist because of brains. No brain, no mind. So if there were a disembodied mind, there is no way it could function like a mind, because you haven’t provided a way it could function, or any evidence that this is in fact the case. You would need to show how that could happen, because as it is now, it’s not consistent with what we know about how the world actually works.
And as we’ve already said, it only gets worse if you say it must be “changeless” or “timeless.” Any kind of interaction with the physical world requires the ability to change and existence in time. You have no reason for saying it’s changeless or timeless anyway. You’re just repeating nonsense you’ve been told. (Maybe some of it’s copy-pasta, but I haven’t checked.)
You haven’t justified it, or given a shred of evidence in favor of it. You haven’t explained anything about it or what it means, and you haven’t responded adequately to anyone’s objections. Given all that, the burden is most definitely on you to do some proving of your own.
@233. vaiyt :
False. You keep strawpersonning me, cherry-picking me and failing to actually comprehend what I’m saying. The “contardictions” there are in your mind and mis-charcterisations of me NOT what I’ve actually typed. Try carefully rereading and rethinking my comments here okay.
Ill defined negatives can’t be proven. Anybody with a modicum of intelligence and education, which leaves you out, knows that. Ergo, the null hypothesis is non-existence, and your claim needs to have conclusive physical evidence that isn’t explained by science. Something stupornatural, which also doesn’t exist. The burden of evidence is upon you to prove your presupposition is correct. You don’t even try to prove it, showing what a liar and bullshitter you really are.
Since your deity only exists as delusion in your mind, how can you be made in the image of a delusion? I know. Your mind doesn’t exist…
Argh. Fucking blockquote and fucking inability to edit afterwards.
StevoR,
Realistically, expecting Palestinians to abandon Islam in order to be allowed to stay in their land implies that they should convert to Judaism. In the real world. Not in the fantasy land where you reside.
So your diety is an egotistical bastard who likes to show off? Also, spare us any crap about your god’s “good nature ” when you defend its apocryphal acts of genocide against any and all who did not kiss its allegedly divine ass, you twisted fuck.
Vile person test question :
One simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question to determine whether or not someone is a vile, racist, Judaeophobic,genocidal person or not.
Do the Israelis have the right to protect their innocent civilians from genocidal Hamas terrorist attacks?
Answer yes = Pass. Someone answering this is not a vile, racist, Judaeophobic,genocidal person.
Answer no = Fail. Someone answering that is a vile, racist, Judaeophobic,genocidal person.
I answered ‘yes’ and so passed.
How did the rest of you do?
But you seem to advocate it when they have the temerity to object to having foreigners with a tenuous link to the region swoop in, take over, and treat them as second class people. How dare they not bow down and submit to the Isreali Master Race! (Irony intended.)
EDIT: …Israeli Master Race
That axe cuts both ways, you fool.
@251. Beatrice : For the umpteenth time :
NOTE. THE. CONTEXT in which that cherry-picked quote was surronded!
(Care to provide a link to, say, the full comment, article and thread there btw?)
No, bombing isn’t being advocated for who they are.
It is because they are engaging in terrorism.
And it was intended, (whether folks agree with such wry jokes or not) as gallows humour during, if memory serves, a time when Israel was coming under direct Hamas rocketfire from Gaza and I’ve since stated that no that isn’t what I’m actually seriously advocating.
The context of joking about murdering people you hate. The surrounding of that quote is no better, I could quote your whole comments if you wish, it wouldn’t endear your position to anyone. It’s all the same shit.
Here, knock yourself out: https://proxy.freethought.online/singham/2012/11/17/violence-again-in-gaza-and-israel/#comment-141476
@255.Beatrice : That axe cuts both ways, you fool.
It would *if* That’s what isreal were doing. But isreal didn’t start theconflict and isreal is NOT targeting innocnet civilians.
Okay, some innocent civilians maybe killed unintentionally as part of the cowardly and despicable Hamas strategyu of using their own people as human shields but this isn’t Israel’s fault.
Israel tries to avoid civilian fatalities.
Hamas tries to cause them. On both sides.
That is one key ethical difference between the sides.
Anotheris that Isreal seeks tolive inpeaec withits neighboutrs.
Hamas is seeking to wipe Israel off the map. (As is Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, even Fatah, etc.. )
When face dwithtwo sides the side tosupportis usually theone trying to defend itself fromgenocdie NOt tehside tryingtocommitt genocide!
Surely that’s not that hard to understand and work out really is it?
What? Are all Muslims terrorists? Is everyone in Gaza a terrorist? If not, then who the fuck are “they”?
And if you’re “protecting” people (e.g., civilians), why does this mean the same thing as “attacking” people (e.g., civilians)?
Is one kind of person (or civilian) somehow more valuable than another?
@ StevoR
No, fuck you. You nonpology means shit when you return to your nasty bigotry straight after.
Your solution came across as “Kill them all, let god sort them out”. Am I wrong? Shall we go and copypasta your hateful bile?
You want to propose extrajudicial and indisciminate killing of their victims, bigot.
Yes.
Don’t fucking me.
Oh wait, you proposed killing such victims of Israeli brutality indiscriminately. What the fuck do you think the consequences would be if your proposals were carried out?
Er, Hamas is not all of Islamic society. Like Fred Phelps is not all of American society, Or Ken Ham all of Australian society.
Of course you would. It is only your twisted bigotry that stands in the way. You are projecting your own deluded fears onto these people.
Many, check out the campusses of any good university.
I am not going to.
Bullshit, I have only experienced their love for their country (they are a country now.)
Gross exaggeration. The generation of bigots before you were convinced that the Russians ate their children.
Any rusty object will do.
StevoR, I was a fucking idiot for suggesting you be given a chance. That perhaps by engaging with you, you might mediate your bigotry and eventually get a clue.
@ joe4060
Please have a little chat with StevoR. Your homocidal skydaddy sounds relatively restrained in comparison.
Corrections & elaborations (Quintuple checking, so durn tired again. No “laminations” here! Although some people need this not only put on laminated cards to be carried permanently around but tattoed to their eyelids – no not a serious suggestion FFS!) :
“isreal” = Israel,
When faced with two sides; the side to support is usually the one trying to defend itself from genocide (ie Israel) NOT the side trying to committ genocide! (eg. Hamas)
Hamas are the aggressors seeking genocide.
Israel is the attacked seeking to protect its people.
That’s the stark, clear reality. Fact. Has been since 1948 really although some of the names of Israel’s attacking parties have changed over that time.
@theophontes (坏蛋) :
Yes you are wrong – try reading what I actually wrote in context & you’ll see.
@259. consciousness razor :
No – but most terrorists are Muslims.
No but a large number of them are.
“They’ refers to the Jihadist terrorists specifically the Palestinian & Hamas ones.
It doesn’t.
The Israeli side is doing the protecting of its civilians against Hamas.
Hamas is doing the attacking of Israeli civilians with its rockets.
Did you sleep through the news or something?
War always means collateral damage, people, soldiers and civilians die because that’s the horrible nature of war. War is best avoided wherever reasonably possible but sometimes it isn’t possible to avoid war if the alternative is even worse or if war is already clearly inevitable and just a matter of ‘when’ not ‘if’.
Israel didn’t want or start this war. Hamas did want and start it. Hamas therefore deserves the blame for it.
Depends on the circumstances and the individual.
Sure. Considering how bad jab they are doing, one might even be inclined to believe the opposite. Who would have thought.
StevoR,
Basically, if all Palestinians end up as “collateral damage”… well, that’s just how war is.
Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you……
If Israelis caused “collateral damage” of civilians, that means they attacked those civilians. Civilians do not become magically un-attacked if Israelis didn’t fucking intend to attack them. Because in case you haven’t heard, intent is not fucking magic.
And you know, given “the horrible nature of war,” you should (and could) stop supporting horrible fucking things. Dipshit.
No, it doesn’t.
You’re such a fucking bigoted asshole. Not admitting it is just being a stupid liar on top of it, because as is usual for bigoted assholes, it’s fucking obvious to everyone else.
Who’s “they”? You can scream you’re not being a racist scumbag until you’re blue in the face, but you keep equating Hamas with Palestine, Muslims with Arabs, and advocating preemptive war to people who haven’t done any wrong for the crime of being Muslim. Because Islam is the Super Uber Religion of The Evilest Evil there is, and all their followers are terrorist supporters that may kill us in our sleep.
theophontes is right, your drivel sounds way too much like the Red Scare.
The point is that such fear was invoked to justify extermination war, slavery and destruction of culture. All for their own good and moral purification, of course. Mighty Westerner (like you) knows better.
For StevoR (do you speak science?):
The shared genetic heritage of Jews and Palestinians
Your ideas about assimilation are not new or original. There were even Zionists that thought that Palestinians would suddenly revert to their Jewish roots (without the goading of weapons of mass destruction). This acceptance of brotherhood (shared forefathers) has only wained for political reasons.
From Pfffffft.
@257. Beatrice :
Thankyou for the link there.
Please note that the context was that I was responding to slc1’s, I think much crueler alternative suggestion based on real historical events. (BTW. anyone care about Syria now at all? It behaves far more brutally to Arab civilians than Israel ever has after all! Oh well never mind its not the Jewish state so its conduct must be alright-y then as usual double standard is applied! /sarc.)
Notice too what I wrote in my next and final comment there :
Emphasis added. My argument in a nutshell really.
So that supposedly makes me some kind of monster in some deluded people’s eyes here? Really?
Oh & how did y’all go in my test at 252?
All of you answered ‘yes” I hope?
joe4060:
So, you don’t even understand the issues enough to answer it yourself? You have to point to an article that wasn’t short enough to cut-and-paste?
It would save us both a lot of time if you would simply admit you know nothing about biology, and instead are only reciting what other creationists claim.
That was one pathetic article. It doesn’t address the core issue, that e. coli genome mutated so it had more information (as you put it). All it does is hand wave away the facts, and instead of admitting the observed events, it just recites the very claim the experiment refutes, that mutations can’t be beneficial. And it does this by assertion, not by logic or science.
Again, Joe, repeating something over and over hoping to make it true just illustrates you recognize your bad position. It’s just doubling-down on stupid. And that’s all the article does, repeats the very thing the experiment incontrovertibly refutes.
It’s like they claimed black swans don’t exist, and someone brought them a black swan, and they claimed, “Well, all right, that’s interesting and all, but black swans simply don’t exist!”
Also, if you note, the article you pointed to actually says evolution occurs. It just tries to limit what evolution is capable of, but offers no reason for that limit. It’s like creationists themselves are forced to recognize that evolution is a real thing due to the overwhelming evidence it is a real process shaping real biology.
So again, considering the article you linked to admitted the Lenski experiments were a demonstration of evolution in action, I ask:
How is the evolution of citrate-metabolizing e. coli in the Lenski experiments not proof that evolution occurs?
Then why are the Palestinians always dying in numbers one order of magnitude greater than the Israelis?
“Genocide”? We’re not talking pogroms here, you dishonest fuck, we’re talking a bunch of terrorists from a shithole firing a couple long-range rockets against a well-stablished country with state-of-the-art military, anti-artillery shields, 60 ton tanks and nuclear weapons.
As far as genocide goes, Hamas is being more incompetent at it than the “defending” forces of Israel. How do you explain that?
StevoR
In no context on this Earth is jo0king about how to kill everyone in Gaza funny or excusable.
A Muslim-loving Jew and a Muslim and Jew-hating fuck walk into a room. Wanna bet who would StevoR get along with?
Instead of arguing about the results of the conflict one might try debating possible solutions to end the conflict.
Three state solution, yes or no?
Again; do you support blowing your own country up for the crimes of your Evangelicals?
If you argue that your people are more complex than that, you’ve already conceded the argument. Let’s use the same brush for everyone, okay?
@269. theophontes (坏蛋) :
Well some. More astronomy and geology than genetics and biology and I’m not claiming to be any scientific genius but thanks, I’ll have a look at that. Tomorrow tho’ Must get some sleep tonight.
@266. Beatrice & 268. vaiyt : More strawpeople and putting words in my mouth that aren’t mine. Sigh.
@267. consciousness razor :
I don’t support horrible things.
Note though that sometimes your choices are only between horrible and even more horrible and so you have to choose what I believe is usually called the lesser of two evils.
And, yes, it may still be evil or horrible but its still *less* evil and horrible than the alternative. Which sucks but is how life and reality can be. We can and may well hate it but still just how it is.
These are your words StevoR
Link to PDF.
@274. Beatrice : Answer – The Muslim-loving Jew. I guess. Definitely not the anti-Semite(s).
@278. Beatrice : Which I’ve already explained and put in context for you.
You might want to put that cherry you’ve picked there back -its looking real withered and past its use by.
Thees are also my far more recent and serious words from #245 in this thread :
Emphasis added. I can add even more emphasis and repeat this again and again until you get it if that helps, Beatrice.
And as I said, there is no context in this world that makes your words anything but hateful bullshit.
That second thing you bolded… you just admitted that you advocate for bombing Palestinians, you fool.
A lie, which you immediately decide there’s no point in making anyway. You are no in denial. You are a liar.
What makes you think this is one of those times? Why do any of our options have to be even slightly horrible?
But you’re in fucking Australia, for fuck’s sake. What kind of choice do you need to make that can only involve killing Muslims?
Please list ALL of the less-horrible alternatives. Not just the ones in your violent, Islamophobic fantasies. All of them. Then we can talk about how relatively-horrible the things you support are.
Final jeopardy question:
‘I don’t like the unmoderated nature of the Thunderdome’ (but I’m still going to pop up and attempt to defend my racist rah rah warmongering kill ’em all before they get us but that’s totes not genocide and if you have Muslim friends they are jihadists ways
Who am I?
StevoR
If The [Thunderdome] was more moderated, you would have been banned a long time ago.
chigau,
If he opens his gob in any other thread, I am all for banning him.
@StevoR
Palestinians Of A Jewish Origin Part One
Palestinians Of A Jewish Origin Part Two
Your bombs won’t differentiate between crypto-Jews and Hamas.
…doesn’t make it true.
joe4060 @208:
I only afford a modicum of benefit of the doubt for people that actively defend the genocide committed by the god of the bible. That’s because I know you have been indoctrinated and did not arrive at your beliefs by taking an unbiased look at the evidence. However that modicum is in short supply after this weekend, when I had to deal with a guy who I just had sex with hang his head in shame bc he had gay sex. He cited virtually every fucking argument you have used and they were just as flimsy. However, one thing he did NOT do was attempt to justify his god murdering almost every living creature on Earth. You and stevoR pay agtention:
the God of the Bible committed genocide when he slaughtered nearly every living creature on the planet. The reasons do not matter. His actions resulted in the deaths of untold men women children and fetuses. If you defend such a creature your moral compass is fucked up.
Tony:
Ah, geez. That’s what your discussion was about. That fucking sucks.
You have my deepest sympathies. Actually, second-deepest. My deepest goes out to your friend.
Tony:
Oh, crispy Christ onna stick, I’m so sorry, Tony. What an awful time for you.
@ StevoR
I failed to call out your brainfart at #252 earlier:
That is goddist level bullshit with the rigged question. You know it is puerile and yet you insult us all by posting that anyway. Do you really want to be on this thread?
@ Tony
You alluded to this earlier. I am a bit gobsmacked: his religion has turned him against himself!
Beatrice:
Has StevoR figured out what gallows humor is yet? Clearly the definition you provided was of NO help.
The situation over the weekend is at times not as bad ad it sounds, and at times worse than it sounds. I have not been able to post about it bc I want to pose a bunch of questions to many of you, but I want to give the full context of the talk I had with my friend. My phone ain’t cutting it. I’m going to the library later to check out that book consciousness razor recommended. I can use their wi fi to access the internet from my laptop.
Isn’t that religion’s largest strength? Turning people against themselves that is?
Tony,
Since StevoR is the real victim, he can make nasty jokes about murdering people, it will always count as gallows humor or witticism (ah, killing those people in Gaza, har har).
—
I am really sorry that what was supposed to be a fun evening for you and your friend ended badly.
(noticing comment 294)
Ok, I won’t speculate until you’re able to talk about it more.
*hugs* and sympathy anyway
@ Dhorvath
For an antihumanist, misanthropic memeplex, that is an important component. But there are other “strengths”. As a shoehorn for authoritarianism, it also does a great job. But the one that we see in joe4060 and his arguments: Religion leeds to the infantilisation of those that are infected by it.
@ Tony
Aaah, laptop. That means we can send you USB chocolate.
No – but most terrorists are Muslims.
Got a citation for that? And what do you mean by “most”? 50.1%? 99%? Are you talking about events in Australia or worldwide or some other measure? Certainly, in the US, the biggest recent act of terrorism was by Islamic fanatics, but in sheer number, the Christians win (OKC bombing, murder of Dr. Tiller, the anthrax letters, etc.)
Know what annoys me? This knee jerk idea that Terrorism==teh evil. I’m not saying it’s good mind you. I’m saying it’s a TACTIC. In fact it’s just about the only viable tactic for a weaker or occupied power against a vastly more powerful one. It’s the tactic the US used in it’s war of revolution; make occupation of the colonies more costly and more trouble than relinquishing control of them, it’s the tactic the resistance used against Nazis, etc etc. Acting like it’s the most horrible dishonorable thing ever is just showing you’ve totally bought the propaganda of right wing paranoid nuts. And frankly acting like terrorists is an existential threat is itself stupid; they aren’t because if they DID have the power to pose a reasonable fight they wouldn’t be relying on terrorism! This bizarre idea that open war is bad but acceptable but terrorism is just pure evil is fucking ridiculous. Treat both as what they are, people with weapons trying to achieve their goals
Shit, Tony, I’m so sorry that religion has screwed your friend over like that – and thus led to harm to you too. Maybe see you over in the Lounge later? Or here, of course.
As for justifying the “god” of wholesale slaughter, this just means that joe4060 goes from mentally crippled (as amply demonstrated at great length upthread) to mentally crippled and scum I’m afraid. Sorry, joe, there is no justification for indiscriminate slaughter of real live people who haven’t harmed anyone, or for infinite torture of anyone. There are only morally repugnant attempts to scrabble for rationalisation (Craig, anyone?), and the morally deficient individuals who buy into them.
Beatrice @225:
Me too.
I neither know nor care if stevoRacist is an atheist, but I couldn’t tell who consciousness razor was referring to until well into that comment @223.
Pathetic apologist for atrocity StevoR caught lying again:
There is more than one way available to “protect ourselves strongly”, some of those ways involve bombing the innocent neighbours of suspected terrorists, some of those ways do not.
StevoR ALWAYS advocates for the first set of ways and NEVER advocates for the second. And the first set of ways IS “bombing Palestinians just for being who they are”, ie, being the innocent neighbours of suspected terrorists.
StevoR, pitiful dishonest piece of inhuman scum, as per usual.
::blinks, mouth agape::
Stars and galaxies are basically colored light…??!!
joe4060, everything you post is an insult to reality and deceny. Be a good little dishonest troll and crawl back from whence you came. ‘K?
Holy shit, Tony, I’m so sorry (you and your friend)! Hugs for you – if they’re not allowed in the [Thunderdome], I’ll settle for a pugnacious fist-bump. :/
+++
I have some questions for StevoR:
1) You mention (upstream) that Palestinians are free to change their religion (implying that there is something intrinsically more wrong with their current one). Yet, were they to convert, they would probably be disowned and/or killed (apostasy, hello) by their friends and neighbours – so what’s a better choice for them: be destroyed by Israel, or be destroyed by their own people, and which choice leaves them ‘free’ to choose (since their choice is supposed to improve their life)? Would you like Ravenous Lion behind Door #1, or Ravenous Tiger behind Door #2?
And let’s pretend that only one of those doors holds certain death – by telling them to choose one, is that still a true choice?
2) You say you don’t think Palestinians should not be killed for being just themselves. Then you say they should be killed for supporting terrorists. And when asked what makes you think they support terrorists, you say it’s because they’re Muslim (maybe not in so many words, but it’s so hard to see where you differentiate between Palestinian, Muslim, Hamas and terrorist that it’s impossible to tell if you do so at all – please point to where you differentiate, if at all, and if you don’t lump them all together in the next sentence/paragraph). So, therefore, it’s ok to kill them because they’re Muslim? Or is there some other collective character trait for which it would be ok to kill them all (or see them killed as collateral damage)? (And if they’re supposedly ‘free’ to change religions, see #1.)
3) In one of your posts you mentioned a round figure that about two thirds of Palestinians support Hamas, making that enough of a portion for them all to deserve death (well, ok, for the sake of argument, the two thirds will be killed and the rest will be collateral damage). How do you know? Maybe 2/3 elected Hamas, but that doesn’t mean they support Hamas, or all the actions of Hamas, or didn’t get coerced into voting for Hamas, or are scared to publicly say they don’t support Hamas (for example – I helped elect my current government, but by no means do I support everything they do, I’d just support all the others a lot less). At elections, they simply chose the lesser of two evils, because they had no other choice. But it’s ok to kill them, too? Or should they just be stacked onto the collateral damage pile?
4) You’re in Australia. Hamas, if it does have any immediate targets, is probably aiming for the US. Which means, you are not in any danger. Neither is Australia – not under any immediate threat. But that’s the impression that I’m getting from most of your posts – that you’re super-paranoid that the Palestinian Muslims are out to get you, and that everyone is in immediate danger, when they’re clearly concentrating on Israel. Otherwise, why this fear of Palestinians/Muslims? Why do you think they’re out to kidnap every foreigner on their soil? What makes you think they’re even considering world domination (‘Sharia Law Kaliphate’, in your words), when they’re barely holding their own? Basically, I don’t get why you’re so afraid of them (enough to be blase about their deaths), when they’re clearly not in your backyard, not in your area, not aiming at you, and certainly can’t get to you.
***No, I don’t support the killing of innocent civilians; I don’t support suicide bombers; I’m just wondering about some of the reasoning behind your arguments. War is horrible, yes, but that doesn’t mean it’s ok to talk about people dying as collateral damage like it’s a matter of fact… Because those are still people dying, in greater or smaller numbers, whether Israel does it, whether Hamas does it, whether they’re just unlucky. And to put them away as ‘collateral damage’, like they don’t matter, is completely inhumane, and that is what makes you sound so evil and vile, StevoR.
Yes you do, you disgusting liar.
Is this the pitiful lie you tell yourself so you can sleep at night with the delusion that you are a good and decent person, StevoR?
You are truly pathetic.
You want an excuse to do horrible thing B, and so you present horrible thing A, say it is worse than B, and that therefore the alternative to A is B, without even bothering to demonstrate that A is actually worse than B, and without even a trying to show that B can actually prevent or ameliorate A.
You also wilfully ignore alternatives C, D, E, F, and G, ALL of which are far less horrible than EITHER B or A, and all of which are viable alternatives to both B and A.
And when someone points this out to you, as I have MANY times, you just ignore them.
Your odious game is transparent. You WANT to do B. You WANT to do the horrible thing. You seek flimsy justification AFTER THE FACT. Your B doesn’t even stop A, but in fact increases the likelihood of more A done in retaliation to B. What you really want, as apparent by EVERYTHING you write, is a world with BOTH A and B, the more A the better, to continue giving you justification to do your masturbatory advocacy for horrible thing B.
Yes, StevoR, you are disgusting.
Can someone why our resident racist has such a hard on for Israel?
Tony,
My guess:
Because they are currently engaged in killing Muslims. If they weren’t, I don’t think StevoR would be terribly interested in how Jews are faring.
He doesn’t. He’s a disingenuous liar who uses Israel as an excuse for his bigotry.
See how he sweeps genocide under the rug as “some white folks did some bad things” when presented with the atrocities his people committed.*
His “Golly gee, I don’t want to have to kill the evil ones, but they leave us no choice” act is just that: an act.
*Bonus: I’m quoted in the Slymepit for my comments in that thread. And they’re still a big fan of ‘outing’ me as Ian Brown.
rq @305:
+1
I second everything you said there.
Brownian,
I’m sure StevoR is busily gathering support for the motion that descendants of white settlers get the hell off the continent and return Aboriginal peoples their land.
Or at least he will be, right after all those thieving Palestinians get off the land God gave to the Jews.
If I didn’t think StevoR was genuinely horrible my guess would be that he enjoys the perversion of Israel engaging in Lebensraum
Posted without comment*†:
A DEFENCE OF TERRORISM, by Paul Viminitz
*This is the first time I’ve been able to find any copy of the text, so I cannot verify this copy’s accuracy. Further, I’ve not yet read the piece, and I’m no philosopher.
†Full disclosure: the author’s son is one of my closest and oldest friends.
Brownian:
Well, they aren’t noted for their intelligence.
Brownian @309:
Thanks for that link. Damn, stevoR just digs and digs that hole. He is reasonable, compassionate, and logical UNTIL he discusses Islam, Muslims, jihadists, Israel, Gaza, and Palestine. Then he becomes a vile racist, genocidal, xenophobic fuckwit LIVING IN A COUNTRY THAT FACES NO IMMINENT THREAT OF ISLAMIC EXTREMISM.
StevoR, that is a broad fucking brush you are painting all Palestinians, and followers Islam, with.
to be thought of in the context of the history of interactions between Jews and Christianity’s adherents.
–
Notice how it is A-OK for StevoR to chose the “lesser” of two evils (the evil of which he himself will never have to face), when that “lesser” evil is bombing innocent children who happen to live on the same block as a suspected (not even proven) terrorist.
But when Palestinians chose the “lesser” of two evils in Hamas, an evil they have to live with every day of their lives, that’s just unconscionable and justifies them getting bombs rained down on their heads.
StevoR, disgusting hypocrite.
Killing non-white children is just “some bad things” to StevoR.
So this penguin is driving down the highway in his car when the check-engine light comes on and smoke starts billowing out. He gets the car to a garage, and the mechanic says he’ll need some time to check it out.
The penguin asks what he can do while he waits, and the mechanic says there’s an ice-cream parlor down the street. Of course, penguins love ice cream, but this penguin really loves ice cream. He has trouble eating it because of his flippers, but he just loves to eat ice cream. So it was a happy little penguin that went to the ice cream parlor, and a very happy penguin that rolled back into the garage a few hours later.
The mechanic sees the penguin, and says, “It looks like you blew a seal.”
“No, no,” says the penguin, “It’s just ice cream.”
@319:
Tee hee hee! :o
*snicker*
I have to disagree with you there. For example, during the US Rethuglican primaries, StevoR was rooting for Newt Gingrich to win the Presidency, because he (Gingrich) made a throwaway promise, while trying to win the Florida primary, that if he was elected, the private sector would produce a moonbase. That indicates that StevoR is at best on terms of distant acquaintanceship with reality.
Muslim riots in Australia – The Hamster Wheel
In fact, in the last real test of Palestinian opinion, the Parliamentary elections of 2005, Hamas won just under 45% of the vote. It’s generally conceded that this was in large part a protest against the corruption of Fatah, their main opponent and previously the overwhelmingly dominant force in Palestinian politics.
@319
Tee hee. Ha. :)
“Raghead Peril” StevoR can’t comprehend Muslims having thoughts other than DEATH TO THE WEST, thinks all Muslims and/or Arab-related people we know are terrorist supporters and advocates a (de-)Conversion or Death strategy unironically.
I feel both disgust and pity towards him.
Brownian:
Pfft. Weak sauce! ;-)
The whole thing’s paywalled, but there’s discussion available here.
Stop right there. Really, that’s more than sufficient for your point, moon base or no moon base.
For posterity: Someone linked to the Dungeon and showed up as a trackback. It was a preface for a podcast, which said in its entirety:
Seems that Reap Paden regularly contributes to podcasts on that site. I smell freeze peach and claims of persecution and screaming for FREEEEEEDOM, just around the corner.
Also for posterity, Reap Paden’s contribution here:
Ok, Internet access is MINE. MINE. MINE. No one else may partake of it.
:0
In all seriousness, when scholars look back into the mists of time looking for evidence of a teal deer, this post shall be it. No, I’m not full of myself. Yes, I am giving warning that this post will be long. Do not despair. There shall be paragraph breaks.
How religion fucked my sex life
I sat across from him, not five feet away, yet it felt like a vast gulf between us. I could see the pain in his eyes. You could cut the pain and anguish with a knife. He sat there in that state just before crying. You know that state. It’s the “I’ve got to be strong. I can’t give in. I can’t show this emotion. If I break down crying now, I will be a complete mess” state. I sat there wishing with every fiber of my being that I could do something to help him out. Yet there was nothing I could do other than offer my advice and my support. So I told Jim (obviously this is not his name, but since he is in the closet, I’m not about to out him in any way, shape or form):
“There is nothing wrong with you. You are a good person. What we did was consensual. We both wanted it. No one was hurt. There is no need to feel guilty or shameful. I enjoyed myself. I would like to do it again. But I can’t do that until you are more comfortable in your skin. I can tell the pain that you’re in. You are struggling tremendously and I hate that. I hate that you’re having to choose between your faith and your very identity. I wish you could know what it is like to not have that guilt. I wish you could know the freedom that comes with accepting and being happy with who you are. I’m not saying I’m better than you. I don’t believe that. No one is better than anyone else. But I do feel that I am more comfortable in my skin than you are currently. I look at you and I see the problem. You’re struggling with your religious belief and currently, that belief is winning. And you’re in pain. I can’t command you-nor would I want to-but I hope that you don’t lose my phone number. It seems to me that you don’t have many people to talk to. Few, if any people to open up to and discuss what’s going on in your head, without fear of judgment. I want you to know that if you need to talk…if you need to cry…call me. Text me. I will listen. I won’t judge you.”
With that, I left the hotel, with my head hung low.
Thursday of last week, I was bored and searching around online for something to do. At that point (and currently), I’m struggling financially. The job that I have is unable to provide enough money to pay my bills. Hell I’m writing this on my laptop from a bar where Wi Fi is available because my cable (thus my Internet access) has been cut off. I have no clue when I will be able to afford to reactivate it. Meh. First World problems. Anyways, I was checking out Adam4Adam, which is an online gay site for guys meeting guys. It serves to bring men together in search of dating, sex, threesomes. Whatever the heck they’re looking for. By and large, I’ve gotten past the desire to hook up for sex. At 37, I’m *beyond ready* to have something meaningful with another guy.
But I haven’t had sex in almost a year.
Enter Jim. I got a message from him saying he was intrigued by my profile and pictures (in short, my profile mentioned my appreciation for logic, reason, science and freethinking). He, however, had no pictures. I politely told him that while I appreciated the compliments, without a picture, I had no way of knowing if I was attracted to him. His response was to say that he was in the closet and was unable to come out at the time. I responded back that I take no issue with that, and that I wouldn’t judge him because he wasn’t out. I let him know that I’m well aware that people have their reasons for either staying in the closet or coming out of it, and given that I am not him and I’m not aware of what’s going on in his life, it is not my place to judge his decisions (even if I knew all the details-it is still not my life, it was his). After exchanging emails, he decided to send me pictures. To be honest, I was pleasantly surprised (in my experience, those without pictures for me to view don’t turn out to be my type): I found him attractive. We agreed to meet up Saturday night. He informed me that he would rather meet at a hotel instead of my house because even though I seemed like a nice guy, he couldn’t be too sure. I took no issue with that. It’s an entirely reasonable position.
Saturday rolled around and I met him at a hotel here in town. It was clear from the moment we entered the hotel room that Jim had not had any attention or contact in some time. He later told me that he hadn’t had any sexual interaction since the summer of 2011. Damn.
Fast forward through the fun.
We finished up and I looked at him and his demeanor had changed. His face was sunken. His head was tilted down. He looked lost in thought. I asked him what was wrong. He told me that he felt guilt. He felt ashamed. When I asked why, he told me it was because we did something he wasn’t supposed to do. Even though I *knew* what he was referring to, I asked anyways. He said because of his religious beliefs-Christianity to be exact-that what he did was wrong. Tears didn’t appear to be far behind.
Interlude:
I’ve never had any deep religious conversation with someone in meatspace. The ensuing conversation took up more time than the sex.
end Interlude
We hadn’t talked much about our chose occupations prior to meeting. I mentioned that I was a bartender, but he didn’t talk about his job. As we began chatting, I asked him what he did (at this point, given the guilt that I saw on his face, and the shame he felt, I suspected he was a priest). He asked me not to make fun of him or to laugh and I promised not to.
He told me he worked at a daycare center.
I looked at him and said “so what”. I let him know, in no uncertain terms that there was nothing wrong with that. There is no reason to shame someone for their job. If that’s what he’s chosen to do, who the fuck am I to judge him for it. Moreover, when he told me that he enjoys his job, I told him that I thought that was great. There are many people who do NOT enjoy their job. People that are miserable. That he *has* a job and it’s one that he enjoys is a good thing. I let him know my opinion of people who judge others based on their job.
They can suck the shit out of my asshole.
Moving on, he began to give details of his life and upbringing (it turns out he’s familiar with the city in Alabama that I lived in before I moved to Florida; small world, eh?). He waffled between telling his stories and feeling shameful. I made a point-multiple times-of letting him know that he did nothing wrong. No one was hurt. We both wanted to have sex. We both enjoyed ourselves. What is wrong with that. Of course, he replied with “it’s against the Bible”. After a short time, I told him I was an atheist. It didn’t really seem to affect him much. No shock. No derision. No criticism. No judgment. I was rather surprised.
Over the course of our conversation, I was able to explain many reasons why I am an atheist. I was able to channel the wonderful, intelligent, witty Greta Christina when I told him that supernatural explanations for the world have consistently been replaced by scientific ones over the course of human existence. I told him that I felt Christianity does not have the market cornered on religion…that there are many other religions. I told him that I don’t believe in *any* of the thousands of gods that humanity has created (and was able to mention that he is an atheist WRT all religions BUT one). He was unable to offer any proof of his god. He was unable to discuss why he believed what he did. I mentioned that one of the reasons many people have their religious beliefs was due to indoctrination from youth. He confirmed that he never really decided to be a believer, but rather, that it was just always there.
It turns out that Jim is one of those believers that *has* read the Bible. I asked him point blank-twice-if he had read the Bible. He said he’d read it cover to cover. Given his responses, I’m inclined to believe him. He was able to quote various portions of the Bible (not unlike joe 4060). He was able to locate-quickly-passages in the Bible that supported his position. We actually talked specific stories in the Bible. When I brought up how genocidal his God is, we discussed the story of the flood of Noah. I flat out told him that it’s ridiculous that we criticize Adolph Hitler and the Nazi’s for committing genocide, yet God is able to get a free pass. And that it doesn’t matter what the reason was. The end result was that countless people…innumerable living beings-from plants to animals and bacteria-were killed in a worldwide flood because of God. I told him that it makes *no* sense for God to punish humanity for actions that he created us to do. I asked Jim if God was omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent. His response was yes. To which I said, “why the hell did he punish humanity for doing something he created us to do?”
No answer.
I followed up with “It makes no sense that God punished humanity for doing the things he knew we were going to do…things he created us to do…things he knew in advance that we were going to do.”
Now don’t get me wrong. Jim didn’t sit there and look gobsmacked as I presented all this logic and lack of evidence. He was refuting. He made some counter examples to my criticisms of the Flood. He even made some interesting observations about *logic* that I, in my lack of experience, was unable to counter. He made an “argument” that I was countering his faith with logic, but that I was using logic on the same basis he used faith. I.E. that I was using logic as some sort of foundational principle, without being able to explain *why* logic is better than faith. I actually had to bow out of that argument. I agreed that logic makes more sense than faith, but I wasn’t able to explain why arguing logically makes more sense than arguing from faith. Again, this was all in the wake of having sex. I wasn’t exactly prepared to make arguments for atheism. Despite being at FtB for a few years and listening to the great argument provided by the bloggers and commenters here. For a few seconds, I felt like a failure. It didn’t last long. I told him that I didn’t feel confident enough to pursue that line of reasoning. I couldn’t argue his point. I conceded. Only to my lack of knowledge.
(at this point, I was metaphorically kicking myself in the ass because I felt I *should* have been better)
At one point he brought up…THE ARGUMENT FROM COMPLEXITY. He started saying “Imagine if you were walking along on a deserted island and you came upon…” To which I said “oh hell no! You are not bringing up the Argument from Design”. He said that’s what he was doing. It’s so damn funny, because I was exploring that very argument last week. I was able to refute his point. I was able to point out that if a watch requires a more complex designer to create it…and that creator is God…then something more complex had to design God. Of course he issued the standard response “God is eternal and requires no creator”. My response was that if it’s possible for something to exist without a creator, why can’t it be the universe.
Crickets chirping.
We also discussed other Christians. He couldn’t understand how some xtians were able to rationalize their beliefs and their sexuality. He felt they were trying to have their cake and eat it too. He even told me they weren’t *true Christians*.
At which point, I yelped “Oh no you didn’t pull an No True Scotsman Fallacy??!” He was unfamiliar with this. My brain kicked in enough to pull out my cellphone and bring up Wikipedia’s definition, which I read off to him. He didn’t have much to say.
We discussed how religious beliefs are justified by people for a variety of reasons, but no reason is superior to another, especially since there is no proof of any of them.
Proof was something else he wasn’t able to offer. When I asked him why he believed in his religion but no others, he had no defense.
At this point, I need to mention that he frequently displayed uncertainty about his beliefs. Sometimes he would say “I believe in the Bible” or “I believe in the truth of the Bible”. Other times, he would say “IF I believe what the Bible says is true.” Those times were quite telling. It told me that he wasn’t completely confident in his beliefs and was searching for a way to retain his beliefs while being gay.
I think I shocked him more than once. At one point, he attempted an analogy. He tried to compare
our enjoyable night or pleasure with the actions of a serial killer.
Yeah.
You read that right.
I shut shit down FAST.
I told him that the actions of a serial killed have a negative, detrimental impact on other human beings. Serial killers KILL people. What we did hurt no one. There is no comparison. Moreover, the very comparison is wrong and insulting.
This was the only time where I came across as trying to “know better”. Because making that comparison was FUCKED UP.
He accepted that it was a faulty analogy and backpeddeled. Which was good.
I was saddened further when I noticed him grabbing his clothes. He had informed me that he’d never woken up to a guy and how much he looked forward to doing so. He even asked me when I arrived if I wanted to. My response was “of course”. To see him gathering his clothes, I could see how much things changed. I asked him if he wanted to leave and his response was yes. I didn’t try to stop him. I didn’t try to change his mind. I just reminded him that there was nothing wrong with what we did. I reminded him that his God created everything and nothing happens or will happen against his will. I told him “Remember, you turned out the way your God wanted.”
I also told him literally, that everything we talked about cemented in my mind that activism is where I need to focus my energies. To see him sitting there struggling…nearly crying…
…I’m not joking when I say that even as I type this, I’m having a hard time NOT crying.
I told him that I feel religion is bad. That while religion has some good aspects to it, I feel that religious belief is detrimental and hurts humanity far more than it benefits us. I told him that because he was able to bring things down to Earth…that he was able to make things more personal for me in a way that I’d never done before. It was different this time. Despite this, I made a point of saying that while I’m against religion, I want to persuade people out of religion. I told him that I don’t want to force or coerce people out of their beliefs. I want to convince people to abandon their superstitious beliefs. I want to do so with no bloodshed. No violence. No manipulation.
I just. want. to. talk.
I hadn’t discussed religious beliefs with someone THIS deeply before.
I hadn’t been able to see the harm in religious belief on a personal level before this.
Now, I had.
Now, I was able to see how fucked up religion makes people.
Now, I was able to see, without any doubt, that I need to do my part to rid the world of religion.
****
At various points during this conversation, I was having flashbacks to the discussion in the Thunderdome with joe4060. I even referred to it a few times. So many of the regulars here are so good at arguing their point. They have the scientific knowledge. They have the experience arguing. I’m not there yet. I want to be one day. I hope that at some point in the future, I’m able to refute the argument I faced this weekend with the strength, knowledge and confidence I see from so many of you.
Fuck. I’m about to cry again.
This site has changed my life.
This weekend has given me a renewed focus and drive.
There are so many people to thank. So many influential people.
Thank you PZ Myers.
Thank you Ed Brayton.
Thank you to all the regulars at FtB.
Thank you to all the bloggers at FtB.
You have all made a difference.
Never forget that.
I know I never will.
Tony, you are a compelling and engaging writer. I’m always excited to read your comments, even when they’re not very happy, like the above.
Thank you for sharing this painful story.
Brownian:
Ah…thank you.
It’s funny you say that.
You are one of the regulars who I measure myself against and strive to be more like.
(Cue the anti FtB crowd chanting “you’re patting yourselves on the back”)
You did good, Tony. To hear someone say with conviction that there’s nothing wrong with gay sex — I think that’s one of the most important things that guys like Jim need to hear. So yeah, you did good.
I echo sgbm. Standing up for reality, for humanity, for life. Thanks. And sympathy.
I second that one (for different specific reasons, but the same general ones).
Wow, Tony. That must have been pretty devastating. fwiw, it sounds like you handled the situation well – you were really good to this guy, but without taking any shit either (the “serial killer” comparison). You know, I think Jim was really lucky to meet you. Who knows if he’s able to take on board all the help and arguments you had to offer – now, or maybe some time in the future – but you offered him more positive support than it sounds like he’s ever had before!
I’m sorry the whole situation was so painful. But I appreciate your telling us about it. And I hope you’re ok, and that Jim is able someday to recover from religion and all the harm that it has done him.
Who gives a flying fuck about those bigoted headsuptheirasses. I just got in a new supply of clue-by-fours (hands them out to the regulars). Tony, grog is free for the next week.
Sgbm, Ogvorbis, opposablethumbs:
Thank you for the kind words.
Tony, I think you did *great*. You did everything right, you said everything right. Let’s hope it all helps Jim out as he goes along in his life. Every voice which says it’s perfectly normal to be gay, it’s perfectly normal to have and enjoy sex is an important one, and the more of those Jim hears, the better.
QFMFT.
Oh, Tony. You’re Good People. Don’t be discouraged if he comes away from it more upset than ever – it’s going to take him a long, long time to process all of that. But man, I don’t think there’s any way anyone could have handled that any better than you did.
Tony ∞2012 recipient of the coronal mass erection∞
I lurk through pretty much every thread and there’s a few commenters I always make a point of reading. That post is an example of why you’re one of them. That took guts to write and I think you did a pretty damn good job, hopefully what your words can help Jim.
Um, crying again.
I’ve been feeling useless lately. Not being able to pay bills or hang out with friends or take vacations…having to ask for financial help from my parents–> it has been stressful. To hear the support from you all means SO FUCKING MUCH.
Nerd, Caine, carlie-thank you.
StevoR
“…ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.”
You’re welcome. Have some more grog (I get the profits from the grog, Patricia controls the swill, and the Pullet Patrol™ tries to drink both of us out of business).
Check the contract. It specifically states that you get the ‘prophets’ from the grog. Not profits, prophets. Don’t blame me, I didn’t proof read the damned thing.
Oggie:
I thought that was amended.
After all, I don’t think Nerd wants to keep Pat Robertson. False prophets count, right?
Nope. Tpyos got that one too. The contract was emended.
Tony:
Awww, fuck.
Just, aww fuck. That’s all I have time for right now. Not because I don’t want to just take the time to hold you until everything is better. Not because you don’t deserve more than that. But the first is physically improbable, and the second won’t happen because I have other folks I have to take care of (and they will take care of me).
But, aww, fuck.
I’m coming back to this later, hopefully after it’s too late, hopefully after you’ve resolved all of this in the best possible way.
Until then, know that I’m thinking about you (for whatever the fuck that’s worth), and I’m really hoping everything gets easier soon (also, for what that’s worth).
And, thank you for sharing your story. It’s going to stick with me for a very, very long time.
Tony:
I can hardly imagine what that must have been like. Well done.
Are you still on fairly good terms with him? You didn’t make it sound like there was animosity, just a very contentious argument.
Actually, since there is a handshake between confirmed atheists, Patricia and I have been scrupulous about honoring our contract. As is show by our exchanged P/F statements, certified by Pullet CPA, INC.™. ;) Since my accountants are Rooster CPA, INC™, the Pullets are honest. They don’t want extensive audits for some strange reason…
Tony, you done good.
Faith draws from emotion while logic draws from intellect. The Bible says “faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” (Hebrews 11:1 NIV) So faith is ultimately based on hope and wishful thinking. Many religious faithful want gods to exist and despite a lack of evidence for these gods they believe in them anyway. Many atheists reach atheism because we look at gods logically and see not only a lack of evidence for them but the numerous contradictions involved in the common characteristics attributed to most gods.
Do I want to know what the confirmation process is for atheists?
Tony,
You are amazing. I cannot imagine having the poise to deal with that situation so well in real time. Thank you for sharing.
Alla this right here what Caine said, Tony. It’s about the social/cultural environment, and changing it, no different for the acceptance and acceptability of non-hetero issues, as for fostering the cultural unacceptablilty of misogyny, racism, etc.
Also, *manymanymanyhugs*
And, who knows, perhaps one day, Jim may remember your conversation with him as one of the steps along his own route of self-acceptance, without guilt.
–
See, kids; spelling is important, so stay in school!
</Public Service Announcement>
–
Well, first there’s lots of paperwork. I mean lots. I’m not talking about paperwork for an atheist confirmation. There’s just so much paperwork for everything else that I figured it should be mentioned. It’s just always there.
Then, the official confirmation ceremony proceeds as follows:
Bishop of Atheism*: “Are you an atheist?”
Initiate: “Yes.”
Bishop: “That means you don’t believe in god, right?”
Initiate: “Yes.”
Bishop: “I knew that. Just checking.”
Initiate: “Okay.”
Bishop: “Alright, see you later.”
Initiate: “Later.”
*In exceptional circumstances, it may be conducted** by another consecrated minister, authorized by a Bishop or the Atheist Pope. (For example, Americans are always exceptional, while Canadians never are).
**This conductor, while driving a train, directs*** an SATB choir which sings the part of the Bishop.
***They go in the direction of the train.
nigelthebold
“How is the evolution of citric-metabolizing e. coli in the Lenski experiments not proof of evolution?”
How IS it proof of evolution?
You are not looking at the big picture.
Even if it were true, it still does not overide the fact that mutations are caused by a LOSS of gentic information. This is going downhill. Evolution requires an uphill increase in information.
Whether a mutation may be of benefit (rarely) is beside the point.
The overall gemomic ‘bank account’ is being spent. There are only withdrawls being made. No deposits. A few ‘funds’ being moved around in experiments within the ‘account’ does not alter the net position.
Nature is falling apart not “evolving.”
The earth will grow old like a garment, and those who dwell in it will die in like manner. Isaiah 51:6
An item of clothing always loses fibers until it becomes full of holes.
The loss of genetic information caused by mutations is having the same effect on natures overall genomic ‘account.’
Joe,
Are we running out of words?
Conductors do NOT drive trains. They are the boss of the train. They tell the engineer where to go and how to get there. And make sure that all train crew obey all rules in effect for that train.
Sorry, but these are very special conductors. They have been consecrated to drive the train. So, you see? We both have perfectly good facts: the ones you actually know, and the ones I just made up. Mine are just better than yours, but that’s okay.
And speak of the devil! joe4060 has some new nonsense for us. I’ve really been looking forward to that.
nerd of the red head
“And your claim needs to have conclusive physical evidence that isn’t explained by science.”
The universe had a beginning, which means that at one time it did not exist.
Something that does not exist, cannot bring itself into existence.
What are we standing on?
Then they are not conductors. They are not even semi-conductors. They would then be locomotive engineers (or, in England, engine drivers). This is not Christianity. Words actually have meanings.
Time is part of the universe, no universe, no time. No problem.
Thank you for an excellent argument that gods not only don’t exist but cannot exist.
joe4060:
No. That is not the case. Again you are quoting somebody you trust, and showing that you know nothing and think nothing.
Mutations are CHANGES in the genetic code, not losses. In some cases, they are doubling of sections of code, which then changes, which is an INCREASE.
And, again, mutations are not the only factor in genetic evolution. Sex, and its gene-mixing, happens every generation, and makes CHANGES in the mixture of inherited characteristics—you get your mom’s eyes and your dad’s nose—AND provides an opportunity for copying errors, also called mutations.
We have sex so we can evolve. If we weren’t evolving, we’d just be cloning and passing on only our own genes.
In most of the world, it is a rare offspring that survives. The “rarely beneficial” mutation is going to help that rare survivor.
And, again, gene mixing is a bigger factor than mutations.
No. Bad analogy. Wrong.
The money is being lent to various businesses, those that prosper have money to lend to (mostly) similar businesses. The best of those pass on money to their various imitators. Wealth grows.
And how do you support that statement? Are not we all taller, healthier and longer-lived than a few generations back? Aren’t people better looking? Would you like to tangle with a “fallen apart” tiger?
(My gods, you have a depressing attitude. Does that come with your religion, or just with your personal issues?)
Oh, your religion. Sign me up for a big fucking dose of that. /sarc
I am NOT spending eternity with you.
And a newborn cub grows into a big, strong tiger, which will rip your face off.
But there isn’t a loss. And Nature has zillions of different accounts. Those that “gain”, in your clumsy comparison, invest in the future.
By the dog, you are stupid.
Ditto for your imaginary deity. How did it come to exist? PUT UP OR SHUT THE FUCK UP.
WHICH IS YOU IMAGINARY DEITY. YOU LOSE. END OF STORY. TIME TO FADE INTO THE BANDWIDTH, AS YOU ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR MAIN PRESUPPOSITION IS FALSE…
joe4060:
Give
It
Up.
You make less and less sense each time you post.
And you still have not refuted anything nigel has said.
You still worship a genocidal monster.
You still haven’t explained why you believe Jesus Christfucker is real but other gods are not.
Your mythology makes less sense than Egyptian mythology.
Zeus is nicer than your god.
There is no value in belief in Christ. People succeed or fail without that sacrificial lamb.
Nothing in reality supports the existence of your god or any others.
Your religion offers false hope and an easy out for responsibility.
Christianity causes people to reject logic; to open their minds to nonsense.
It creates for humanity a foundation of despair and misplaced guilt.
Your religion offers no coherent morality. Pagan beliefs are held as more deplorable than rape.
Christianity fills children with dread if they do wrong. It fills adults with harmful information on how to conduct themselves. Your religion hinders the goal of bettering humanity.
Your religion rips families apart. It tears relationships asunder. It places greater value on meaningless bullshit than on human happiness. Your religious beliefs impede science. Your beliefs are an impediment to our growth as a species. Your beliefs cause real, demonstrable harm and offer nothing tangible to cling to. Your religion offers false hope and views life through a lens of pain and suffering.
What precious little is good about your religion (i.e.community, art, architecture) can be had without it.
Please, renounce your belief in god. Throw away the shackles that imprison you. Reject the teachings that prevent joy and happiness.
Live your life.
Do not be a slave to an imaginary god.
joe @360:
<<what are we standing on?<<
I know you're fond of ignoring that which you disagree with, but I answered this– we are standing on a 4 billion+ year old planet.
Dhorvath, Rodney Nelson, consciousness razor, bargearse, cicely, nigelTheBold:
I very much appreciate the kind words.
Tony, your Jim is a rare person in that he is trying to live by his religion. He can’t, but he is trying, and I commend him for that.
I once knew, in the most biblical sense, a woman who had some sort of theological degree. One energetic evening, in the aftermath, I asked how she had ever managed to stay celibate long enough to get through bible college. She laughed, said, “Oh, I didn’t”, and told me a few stories.
Others have since confirmed my understanding that most Christians do not conform to their own rules, even in sexual matters, and rarely in anything else.
Jim sounds like a good person, and you were a good man for talking with him.
We do not know this is true. It does not need to be true. You’ve already been told this.
If it were true the universe had a beginning, that is not what it have to mean. It would only have to mean there is a finite amount of time in the past. Time could have begun with the universe, meaning if it began at all, there could have been no time when which the universe did not exist. You’ve already been told that too.
And if there were a time when the universe did not exist, that’s fine too. Something could have come from nothing. You’ve already been told that too.
All of those are viable possibilities. So you’re basically reminding us that even though we’re not sure what the origins of the universe were like, so far we know we have lots of options, none of which need a god.
So where is this going? When are you ever going to give us evidence for a god? I’ll even be satisfied if it isn’t your god. Any god would do. Just get to the fucking point, if you have one.
I’m not standing. I’m sitting. Are you standing at the computer?
Consciousness razor:
We parted on good terms. The ball is in his court as to what the future holds.
Also, the conversation we had was nearly the opposite of what I had imagined an atheist/theist debate to be. It was *very* civil on both our parts.
StevoR, and other anti-Muslims. I’ve lived and worked with Muslims, in Indonesia, and worked with others elsewhere. I can confirm that you are wrong in every way.
The only thing wrong with Muslims, as a group, is that they are a religious group. The same holds for Christians and Jews.
Israel, by the way, has no justification for its existence as a nation. The Israelis are acting as colonial invaders, and are not treating the local people well. Their only excuse for all they do is the Jewish religion, and the Jews, if you recall, reject the Prince of Peace.
The Christians who support Israel are doing so for religious reasons, many of them directly dedicated to bringing about the end of the world. American support for Israel is a direct violation of the Constitution.
That said, and for clarity, I do not support the destruction of Israel. You assuming that is your own twistedness.
THE EARTH, WHICH IS FULLY EXPLAINED BY SCIENCE WITHOUT THE NEED FOR YOUR IMAGINARY DEITY. WHY CAN’T YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT THAT WHICH ISN’T NEEDED, NOR YOU CAN EXPLAIN WHY IT CAME TO BE….
Dang my response in # 373 should be in response to:
this fuckwittery from Joe. Nothing else needs to change and Joe has a lot of splainin’ to do….
I hate to digress from the Joe’s richly deserved beating, but I need some advice on how to deal with an anti-choice goon on Facebook.
To make a long story short, I posted a thought on how denying a person welfare was morally comparable to murder when an old peer from high school decided to chime in with a non sequitur about abortion. I jumped down the misogynistic lackwit’s throat straight away and following battle ensued (the names have been changed to prevent a lawsuit):
I’m too pissed right now to think straight. Any suggestions about how I should parse my final respond to this right-wing pile of shit before I swing my Unfriend-hammer?
[Muses over the creationist’s dribblings]
He forgot the scare quotes around “fact”.
This is entertaining. I’m fairly certain that whether it can be beneficial is exactly the point regarding whether the mutation can be acted upon by natural selection. Whether it is less or more “genetic information” that causes this benefit is what is beside the point.
The poor thing failed Bio 101, I see. Here, joe, let me try: Mutation is not just deletions (insertions happen too!). Not every part of DNA that mutations would occur in are functioning genes (there even some non-functional copies of existing genes that mutations are free to accumulate on and alter!). Not all genes were created equal (nor are all RNAs, nor are all proteins), so even if it were just changing from one gene to the next, it wouldn’t be like a choice between genetic stagnation or a death spiral. And, of course, to illustrate all of that, there are plenty of creatures with larger genomes than us that we deem simple organisms. There are plenty of creatures with very small genomes that would deem more complex than the former. You are so ignorant that you don’t know you are ignorant.
I was actually just thinking, in light of the handwaving dismissal of virtual particles as a counterexample to “nothing can come from nothing”, that the philosophical types have defined “nothing” in a way that it cannot possibly exist. If the universe and existence is something, if a vacuum is something, then we really can never find “nothing” to confirm that “nothing” comes from it. Reality, by their definition, is “something” all the way down, and thus nothing is inherently not-real. And thus comes the sneering about believing that something can come from nothing: Because how can believe that nothing can do things! “Nothing” doesn’t exist in the way they define it. Even though, despite it not existing, they apparently know what this non-existent non-thing can and cannot do. So, basically: “Nothing” is basically a category like the supernatural, except treated with contempt by those who prefer their supernatural to be just another kind of “something”.
Didn’t we already go over the fact that joe is the only one standing on Bibles?
At what point does joe4060 get punted for insipidity?
–
cicely:
stevoRacist is still spewing his bullshit. I think I’d rather deal with the fuckwitted creationist idjit over him.
Akira’s FB Moron sez:
Akira’s FB Moron sez before that:
So, basically, how dare you think of a child as a punishment, it is only a consequence of sex that it is acceptable to free a woman from if she didn’t consent to that sex. Akira, your FB Moron apparently doesn’t know what “consequence” means. Or what “punishment” means. Or both.
Also ironic is “In your little mind nobodies opinion matters.” As if his “little mind” remark is any more reflective of acceptance of others’ opinions. It is projection and hypocrisy all the way down. I don’t know what you should do for a grand finale, but maybe wait until you have a clearer head, and make it epic.
Does justin vacula have his brain set to stupid 24/7? I too am sure there are women who would have accepted EG’s proposal. What is the point of mentioning something that obvious? Oh wait, I forgot how much the windbag loves to talk about Rebecca Watson. He can’t join a conversation and talk about much else (there is the occasional sniping at PZ and Ophelia and Stephanie and Greta; and of course he also has to chime in to show his support for Wooly Bumblefuck aka Lousy Human being).
Damn. Wrong thread.
@ Tony #330
You are one cool human being (and a damn fine writer too.)
Don’t be hard on yourself either, you handled really well.
That is actually an easy one. Logic is based on reality, while faith is a bootstrapped fantasy uprooted from the real world. There is no equivalence to be made between these worldviews, they are fundamentally different and mutually exclusive.
@Akira MacKenzie
Even hardcore rethuglicans like rMoney and Ryan (*spits*) go for this argument. It shows their opposition is moralistic. They essentially see abortion as “appropriate” punishment for having sex. They just (amazingly) cannot bring themselves to punish rape victims.
IMHO, I would not have made the initial statement you made about equivalence of “denying a person welfare” and murder. (If you mean that you find both morally repulsive, perhaps rather just state that.)
You might point out that the two sentences contradict each other. By “consequences” xe is really meaning “punishments”. (You could ask hir to explain this and watch hir squirm, but on the other hand it is easier to unfriend.)
@ Tony
I blame Rebecca Watson! ;)
joe4060:
Oh, for fuck’s sake. Virtual particles. They pop into existence all the fucking time. Here’s a nickel, kid. Buy yourself some modern physics.
The adults are here dealing with some serious shit. Go out in the streets and play.
antepropro:
Well, I do think we ought to judge people by their opinions and think less of those who think demonstrably wrong or morally repugnant things. Fuckwit’s inital reaction was “Hey! I didn’t do anything wrong! What gives? I just have a different opinion.”
Well, I don’t give a fuck. Your opposition to legal abortion automatically makes you a misogynistic thug, no debate, no discussion. Your precious opinion makes you scum, Fuckwit.
theophontes: Quite a nice day here for December.
We must note that, unlike that bigotted wanker, YHWH, not all gods were so:
Almighty Zeus was bisexual and loved both men and women (creating much jealous resentment fom his wife.)
The Greeks great (greatest?) hero, Achilles was also bisexual, sharing his bed with Patroclus (with and without their consorts).
joe4060:
Uhm, because an organism that couldn’t do something suddenly gained the ability to do something.
That’s evolution.
Which big picture is that? The black velvet picture of Jesus above your bed?
Or are you talking about the fact that we observed a transforming mutation within 20 years? Oh, it’s not the first time. We’ve been doing that for well over one-hundred and fifty years. No, what’s interesting here is, we noted down exactly which genes changed. We charted the exact mutations required.
What’s cool is, this fits right in with what we’ve observed before. The only difference is, we know exactly what happened this time.
This is just one more tiny piece of evidence supporting evolution. It’s the whole “an hypothesis predicts things, a theory is proved right” thing. This isn’t the only thing that evolution predicted. It’s just the best-documented case of specific mutation.
So yes, my little turtle dove, I am looking at the big picture.
What the fuck are you talking about? This is your black swan, Chief. This specific mutation was a gain of genetic information. This is in direct opposition of your claim (quoted above) that mutations are caused by a LOSS of gentic (sic) information. You are trying to make a CLAIM that is in direct opposition to what we’ve OBSERVED.
All you’re doing is proving you’re the dogmatic one. You continue to make assertions that are in direct contradiction to what we’ve OBSERVED.
So go on and claim that mutations only result in a LOSS of information. Everyone that reads here will know you’re just fucking lying at this point. It’s been demonstrated that in at least one well-documented case, mutations resulted in a GAIN of information.
So keep lying. At this point, the only person you’re lying to is yourself.
Okay. Too many whiskey sours to respond to things that need actual thought. (Yeah, I’m looking at you, Tony.) So I’m going to bed.
All I hope is, tomorrow will be better for all of us. Not that today was bad. But it’d be great if tomorrow were better.
Also, Tony: if you’re on Facebook, I’m Anthony Taylor in Ohio, once from Thorne Bay Alaska. Feel free to ignore me, or send a friend request, if you’re into that sort of thing. (Shit, it’s not like I’m one to judge. I like ice cream sandwiches. And yes, you’re supposed to take that dirty.)
Also: Logic is a common denominator. Faith-heads don’t use faith instead of logic; they use it when logic doesn’t get them what they want. They still agree that logic works just fine in arenas that they haven’t set aside for faith. Also, logic is a method/tool to arrive at conclusions, which is intersubjective, whereas faith is arbitrary, seemingly having to do more with personal preference than determining what is true, and is purely subjective. It seems kind of desperate and confused to conflate logic and faith, but then that’s Christian apologia.
Ah, I think you might have misunderstand my suggestion that you get a clearer head: I fully support eviscerating him. Just make sure you are calm enough to be articulate about it. Leave enough rage to make you passionate, but enough to leave you blind.
HUH???
OK, I admit that my BA was in Mass Communications/Journalism and my knowledge of advanced life sciences was limited to high school biology (I was more into physics and astronomy and took my college science electives accordingly), but I did glean enough to know that a mutation is a CHANGE in genetic information, not a “LOSS.”
anteprepro and theophontes:
THANK YOU! I knew there was something bugging me about Fuckwit’s objection to referring to a child as a “punishment” and his demand for “consequences” for sex. I was just so mad at him I couldn’t put my finger on it.
@ A.R
Overcast again.
anteprepro, theophontes:
Thank you both for your comments re: logic.
That’s exactly what I was looking for.
****
nigelTheBold:
I’ll be sending you a message on FB.
theophontes: That’s nice.
nigelTheBold:
Having trouble finding you on FB.
Are you on PET? It may be easier for me to find you that way.
@ A.R
No worries.
@ Akira, Tony
Hope that helps :)
Poor poor joe makes a fool of himself yet again.
Mutations are caused by chemical reactions that have nothing to do with information one way or another. It is mutations that can CAUSE loss of genetic information AS WELL AS gain of information.
Evidence that mutations cause GAIN of information:
http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/14/2794.full
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/09/19/the-birth-of-the-new-the-rewiring-of-the-old/#comments
http://pleiotropy.fieldofscience.com/2012/10/pleiotropy-saves-day-for-evolving-new.html
Joe, you need to stop staring at your fictional picture, however big it might be, and instead start looking out your window at the real world.
Yet another demonstration of joe’s sad, sad incompetence.
http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/time-before-big-bang
Time was created along with the rest of the universe. There has NEVER been and will never be a “time” when the universe did not exist. By definition.
Poor, poor joe.
Still perseverating on this unevidenced assertion over and over and over and over and over again. Like a broken tape recorder.
Sadly pitiful, really.
By the way, Joe, most mutations cause no net change in information. Really, go ahead and look it up.
Of course, poor incompetent joe doesn’t apparently realize that the E. coli evolution of citrate metabolism is EXACTLY an example of an increase in genetic information.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7417/full/nature11514.html
To gain the ability to metabolize citrate aerobically, the E. coli GAINED genetic information, and thanks to Lenski’s team, we have figured out the precise nature of the gain.
It duplicated a gene, increasing the total length of its genome, then it took one duplicated copy of that gene and combined it with a new regulatory element, creating a NEW COMBINATION (new combination = new information, just as taking the word “I” and the word “am” and combining them into a the sentence “I am” creates new information), and then it duplicated that new combination several times more, creating even more new genetic information.
And, incidentally, evolution DOESN’T require an uphill increase in information either. If you start from a super high information state and gradually change to a lower information state, that is STILL evolution.
Evolution can both increase and decrease information.
This, by the way Joe, is also the reason your metabolism works. Hemoglobin (the protein that carries oxygen in your blood) is made up of four subunits of two types of related protein. Both of these are related to the protein that stores oxygen in your muscles, which is called myoglobin. (ti’s also what makes your muscles red due to its iron content, just like hemoglobin makes your blood red.) The genes for the parts for hemoglobin were accidentally duplicated a very long time ago, and since they were extra copies, it wasn’t a big deal in terms of natural selection if one of the copies didn’t work as myoglobin anymore. So the extra copies began to accumulate mutations that changed the way they worked, allowing them to bind oxygen under slightly different conditions that optimized them for transporting oxygen in blood, and allowed them to bind to each other to make this process more efficient.
At this point, joe has managed to demonstrate that it:
1. doesn’t understand how evolutionary theory works
2. doesn’t understand the meaning of “selection”
3. doesn’t understand the nature of mutations
4. cannot distinguish the difference between a process and an object
5. doesn’t know the meaning of the word “simplest”
6. doesn’t understand the nature of time
7. doesn’t understand probability
8. doesn’t understand the concept of information
9. doesn’t know the meaning of the word “gain”
10. doesn’t know the meaning of the word “require”
11. doesn’t understand the meaning of the word “proof”
12. cannot comprehend the concept of evidence
13. doesn’t know the meaning of the word “alter”
14. doesn’t know the meaning of the word “changeless”
15. doesn’t even quote its own bible properly
the poor, poor man must be masochistic, to continuously humiliate himself so.
Sometimes it’s nice to come to Thunderdome after a few hours of tutoring introductory biology students and realize that yes, there are people on this planet who know even less than they do.
For joe’s edification, let us translate the genetic information in Lenski’s E. coli into plain english, and see exactly what the mutation did:
Originally, the genetic information read as follows:
If there is no oxygen around transport citrate into the cell. If there is oxygen around do these things that you need to have oxygen around to do.
The mutation duplicated “transport citrate into the cell” and inserted the second copy at a random site that happened to be between the second “around” and “do”.
After the mutation, the genetic information now reads as follows:
If there is no oxygen around transport citrate into the cell. If there is oxygen around transport citrate into the cell, do these things that you need to have oxygen around to do.
Notice how we now have more total letters, and a NEW SENTENCE that wasn’t there before, which provides a wholly new instruction: “If there is oxygen around transport citrate into the cell”. Notice how by rearranging the words we create a new sentence, with new meaning. ie NEW INFORMATION?
Ogvorbis @361 re: conductors
So there’s a tram conductor, and one day he’s a bit careless and happens to run over a pedestrian. Big court case, but he gets off easy because of labour situations and whatnot. A few weeks later he’s back on the job, and what with one thing and another, he runs over another pedestrian. Big court case again, he gets a bunch of fines and some prison time, but eventually gets back out and goes back to work.
Well, whaddaya know, a few weeks go by quietly and he finally thinks he’s got things under control, but then – BAM – kills another pedestrian. This time, no matter how good his lawyers are, he’s got three strikes against him, so they give him the death sentence by electric chair.
They strap him in and ask him for his last request, so he thinks about it for a bit and asks for a banana.
Then they turn on lowest power, but nothing’s happening. They try medium power, still nothing – finally, they turn it on to full power, but the guy’s just sitting there waiting for something to happen. Well, after three tries they have to let him go, but they ask him, what the hell is going on? Why didn’t the electric chair work for him, since it had all been checked and double-checked before?
“Well,” he answers, scratching his head, “I guess I’m just a bad conductor.”
rq:
Hahahahaha!
That was too funny!
rq, that’s a good one. I’d heard it with an orchestra leader and green bananas, but never a tram. Thanks.
====
joe4060, time is one of the dimensions of this spacetime universe. Back when it had no dimensions, it had no time, either.
Time is kind of like the shockwave of the Big Bang, surfing us all out and away. Time isn’t the fourth dimension, it is the first dimension. The three spatial dimensions just suck in comparison.
—
You keep worrying about something coming from nothing. Well, the universe is pretty much still nothing. There are only a few atoms per cubic meter, on average, and each of those atoms is mostly empty inside. You could crush all the real matter of the universe into neutronium, and it would fit inside the orbit of Saturn. We only see stars because they glow, and can see them for billions of light-years because there is nothing in between—the universe is empty by any earthly standard.
You remember on 9/11 when all planes were grounded and the skies were empty? Well, there were a few kids flying model airplanes. Would you say the skies were full, then? No, they were still empty, but they were more full than the universe is.
Something has come from nothing, in a way, but bloody little, really. So stop nattering about it.
You have already been shown this is not true. Here’s another example – Flavobacterium that has evolved to eat nylon. Nylon did not exist until the last century. It evolved to eat the nylon chemicals being spilled into a creek by a factory. THIS IS A BENEFIT TO THE BACTERIA. They can now eat something they couldn’t eat before. This is not a shuffling. This is a net addition, and is now the predominant allele/eating type in that kind of bacteria in that environment.
Why do you think that, apart from that Bible verse?
That’s exactly the point!!!! You can handwave and claim “rarely” as much as you want, but that is simply not true. Mutations are neutral to positive a decent percentage of the time, and when they are positive, they spread very quickly and become the majority allele. THAT IS EVOLUTION.
Typical Christian godbot, with a gloomy view.
Evolution — it literally means an ‘unfolding’.
(“Endless forms most beautiful”)
Quite a difference from the view that once was perfection, and every generation is lesser than its progenitor’s.
(To paraphrase Morris and Pratchett: rising apes, not fallen angels are we)
Menyambal @411
I’m just left wondering what an orchestra conductor would have done to bet sentenced to the electric chair… :/ :)
Butcher Mahler, maybe?
Have you ever played in an orchestra or symphonic band? If you have, why would you even ask that? If you haven’t, you should. Then you would understand.
What do you do with a person who has no musical ability but wants to be in the band? Give them two sticks and make them a drummer. What do you do if xe can’t play the drums? Take away one stick and make hir the conductor.
Well, he has been dead for over a century. I doubt you should age meat that long.
Ogvorbis
I have indeed played in an orchestra. And yes, I know how mean and caustic conductors can get. I was just wondering because I have never heard the musical version before.
(And while I know it’s a joke, I have some serious problems with indirectly implying that conductors have no musical ability.)
myeck waters
After I finish laughing… Butcher? Skewer, more like… And Mahler’s easy to butcher. :P He’s all grandiose drama with lots of big-music-moments. Like Wagner.
Mozart, now. I know a lot of music-lovers would go ape-shit if you do anything wrong with Mozart. Or play Bach on the piano with pedal. That one seems to get a lot of judges and juries in a tizzy (but it’s not unallowed – just not the convention, at least in North America).
consciousness razor
I hear the longer you age meat, the better it gets. True/false?
The pigs I left out didn’t survive too well, but maybe composers are different – as long as they’re not de-composing, they’re fit for butchering…
This is a pretty silly circular argument. Kind of like an affirmation of the consequent with a wonky premise.
Ogvorbis just has baton envy.
Personally, I’d love to hear more modern interpretations of Mozart. I mean, if I’m going to hear any more interpretations of Mozart, they may as well be different.
Well, some light pedaling now and then can be a really useful effect. Nothing too heavy, though. And if you’re not playing on a harpsichord anyway, I don’t see why it should be such a big deal. Unless the pedaling makes the piece just sound awful, of course.
I often feel like anything done with Mozart is wrong. There are many composers I get excited within a bar or two, but Mozart is not one of them.
I don’t really know. Vegetarian. Also not a cannibal.
I’d go with “false.” There’s probably always a peak, after which more “aging” makes things go downhill. Meat from the Paleozoic, for example: probably aged a bit too much, no matter what kind it is or how you do it.
consciousness razor
I’m with you about the Mozart. He gets a bit overdone. And he would be good with some modernization/contemporariness. But then, a lot of them would, just for the sake of interest.
But he seems to be most popular among non-classical-musical people, especially psychologists. How many studies have been used to show that classical music is good for children’s development by using only Mozart? I wish they’d try someone else sometime (and if they have, other than Beethoven or Vivaldi).
The Bach pedal thing was something my cousin mentioned a few years ago. She’d been a reasonably successful pianist here, but she moved to Canada for a year or two for school, and of course had a teacher there, and played in a few competitions. She’d learned her Bach with pedal, and had been received quite well here, but when she tried it in North America, she got points deducted for it, because apparently ‘that’s not how you play Bach’. *shrug* Matter of taste, I suppose, personally I see nothing wrong with it, would actually like to see it more, because otherwise Bach, too, becomes something played by rote in one way because that’s the way it should be played.
(Sometimes I wonder what all these dead composers would think of current technologies – Bach in dubstep? Mozart doing glitchhop? I could see that…)
Tony:
Yep. I’m on PET. You should be able to find me there.
consciousness razor @423
Alright, this meat conversation was a bit of a dead-end anyhow. :/
Sorry if I stepped on any toes or feelings.
Hmm. They generally wouldn’t say it’s just about “taste.” It’s about giving an “accurate” interpretation.
I doubt people in NA in general are any more inclined to “historically informed” performance practices than people elsewhere. But I don’t know.
Early music in general sort of seems like it’s less popular here than it is in Europe, for example. That’s not all Baroque or Classical, of course, but I figure practices in one can and do influence the others.
I guess it could be the few who do early music here tend to be more … um … enthusiastic … about it, whereas if more people are doing it, you’ll get more diverse perspectives on it which aren’t all so strict. But that’s a guess.
How many studies have been used to show that classical music is good for children’s development by using only Mozart?
People are using Mozart as an example of child development gone right? He wasn’t a notably successful adult…He was brilliant at music but failed minor points like building successful relationships and making a living.
Not using him as an example. Using his music to demonstrate an effect. Which is probably bogus. But if it were real, it wouldn’t need to have had a noticeable effect on him personally. If they had, those effects wouldn’t need to have resulted in successful relationships or financial stability, because his peers and the culture generally may not have put much value in the skills the effect is supposed to produce.
dianne
They use Mozart in studies showing that classical music is beneficial to children’s development. (Have to go find a link…)
Yeah, he had a fucked up childhood, that’s for sure. But apparently his music can be a positive influence.
consciousness razor
I think there would be a difference between listening to the music (and having a passive brain stimulation) and being forced to produce the music, either by playing or by writing, giving a more active stimulation.
To be honest, I’m not sure exactly how the music is supposed to particularly stimulate development – something about lots of instruments and different rhythms relating to language development and ear training, usually. Also, classical music is supposed to be better because… More instruments and more varying rhythms – both fast, loud, slow, quiet. Because no other music is that variable, right. :P Damn, I wish I had some citations. This is all off the top of my head at the moment (and we all know how accurate that is).
Anyway, I doubt stimulating the brain for better sound perception or rhythm distinction (hence, better language development?) will help anyone achieve better relationships or financial status later in life. Not directly, anyhow.
Yes, I’m sure that’s right.
I haven’t followed Mozart effect studies closely at all, but music apparently does a whole lot of crap, with the potential to involve just about every area of the brain, so I wouldn’t be surprised about developmental effects from exposure to music (any kind, as opposed to no music). Maybe really big, important effects. Maybe even some “negative” effects. I don’t know. But they wouldn’t just be from Mozart or classical music. That’s definitely total bullshit.
consciousness razor
Agreed. Music in general does a whole lot of stuff (mathematical thinking, logic, language, sequence, hearing different things, artistic expression, emotion…), but a lot of these studies seem bent on proving that classical music is best. Not sure why. *shrug*
Mythbusters determined that while plants exposed to classical music grew better than the control group (not exposed to any particular sounds), plants exposed to death metal music did even better than those exposed to classical.
rq
My version of the conductor joke, condensed:
See, there was this high-school music instructor. The kids liked him, he was great with the marching band, but when he stood up to conduct the holiday concert, everything went bad. When the principal asked him about it, the music instructor shot him. For his last meal, he had green bananas. They put him in the electric chair and nothing happens. They decide it’s a sign from God and let him go. He gets another job as a high-school music instructor. The kids like him, but …. green bananas … another job … green bananas … let him go. As he’s leaving, one of the guards says, “Hey, I finally get it. It’s the green bananas! They somehow make you immune to electricity.” And the music man says, “No, it’s just that I’m a very poor conductor.”
—
Which reminds me of this oldy:
A condemned man asked for mushrooms for his last meal, because he’d always been afraid to try them before.
Menyambal
*thumbs up* Anyone sentenced to death is welcome to come mushroom-picking with me, because I have no idea about them. But it would be fun to forage.
nigelthebold
Here are some books
The Altenberg 16: An Expose of The Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur
And for proper science:
By Design, and Refuting Evolution 2 by Jonathan Sarfati Ph.D.
Otherwise, have fun with your delusion
joe4060
Does this mean you are going away?
Yubal
No. The three state solution still leaves the majority of Palestinians as stateless people without rights, as Jordan has no intention of giving them citizenship.
Yeah, it looks like Joe Numbers is giving up. To take so long and only come back with a couple of links? Joe is pretty much spent.
And his first link is to a piece by Suzan Mazur – I was not familiar with her but I just did a quick bit of googling and, well, if that was Joe’s idea of a good person to point to then either Joe’s a complete idiot or he’s completely spent.
That’s not necessarily an exclusive or.
joe:
If you are gone, good riddance. You said you were here to engage nigel in a debate, but you largely talked at him, consistently ignoring his points, refusing to admit you were out of your league, and you were intelectually dishonest. In the future, you cannot use your holy book to prove your god exists.
I also Googled up joe4060’s recommended authors, Mazur and Sarfati. Don’t bother, and certainly don’t buy the books.
Mazur’s book (some of which is online) jumps around like joe’s brain, and seems more a conspiracy theory than just creationist dreck. Like homeopaths with Big Pharma, she sees a giant industry (her word) dedicated to money-making and self-aggrandizement for evolutionary scientists, including agenda meetings to plot exclusionary skulduggery.
She, of course, knows all and tells all, and she certainly cannot possibly be motivated by an urge to sell her book to people like joe4060. She’s creationist, with a few new edginesses, but nothing truly new, or newly true.
Sarfati I had heard of from PZ. He’s the newest and best hope of the creationists, but it’s the same old stuff. I’ve a couple of creationist books on my desk that I’d finish reading before moving on to him.
Except that one reviewer says that Sarfati maintains that there is no evolutionary advantage to sexual reproduction, therefore it is ordained by God. Sex, therefore God?!?!?
Surely he has not been reading his Bible or listening to all the preachers who condemn sex. Or maybe he just heard this:
“Little Timmy, how do people get to Heaven?”
“Well, they lay on the bed with their clothes off.”
“What?”
“My momma was a-doin’ that last night, telling Jesus she was comin’, and if Daddy hadn’t been holding her down, I think she’d of went.”
—
Sarfati, honey, the evolutionary advantages to sexual reproduction are many. First, it mixes up the genes a bit. Selfishly speaking, it allows you to tag your genes onto a nice healthy set of somebody else’s. It also allows a bit of gene cleaning in the process. It allows for copying errors and other forms of mutation. And, if you are lucky, the other parent is doing the work of tending to your genes.
joe4060, you may trust those folks, and blindly follow their supposed authority, but smart folks don’t do that. They consider what they read, and they don’t trust conspiracy theories. Your books are bunk.
Like all the tired old creationists before him, Sarfati is just digging up quotes from the real evolutionary literature about unknown or controversial things and playing them up as if they are some serious problem for evolutionary theory.
In this case it is the original of sexual reproduction and the fact that so far none of the individual hypotheses introduced so far concerning the benefit of sexual reproduction for the individual (since group selection is problematic on its own) appears to, by itself, satisfactorily outweigh the so-called ‘four-fold cost’ of sex (you only transmit half your genes instead of all of them, and you need twice as many rounds of reproduction to produce as many offspring as if you simply reproduced asexually by cloning yourself).
Sarfati does not seem to realize that these proposed mechanisms (like the Red Queen hypothesis, Muller’s Ratchet, parasites, and so forth) are not mutually exclusive, and if you add them all together, you probably have enough to make up the difference.
joe4060:
Here are some books:
Why Evolution Is True, by Jerry Coyne.
The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins.
Otherwise, have fun with your delusion.
I mean, we’ve already presented actual observation that you’ve been unable to refute.
So really. Have fun!
ObLink: The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism
John Morales:
Yeah. I mean, evolution is in so much trouble! Once we demonstrate how it’s false. Which we’ve tried to do over and over, but this time, I swearz it’s for real.
Really.
I mean it this time.
Poor joe4060.
Menyambal:
Thanks for takin’ that bullet for us.
NEW THREAD.