I believe in god because it just makes logical sense. New people are on the earth all the time, and people die, but really we are all made of the same shit that the people of the earth were made of thousands of years ago. These organic molecules aren't destroyed when we die; they just go through the next step in the process. Dust to dust so to speak, we are created from living matter that was consumed by our mothers, and then we die, decompose, and back to the soil and the circle of life. So the people of the future are going to be made of the same carbon, nitrogen, oxygen etc that we were, and the people of the past were. Not just people, plants, animals the waters and the soil.

I believe we came from this planet, this living spaceship, this terrarium we live on. Everything about is it alive, the geological actions, the water is alive, the soil is alive and the plants are alive. We are all part of this collective thing called life. The planet has had billions of years to develop this consciousness, an extension of itself. Our soul I will call it for lack of a better word, maybe you could call it our perception, our reality, whatever it is that is us, our self-awareness, is an extension of this collective entity, call it god if you will. I believe our minds are attached to our bodies, but not only a product of our bodies. More like our bodies anchor our minds to this plane of existence. I don’t believe every time someone is born, a new consciousness or soul is born, or when someone dies, one is destroyed. Like I stated above, they are just recycled through the cycle of life, not in the same form, but in the way our bodies are recycled.

And take a step back and look at things from the bigger picture. From what I understand from my rudimentary knowledge of cosmic workings, the big bang started from a singularity, a point of infinite mass and density. To create something like that, you would need either some big guy in the sky to snap his fingers and poof, or as I like to think of our creator, a black hole. The universe was made of pure energy at this point, as it was too hot to form chemical bonds. As this cooling matter drifted through space and formed hydrogen, stars were born from a release of energy in these clouds of hydrogen gas. At the heart of these stars, god again you could call it forged all of these new elements, by fusing elements of hydrogen and helium together.

As these stars began to gain mass, their gravity increased. Through this gravity, matter began to orbit them, eventually forming planets from the rotating dust clouds. Those close to the star’s radiance a molten core of rock and metal, but the further ones, masses of ice and gas. Some of these planets were alive then, before single celled organism. It wasn’t life, as we know it, but life in the geological sense. And the active living planet made life, as we know it possible through such things as liquid water, suitable temperatures, and a methane rich atmosphere to culture the early anaerobic forms of life, in the methane rich oceans. I am not saying life cannot exist outside these parameters, but it seems that is what fostered the life on this planet. With life being an ever-changing evolving thing, it wouldn’t surprise me at all to think life could exist in conditions we deem sterile.

When you look at the stars in the sky, all of those just being ones you can see with the human eye, how could there not be other life out there. The Milky Way galaxy rotates around a center point, our solar system on one tendril of this galaxy full of many similar to ours. At the center of this galaxy must be an enormous source of gravity. There is not an enormous star, so the only other thing I can think of would be a black hole. So on a cosmic circle of life, everything will pass over the event horizon and be sucked into this black hole. And at the center of this black hole lies a singularity: the beginning, our origin, and the future.

In conclusion, if the above is true, and you want to call our creator god, it is safe to assume we are an extension of god, life is god, our planet is god, our star is god, the black hole is god, and this cycle is god. Or maybe some guy snapped his fingers and poof, you decide.

I believe in god because it just makes logical sense.

No, it doesn't.

No, it doesn't.

Why not?

Why not?

Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor.

I don't understand? Explain it to me.

I don't understand? Explain it to me.

The universe was created by god. God just exists.

You have proved nothing in your mini-essay.

You have just proved to us that you are wondered by the universe. Not that God exists.

But I DID prove something. We are alive right now thanks to this planet. Therefore our planet created us, and is god. The blackhole at the center of the milky way is god, and if it is not a black hole, what else would be such a source of gravity?

I stopped reading after the first line.

But I DID prove something. We are alive right now thanks to this planet. Therefore our planet created us, and is god.

That doesn't "prove" anything.

"The planet" didn't create us. At best, you could talk about nature and the myriad of different processes responsible for life on earth. If that's what you mean by "the planet" then that doesn't mean these processes are conscious to "create" anything, nor does it mean they must have the label of "god".

So no, you didn't prove anything; you just labeled these processes "god". That's it.

you have not proved that nature and the power of the universe = an intelligent creator.

How was god created?

A theist will tell you God is eternal and does not need a creator. In the same shit filled breath they will tell you that the universe DOES need a creator, or pose the question "If there is no God then who created the universe?". As if this simplistic statement says it all. To say one requires creation and the other does not without ANY evidence for either is a heap of steaming shit.

This represents clearly a type of mental illness that warps logical thought process in a theists mind. More and more theists will begin to seek help for this particular derangement that prohibits logical thought. Google meme complex for more information on the mental illness that is theism.

This represents clearly a type of mental illness that warps logical thought process in a theists mind. More and more theists will begin to seek help for this particular derangement that prohibits logical thought. Google meme complex for more information on the mental illness that is theism.

This is where Dawkinists get dangerous and too close to Enlightenment principles in their beliefs. Labelling an illogical belief system a mental illness sounds like something right out of the asylums of the eighteenth century, like it has no basis in reality and is but an attempt to serve ideologies.

This is where Dawkinists get dangerous and too close to Enlightenment principles in their beliefs. Labelling an illogical belief system a mental illness sounds like something right out of the asylums of the eighteenth century, like it has no basis in reality and is but an attempt to serve ideologies.

A meme complex is a real thing. The theistic meme complex forbids one to apply logic. It is then a mental illness that prevents logic.

Are these menatlly ill theists dangerous enough to lock up in an 18th century asylum. Some are. The extent of the mental illness varies. Some are so insane they will fly a plane into a building. Others are crazy enough to blow up abortion clinics (heres the cincher) in the name of LIFE.

During the numerous crusades an inquistion these people SHOULD have been locked up. The same religion that spawned the insanity of the inquistion STILL exists relativly unchanged. If left unchecked I am COMPLETELY convinced it will happen again.

This is where Dawkinists get dangerous

Hah :D

I've never heard them called that before. Rolls off the tongue nicely. Can't ever imagine calling myself that, but it is rather catchy.

A theist will tell you God is eternal and does not need a creator. In the same shit filled breath they will tell you that the universe DOES need a creator, or pose the question "If there is no God then who created the universe?". As if this simplistic statement says it all. To say one requires creation and the other does not without ANY evidence for either is a heap of steaming shit.

This represents clearly a type of mental illness that warps logical thought process in a theists mind. More and more theists will begin to seek help for this particular derangement that prohibits logical thought. Google meme complex for more information on the mental illness that is theism.

I've been down this road a few times, I know what the common answer is. Its still amusing to see the theist stumble around trying to sound logical when its impossible for there brains to comprehend.

It obviously doesn't take much to convince you.

Or... you're really high.

But I DID prove something. We are alive right now thanks to this planet. Therefore our planet created us, and is god. The blackhole at the center of the milky way is god, and if it is not a black hole, what else would be such a source of gravity?

The milky way isn't the center of the universe.

It obviously doesn't take much to convince you.

Or... you're really high.

Yeah, you nailed that one. I was really high when I wrote it, but it still feel the same sober.

A meme complex is a real thing. The theistic meme complex forbids one to apply logic. It is then a mental illness that prevents logic.

Are these menatlly ill theists dangerous enough to lock up in an 18th century asylum. Some are. The extent of the mental illness varies. Some are so insane they will fly a plane into a building. Others are crazy enough to blow up abortion clinics (heres the cincher) in the name of LIFE.

During the numerous crusades an inquistion these people SHOULD have been locked up. The same religion that spawned the insanity of the inquistion STILL exists relativly unchanged. If left unchecked I am COMPLETELY convinced it will happen again.

The resignification of genealogy and the history of ideas is one element of memetics. Like all resignifications, one must question the connotations it introduces, the person or people who introduced the resignification, what interests it serves and of what use it is. It seems to me that memetics is little more than a resignification of the history of ideas, or at least a method within it that uses questionable evolutionary analogies, that results in negative and positive connotations in Dawkins’ favour. To use a science such as memetics, then, which is in its infancy and using analogies such as “mind virus”, which are as tenable as the illnesses listed in the DMV, to label Christians as mentally ill and in need of medicating is as political and immoral as the persecution of Galileo. It is but an attempt at normalization, that is, at creating the image of religious beliefs as abnormal, in contradistinction to forms of humanism, positivism and rational progressivism, all of which memetics basks in a positive light.

An unwillingness to make logical inferences on occasions does not equal an incapability to make logical inferences. Furthermore, you have not shown how a rejection of whichever logic you’re promoting is equivalent to mental illness. Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, William of Occam and Alvin Plantinga are all revered logicians and Christians. I would no more call them insane than I would those who blow up abortion clinics. I would call them wrong, but not insane.

It seems to me that memetics is little more than a resignification of the history of ideas, or at least a method within it that uses questionable evolutionary analogies, that results in negative and positive connotations in Dawkins’ favour. To use a science such as memetics, then, which is in its infancy and using analogies such as “mind virus”, which are as tenable as the illnesses listed in the DMV, to label Christians as mentally ill and in need of medicating is as political and immoral as the persecution of Galileo

Memetics is definitely in it's infancy and widely misunderstood and taken out of context. The term "mind virus" is used as a metaphor, really. To say that a Christian has a virus of the mind is one thing, to label it full-blown insanity - another.

Comparing it to the persecution of Galileo by the Inquisition is ridiculous. I know you love to point out what a wolf in sheep's clothing you think Dawkins is, but be reminded that he has never led any revolts to exile Christians from their respective countries.

He uses the term "virus of the mind" when comparing Christianity and other demoninations to cults, which isn't too far off the mark. Dawkins never suggested that they should be locked up in an 18th century asylum. Those were Broke Prophet's words. When Dawkins refers to Christianity as "insane", he uses the term loosely, not in the context of actual clinical insanity. Although I'm sure we can all agree that the example BrokeProphet used of the suicide bomber flying a plane into a building in the name of Allah could be classified as clinically insane.

As a "mental illness" (which does NOT denote full-blown insanity, as you put it), religions can be said to have an effect on the mind that makes otherwise logical people hang on to seriously illogical ideaologies. Examples:

-Heretics, blasphemers and apostates should be killed (or otherwised punished by ostracism)

-If you die a martyr, you will go to an especially wonderful part of paradise where you will enjoy 72 virgins

In The God Delusion, Dawkins doesn't just sweep all religious theory under one memetic rug. He says:

The central question for meme theory is whether there are units of cultural imitation which behave as true replicators, like genes. I am not saying that memes necessarily are close anologues of genes, only that the more like genes they are, the better will meme theory work; and the purpose of this section is to ASK whether meme theory might work for the special case of religion.

As a closing to his chapter on memetic theory regarding religion and possibly the ONLY passage in the book that could be ascribed as him calling the religious mentally ill is this:

That is all I want to say about the roots of religion itself, apart from a brief reprise in Chapter 10 when I discuss the "imaginary friend' phenomenon of childhood under the heading of the psychological "needs" that religion fills.

@BrokeProphet: You do realise that atheism is a meme don't you? As is logic. As is the theory of memetics itself. The vast majority of beliefs and ideas are memes. Your use of the word as though it held negative connotations only demonstrates the lack of understanding you possess on the subject.

As a "mental illness" (which does NOT denote full-blown insanity, as you put it), religions can be said to have an effect on the mind that makes otherwise logical people hang on to seriously illogical ideaologies. Examples:

-Heretics, blasphemers and apostates should be killed (or otherwised punished by ostracism)

-If you die a martyr, you will go to an especially wonderful part of paradise where you will enjoy 72 virgins

I wonder whether these beliefs are really illogical, or if they are just using premises that you consider unsound. There is quite a difference between those possibilities.

The term "mind virus" is used as a metaphor, really.

I said as much in my post. I don’t think I actually accused Dawkins of using it as a method for institutionalizing opposing systems. All I pointed out about Dawkins is the convenience of how it produces negative/positive connotation in his favour. If I did accuse him, or if that’s how it appears, then let such a statement be withdrawn.

Nevertheless, BrokenProphet did want them medicated and, I believe, institutionalized. I would liken that to the persecution of Galileo, in that his findings were ridiculed as a form of protecting the church’s power. And it would be nice to see BrokenProphet defend his position.

Although I'm sure we can all agree that the example BrokeProphet used of the suicide bomber flying a plane into a building in the name of Allah could be classified as clinically insane.

Anything can be classed as clinical insanity. That does not, however, mean that it should. If anything, that is giving excuse to their actions.

As a "mental illness" (which does NOT denote full-blown insanity, as you put it), religions can be said to have an effect on the mind that makes otherwise logical people hang on to seriously illogical ideaologies.

I don’t believe anything can be classed as logical or illogical, but only as valid or invalid inferences from given premises within a given system. To use logic for anything beyond assurance of consistency and technological applications is to misunderstand logic. I do not agree with the Biblical statements, I deem them wrong. But I do not deem a Christian anymore mentally ill, however loosely the term is being used, than I do a Libertarian who wants an extreme form of Minarchism and free market capitalism, even though he knows his subjective values of non-coercion shall result in mass poverty. I deem them dickheads.

I wonder whether these beliefs are really illogical, or if they are just using premises that you consider unsound. There is quite a difference between those possibilities.

Anything can be classed as clinical insanity. That does not, however, mean that it should. If anything, that is giving excuse to their actions.

You are both right.

I'll save any further comment until after work today, with less interruptions.

A theist will tell you God is eternal and does not need a creator. In the same shit filled breath they will tell you that the universe DOES need a creator, or pose the question "If there is no God then who created the universe?". As if this simplistic statement says it all. To say one requires creation and the other does not without ANY evidence for either is a heap of steaming shit.

This represents clearly a type of mental illness that warps logical thought process in a theists mind. More and more theists will begin to seek help for this particular derangement that prohibits logical thought. Google meme complex for more information on the mental illness that is theism.

Atheists do the same thing really. They'll tell you god cant be infinite, so you ask them what created existence, and when you take away all the big words they usually hope you're ignorant of, the concept is "existence has just always been, or atleast "I never said existence cant be infinite, just god". To me the point isn't god. If I dont have a spirit, screw god. He does have a point though, in that theists, and atheists both ultimately believe in a creator. You say "Atheists dont necessarily have to not believe in eternity", but theists never said god has to be a concious being. The argument is more about wether we have a soul or not, like I said. And as far as that goes, there is no way of any of us actually knowing. We either do, or we dont, so there is no point in arguing/worrying about it, because as with your inevitable death, it WILL happen, and that has already been decided, we just wont know until we're gone.

"n that theists, and atheists both ultimately believe in a creator."

*sigh* Wrong. Whatever credibility you might have had just went out the window.

OP--wonderful post.

Sounds like you are pretty much on the same page as me, Neale Donald Walsch, Deepak Chopra, A Course in Miracles, and the thousands of others who collectively subscribe to what Chopra has called the New Paradigm--although it isn't new at all, really.

The old Egyptian hermetic mages would agree with you and me, as would the author(s) of the Vedanta, as well as many of the original Gnostic Christians.

@BrokeProphet: You do realise that atheism is a meme don't you? As is logic. As is the theory of memetics itself. The vast majority of beliefs and ideas are memes. Your use of the word as though it held negative connotations only demonstrates the lack of understanding you possess on the subject.

Agreed. With the exception of MY lack of understanding on the subject.

There are positive memes and negative memes. Some memes can be beneficial and productive (science) while others have a history of not being very productive and indeed detract from the well being of humanity (religion).

One of the key differences I see is that meme scientific theory is open and willing to change using logic. Religion is a very strict meme and forces the brain to go against natural logic and reason. This is damaging in terms of ability to function and cope with daily problems (God might fix it for me) as well as stopping intellectual process such as education (creationist what?) and technological advancements (see cure for leprosy in old testament for God's version of medical science).

Logic is a NATURAL process in the mind. Science uses logic to determine truth from possible fiction. The meme of science expands upon the already present logical thought in the mind. Religious memes (for the most part) seek to subvert and ultimately damage this reasoning center of the brain. If you do not believe me talk to a fundamenatlist about how humans and dinosaurs lived together on Earth and tell ME that person can be considered SANE.

Atheists do the same thing really. They'll tell you god cant be infinite, so you ask them what created existence, and when you take away all the big words they usually hope you're ignorant of, the concept is "existence has just always been, or atleast "I never said existence cant be infinite, just god"..

An atheist does not say existnece cannot be infinite, just God. An atheist points out a theists FAILED logic. FACT: We have a universe. FACT: We have NOTHING but an assumption of a God. IF there is something eternal it stands to reason and logic that the universe (b/c we CAN see and interact with the universe) rather than a GOD (whom we cannot see or interact with)

He does have a point though, in that theists, and atheists both ultimately believe in a creator. .

Very, very wrong.

"Atheists dont necessarily have to not believe in eternity", but theists never said god has to be a concious being..

Very, very wrong yet again. Most theism agrees that there is an intelligent benevolent creator of everything.

I wonder whether these beliefs are really illogical, or if they are just using premises that you consider unsound. There is quite a difference between those possibilities.

Even by using their own premises that they may derive from the Qur'an and call their "logic", to turn to murder would seem illogical, as a greater part of their holy texts emphasizes peace. Moderate Muslims would agree that killing in the name of Allah is illogical, if one were basing their logic on the teachings of Islam, which just so happens to be how these suicide bombers justify their reasons for causing the deaths of fellow human beings.


Anything can be classed as clinical insanity. That does not, however, mean that it should. If anything, that is giving excuse to their actions.

I agree, wholeheartedly. Lending excuses for such behavior would be wrong.

I do not agree with the Biblical statements, I deem them wrong. But I do not deem a Christian anymore mentally ill, however loosely the term is being used, than I do a Libertarian who wants an extreme form of Minarchism and free market capitalism, even though he knows his subjective values of non-coercion shall result in mass poverty. I deem them dickheads.

Since "dickheads" is not a widely-accepted term, what should they be classified as? Mentally ill won't work, because that lends an excuse and suggests that they have no control over their "condition". Do we call them delusional, in the proper sense? We technically can't, because that falls into symptoms of mental illness. I agree with you they are wrong in how they come to accept what they believe as being the absolute truth, but doesn't it seem somewhat like there's been an epidemic of "wrongness" sweeping the globe for centuries under the guise of religious truth?

This is where I feel memetics offers the best model to conceptualize where the breaking down occurred, why it has stuck around for so long, and why so many otherwise reasonable people "catch" religious fervor. Because memetics compares the meme to the replication of a gene, words like "virus" and "infection" and "contagion" are going to be used as metaphors from time to time until new terms are derived for speaking about the proliferation of cultural units of information.

All I pointed out about Dawkins is the convenience of how it produces negative/positive connotation in his favour.

How do you think it works in his favor? Yes, atheism is also a mind virus. And it's catching pretty fast. Memes NEVER favor anything other than replicating. We are the ones who assign negative/positive connotation to it, and I believe Dawkins made a fair assessment when he says that the by-product (religious fundamentalists) of this religious memeplex has done more harm, than good.

When people say 'virus of the mind', it is often taken as being negative, by default - when in fact even folk traditions in the 60's or certain fashion trends in the 80's could be said to have originated from a prolific mind virus that just happened to catch on. There is nothing negative or demeaning about folk music or leg warmers.

If Atheism were to spread worldwide, become widely accepted and practiced, and continue on that path for an inordinate amount of time (in context of history), then memetics could be used to help pinpoint the "strengths" this ideology had that maximized it's fitness. It would then be up to us to determine if those strengths produced behavioral by-products in us that did more harm than good.

Dawkins does paint the religious memeplex as being one that should be identified as harmful, as it's very strengths is what makes the "mindset" so dangerous. That is, closing off all roads of the very mind it occupies in order to beat out other memes competing for real estate up there. The most widespread (read: successful) religions have Gods that demand absolute, unwavering loyalty, or else. When this translates into billions of people sincerely believing that THEIR God should take precedent and has absolute authority over ALL human beings, this because somewhat of a big problem.

Also, conversion. Those missionaries and bible-thumping, politically-aspiring evangelicals spring to mind? They are there to infect as many other minds as possible with their religion. Does this become a problem when other people don't take kindly to being told they are going to burn in hell for all of eternity and are regarded by the religious as "damned"? How in the hell does that promote any unity? Again, it produces negative connotations where humanity is concerned.

Since "dickheads" is not a widely-accepted term, what should they be classified as? Mentally ill won't work, because that lends an excuse and suggests that they have no control over their "condition". Do we call them delusional, in the proper sense? We technically can't, because that falls into symptoms of mental illness. I agree with you they are wrong in how they come to accept what they believe as being the absolute truth, but doesn't it seem somewhat like there's been an epidemic of "wrongness" sweeping the globe for centuries under the guise of religious truth?

To use the word epidemic is again to imply viral connotations. It's as Bertrand Russell said: "I am firm; you are obstinate; he is pig-headed." Beyond politics and ethics, I see no purpose for Dawkins' jargon. Which is why I'll stick to genealogy.

epidemic: extremely prevalent; widespread

Though I'm sure if Dawkins used the word "pig-headed", you'd still have a problem with it.

How can existence be infinite (when it seems not only would it be under the law of our universe, but actually is the law), and not God, wich is supposed to have power over everything? To us, Infinity can only exist in theory. Nothing natural (like the universe) is supposed to be infinite.

I agree, that if it were important to know who god is, that he would actually do something to let us know. (and since he hasn't done that, if there is a god, obviously it doesn't matter to him). Yeah, I agree, the only thing we've been shown, is the universe, and nature, so that is the law that we should follow. Everything else, wether you're saying there is a god, or ISN'T one, is pure speculation. But telling people their SUPERNATURAL god cant be infinite, while having to say existence is (that or it had to be created by something, and whatever created whatever, would also either have to be infinite, or had to have been created by something) is contradicting yourself.

^Is anybody else impressed by how twisted up this stupid fucker's got himself?

I'll give you a small hint: words mean things.

you have not proved that nature and the power of the universe = an intelligent creator.

How was god created?

How was the first molecule created?

I can answer that one. God.

Although I'm sure we can all agree that the example BrokeProphet used of the suicide bomber flying a plane into a building in the name of Allah could be classified as clinically insane.
Well... no. Not really. It's a logical extension of the premises held. Belief in the premises is the problem, and why I think many people find religion so abhorrent and dangerous.

Well... no. Not really. It's a logical extension of the premises held. Belief in the premises is the problem, and why I think many people find religion so abhorrent and dangerous.

Muslim suicide bombers kill in the name of Allah, and claim to follow the teachings of Islam. These suicide bombers would testify that their premises is based on the teaching of the Qur'an. Billions of other Muslims would find this highly illogical, as the Qur'an (and Islam) teaches peace.

If billions of Muslims can follow the Qur'an peacefully without strapping explosives to their torsos and taking out infidels, interpreting the teachings of Islam positively - yet a very small fraction of Muslims twist the teachings to interpret that death and bloodshed is what the holy texts really meant - then let's agree that the smaller, violent percentage have something askew in their thought processes that drive them to do this.

If a person decided to drown their 7 year-old child in the bathtub because the parents believe he "has the devil in him", do we assume that the parents are acting illogically and may be a tad bit insane for using their religious beliefs to justify killing their own child?

Or do we have to just suppose that according to them, and their beliefs, that they were being rational and logic and operating with full control of their mental faculties?

A belief can be used to justify anything. I wonder why David Berkowitz was so persecuted as "insane" after he was convicted of going on a killing spree? I'm sure that the logic he inferred from his own premises meant that he was acting in accordance to what he believed. A dog, who he believed was the voice of Satan, told him to do these things. The Satanic Cult he was a member of supported acts such as killing.

Thankfully, the court system didn't put much stock into what was the driving force behind Berkowitz's actions.

I find the conceptions of rationality and logic being bandied around by the people in this room who purport to be rationalists ridiculous. It’s as if they have no understanding of what logic actually is, which means I as a superior being should be allowed to classify them as mentally ill, right? Not just ignorant or uneducated, but mentally ill!

Here’s a classic example from AngryFemme: "I'm sure that the logic he inferred from his own premises meant that he was acting in accordance to what he believed." You don’t infer logic from premises, logic is the inferences of conclusions from premises, or at least the study of such.

Not to mention that by her own argument, we can classify AngryFemme as having mental problems. The majority of people manage to read the Bible as a book teaching love and forgiveness. AngryFemme, a minority, has on several occasions purported the Bible to be filled with encouragements of bloodshed. I think we can all agree, then, that there is something unsound about AngryFemme’s mental capacity.

Again, I will not accept these tenuous designations of extremists in general, of the religious in general, as mentally ill to be nothing more than a lending of excuses to their actions, nothing more than an excuse for coercion, be it through such a supposedly non-violent means as psychiatry, to be but the result of a tension between ideologies and as a result objectively unjustified.

Not to mention that by her own argument, we can classify AngryFemme as having mental problems. The majority of people manage to read the Bible as a book teaching love and forgiveness. AngryFemme, a minority, has on several occasions purported the Bible to be filled with encouragements of bloodshed. I think we can all agree, then, that there is something unsound about AngryFemme’s mental capacity.

You can classify my mental capacity as being unsound when I start killing in the name of Atheism, Hare. You have also disagreed with teaching of the Bible in here. You may argue that people who act in accordance with some of the more grisly scriptures of the OT or Qur'an are doing so because that is what they believe to be rational, but I don't see yourself aligning with them, or excusing them - just refusing to comment on the state of their mental capacities because that would be wrong, "a result of tension between their ideology and yours".

I'm no logician, and may be using the textbook example of logic out of context, and may even be lending "excuses" to these people I find have horribly skewed visions of what is "right" by using the term "insane" loosely - but I stand by my belief that people who kill in the name of God aren't thinking clearly.

Again, I will not accept these tenuous designations of extremists in general, of the religious in general, as mentally ill to be nothing more than a lending of excuses to their actions, nothing more than an excuse for coercion, be it through such a non-violent means as psychiatry, to be but the result of a tension between ideologies and as a result objectively unjustified.

A "tension" between ideologies, that's all? Killing each other in the name of God IS UNJUSTIFIED, wouldn't you say, Hare? You may feel that classifying them as perfectly sane is the fair thing to do, but ideologies be damned, killing another human being is wrong, and those who have the capacity to kill other human beings possess a skewed mental process that allows them to justify this as acceptable.

My father is a Christian. I don't view him as insane. If he were to bomb an abortion clinic, I'd have to wonder what went wrong. You're right, it would be wrong of me to think him insane if his beliefs drove him to commit such a heinous act. Especially since he has demonstrated that he is sane in every other aspect, save for him allowing his belief system to justify killing other human beings.

However, I'd have to analyze what went wrong down the line, what caused him to suddenly go from peaceful man to murderer, and if his beliefs were the driving force and what led him to do what he did, I suppose I could rightfully be of the opinion that it is his belief system that drove a once sane man into exhibiting acts that contradict what we would consider "sound judgment". In light of that, I will no longer state that religious extremists are insane. But I will state that the driving force behind what makes them *snap* is far, far removed from what constitutes having a sound, healthy mind.

The example of your G-pa fighting in a war is an example of self-defense, not belief. I highly doubt he was over there fighting because he believed the enemy was immoral, and he was helping serve God's plan by taking them out. Don't you think he was over there helping to DEFEND his country, his people ... tangible things that, if not defended, stand to be compromised by other groups who have no reverence for their enemy's sovereign principals?

If he didn't join in to help his fellow countrymen to defend his country, would the enemy have possibly taken over? Wasn't he just acting in self-defense? The same cannot be said of the suicide bomber or abortion clinic bomber who reigns violence on those who do not pose a direct threat to their lives, only a conflicting opinion towards their belief system.

Big difference.

You can classify my mental capacity as being unsound when I start killing in the name of Atheism, Hare. You have also disagreed with teaching of the Bible in here. You may argue that people who act in accordance with some of the more grisly scriptures of the OT or Qur'an are doing so because that is what they believe to be rational, but I don't see yourself aligning with them, or excusing them - just refusing to comment on the state of their mental capacities because that would be wrong, "a result of tension between their ideology and yours".

I haven’t argued any such thing. I have argued that the distinction between logical and illogical is absurd and that to use this dichotomy to label someone mentally ill is tenuous. It’s a method which allows you to write them off as mentally ill and remove them through psychiatric means, while preserving apparent ideas such as rational progress, when in actuality you’ve merely replaced one dangerous ideology with another. I see no reason for why I should have to align with them or excuse them, especially since I hold everyone responsible for their actions, when doing so would be beside the point.

Also, I don’t know where you get the notion that I would classify them as sane, when I personally am sceptical about the whole extent of the sane/insane dichotomy. If one half of it is removed, then it dissolves in its entirety. And personally I do think they’re questionable analogical signifiers. Something you’d be aware of if you studied memetics’ big brother, semiotics.

How was the first molecule created?

I can answer that one. God.

Can you answer mine?

Of course I can. I can only do so in the spirit of your delusion.

How was the first molecule created?

I can answer that one. The laughter of children.

I cannot explain it, just have faith, but somehow the laughter of children in the present created the first molecule in the beginning. What is that you say? How can I assert that it was just this kind of magic without a magician? Where is my evidence? Those are all VERY good questions.

Nevertheless, BrokenProphet did want them medicated and, I believe, institutionalized. I would liken that to the persecution of Galileo, in that his findings were ridiculed as a form of protecting the church’s power. And it would be nice to see BrokenProphet defend his position.

I don’t believe anything can be classed as logical or illogical, but only as valid or invalid inferences from given premises within a given system. To use logic for anything beyond assurance of consistency and technological applications is to misunderstand logic. I do not agree with the Biblical statements, I deem them wrong. But I do not deem a Christian anymore mentally ill, however loosely the term is being used, than I do a Libertarian who wants an extreme form of Minarchism and free market capitalism, even though he knows his subjective values of non-coercion shall result in mass poverty. I deem them dickheads.

I NEVER said I wanted them medicated. I said SOME theists today DO need to be locked up in a MENTAL asylum for being insane enough to think God will give them 42 virgin sluts if they just fly a plane into a building. I would never force anyone medication who did not want it unless they were a danger to themselves or others. This is a COMPLETELY different topic and very straw man.

IF a GROWN ASS MAN believed in Santa Claus, I mean REALLY believed in Santa Claus he would be deemed insane, but would not be forced medication OR locked up so long as his MENTAL ILLNESS did not endanger himself or others. IF he believed in Santa Claus so fiercely he were willing to die in the NAME OF CLAUS and started making a list of Good little boys and Bad little girls he would be locked up in a mental institution.

In nieghborhoods across the country there exists ex hippies, wierdos and batty old ladies who are not locked away in an 18th century asylum for being bat shit crazy. I call your belief that Dawkinists would medicate and lock up theism b/c they recognize it as a mental illness alarmist bullshit. We recognize OCD as a disorder of the mind but do not FORCE medicate people who suffer from this. If your OCD were to be bad enough that you would die of thirst b/c you keep flipping a light switch on and off for DAYS then yes you would be locked up.

The libertarian in your example is not mentally ill and is not construed that way at all. He does not propose anthing supernatural or make claims to know the history of existence. That is a terrible example. IF the libertarian were enforcing extreme minarchism were doing so b/c a voice in his head told him to (God) THEN he would be mentally ill and judged as such. Especially if he created a whole fantasy world around this inner dialogue we ALL possess that involved magic and demons.

If you cannot or refuse to define logical thought and illogical or call them by other names then I suppose it would be hard to accept that people who here voices from invisible creatures who insist they give their money to a man in a dress on a certain day as illogical. I however think it is NOT only illogical, but INSANE.

Of course I can. I can only do so in the spirit of your delusion.

How was the first molecule created?

I can answer that one. The laughter of children.

I cannot explain it, just have faith, but somehow the laughter of children in the present created the first molecule in the beginning. What is that you say? How can I assert that it was just this kind of magic without a magician? Where is my evidence? Those are all VERY good questions.

I kind of fucked up my question. I was high when I typed it :(

I haven’t argued any such thing. I have argued that the distinction between logical and illogical is absurd and that to use this dichotomy to label someone mentally ill is tenuous.

So you're in agreement with me that what they believe to be rational is actually irrational, to a clear-thinking individual? Because that's what I said you were arguing, not that it was either logical or illogical:

You may argue that people who act in accordance with some of the more grisly scriptures of the OT or Qur'an are doing so because that is what they believe to be rational...

So what's your call on this one? Is it rational or irrational beliefs that these extremists hold?

It’s a method which allows you to write them off as mentally ill and remove them through psychiatric means, while preserving apparent ideas such as rational progress, when in actuality you’ve merely replaced one dangerous ideology with another.

For one, my opinion on them being mentally ill will hardly get them "written off" or "removed" (which I would equate to committed in an asylum). Because I neither have the letters behind my surname NOR the credentials to get them committed (lucky for them), then yeah, my opinion on their sanity means squat.

But even if I prefer to stubbornly call them insane, which you pointed out was very, very dangerous and lends "excuses" to their acts - Does that mean that if I somehow held the power to stop them from killing (by deeming them insane), and turn them into peaceful pacifists that it's STILL swapping one dangerous ideology with another? My point is, IF deeming them insane stopped them from killing other human beings, would you STILL consider my (effective) ideology as dangerous?

I see no reason for why I should have to align with them or excuse them, especially since I hold everyone responsible for their actions, when doing so would be beside the point.

You shouldn't have to align yourself or excuse them for anything. You're a reasonable, rational critical thinker. You can hold them responsible for their actions, sure. I also hold them responsible, even though I call them "insane". Just like I'd call a freestyle BMX'er who attempted to jump over Mt. Rushmore insane (that is, not thinking clearly) - I would still hold HIM responsible for killing himself when he didn't clear the jump. HE wasn't insane. His idea that he could actually clear the jump was an insane thought that went through an otherwise sane mind.

Also, I don’t know where you get the notion that I would classify them as sane, when I personally am sceptical about the whole extent of the sane/insane dichotomy.

What would classify them as?

Finally, I think you're overly nit-picking the choice of words I use when I'm trying to make a point. Just like in the "My Mother is having our dogs blessed" thread, you called her belief system "perverted". I am calling the extremist beliefs that cause people to blow other people up as "insane".

Is your mother a pervert? Probably not. But her belief system (compared to yours) sure is.

Is the suicide bomber completely insane? Probably not. But his belief system (compared to mine) surely is.

We use words outside of their context at times to drive home a point, do we not?

There are positive memes and negative memes. Some memes can be beneficial and productive (science) while others have a history of not being very productive and indeed detract from the well being of humanity (religion).

Whenever someone has a meme, they think it is positive. If someone is religious, they will see their religion as beneficial.

One of the key differences I see is that meme scientific theory is open and willing to change using logic.

These things are only important if you already accept the science meme as better than the christian meme. If we don't grant that these things matter more than what christianity values, then this argument falls apart.

Religion is a very strict meme and forces the brain to go against natural logic and reason.

Example please.

This is damaging in terms of ability to function and cope with daily problems (God might fix it for me)

If christians were unable to cope with daily problems, then christianity would have died out within months of it being established. Since it's survived 2000 years, I'd say this argument is plain wrong.

Furthermore, the existence of a community of other people who share their beliefs provides a significant amount of social support to aid the overcoming of significant problems.

as well as stopping intellectual process such as education (creationist what?)

This is only seen as bad if you already accept creationism is wrong. If you accept it as right, then teaching it is education.

and technological advancements (see cure for leprosy in old testament for God's version of medical science).

Where is your evidence that christianity harms technological advancement? Even if it did, then it simply means that christianity doesn't value technology, so using technology as a scale to judge christianity is pointless.

If you do not believe me talk to a fundamenatlist about how humans and dinosaurs lived together on Earth and tell ME that person can be considered SANE.

That has little to do with logic and lots to do with how people choose their premises.


For the most part, in this post you have simply criticised one meme from the perspective of another, and in the process assumed that the opposing meme is incorrect in order to prove it is incorrect. Essentially, hollow rhetoric.

Whenever someone has a meme, they think it is positive. If someone is religious, they will see their religion as beneficial."

Their mistake.

"These things are only important if you already accept the science meme as better than the christian meme. If we don't grant that these things matter more than what christianity values, then this argument falls apart."

The fact that we're speaking right no seems to indicate that science actually fucking accomplishes shit. Religion can't say the same.

"Example please."

ie: Christianity states that their is a logically impossible being watching your every move.

"If christians were unable to cope with daily problems, then christianity would have died out within months of it being established. Since it's survived 2000 years, I'd say this argument is plain wrong.'

People ignore their religion in their daliy lives unless they can find some way to shoehorn it in. This is why going to church is so often seen as a chore; sadly religion will rear it's ugly head whenever an election comes round.

"Furthermore, the existence of a community of other people who share their beliefs provides a significant amount of social support to aid the overcoming of significant problems."

The meme supports itself, nothing more.


"This is only seen as bad if you already accept creationism is wrong. If you accept it as right, then teaching it is education."

Except that creationism is factually incorrect. That's not education, that's bullshit.

"Where is your evidence that christianity harms technological advancement?"

Stem cell research, you stupid little shit.

"Even if it did, then it simply means that christianity doesn't value technology, so using technology as a scale to judge christianity is pointless."

Then Christianity is outmoded and irrelevant, simple.

"That has little to do with logic and lots to do with how people choose their premises."

These people are stupid, simple. So many of these answers are fucking simple.

"For the most part, in this post you have simply criticised one meme from the perspective of another, and in the process assumed that the opposing meme is incorrect in order to prove it is incorrect. Essentially, hollow rhetoric.

Except that religion is demonstrably bullshit. No doubt you will oppose this with no proof to back it up, as you are clearly a stupid motherfucker. Kill yourself, asshole.

Your childish attitude will do nothing to aid your cause and only add to the stereotype of atheists being angry young internet tough guys.

Their mistake.

Your mistake also.

The fact that we're speaking right no seems to indicate that science actually fucking accomplishes shit. Religion can't say the same.

Or the fact that we are speaking right now could indicate that there is a benevolent God, or an infinite amount of other possibilities.

ie: Christianity states that their is a logically impossible being watching your every move.

Logically impossible how?

People ignore their religion in their daliy lives unless they can find some way to shoehorn it in. This is why going to church is so often seen as a chore; sadly religion will rear it's ugly head whenever an election comes round...

...The meme supports itself, nothing more.

If that's the case then it clearly doesn't in fact damage their ability to function and cope with daily problems, which is exactly my point.

Except that creationism is factually incorrect. That's not education, that's bullshit.

Factually incorrect from the perspective of your meme. Just as evolution is factually incorrect from their meme.

Stem cell research, you stupid little shit.

This argument is only potent if one already considers stem cell research to be a good thing, and people who oppose it clearly don't. Hence the opposition to stem cell research is not seen as opposition to a technological advance, but opposition to misuse of technology.

Then Christianity is outmoded and irrelevant, simple.

Non sequitor. Technology constitutes only a small amount of the relevance of an idea.

These people are stupid, simple.

From the perspective of your meme.

Except that religion is demonstrably bullshit. No doubt you will oppose this with no proof to back it up

If it is so demonstrably flawed, it should be easy for you to explain why.

<Retarded Shit>

You're trying to sound clever by using the 'Christanity is a Meme' argument, except replacing it with 'Atheism is a Meme'. The reason it doesn't work is because Atheism is a LACK of a belief system, and is based on empirical evidence and logical conclusion instead.

Newsflash, fucktard: if every single person on this planet believed in young-earth creationism, that wouldn't magically vanish all of the fossils, restructure the planet's geology and alter the decay time of carbon. The fact that you think memes = magic show just what a fucking asstard you are (though come to think of it, next to the utter shit in the Bible, memes being magical almost looks sensible).

Seriously, just because you can type 'meme' doesn't make you any more intelligent. The fact that you think empirical evidence is somehow objectively negated by memetic concepts shows that you know NOTHING about memes, so shut the fuck up about them.

Even assuming that memes somehow did invalidate Atheism (which they don't, ever), they'd also logically invalidate your stupid-ass fucking claim about them in the first place, paradoxially, proving yourself wrong if you happened to be right.

Your point is even MORE fucking flawed if we assume it to be true.
EPIC failure.

fallinghouse, would your "live and let live" philosophy regarding religion still hold up if you happened to live in a country where believing in the wrong religion would get you killed?

Would you still support their right to believe in whatever they wanted, if it was causing direct harm to you?

It's easy to sit back in a non-violent country where the religious fundies are mostly kept in check and talk about everyone's "right to believe". But for those who live in a country where the right to believe only applies if you believe what they think is right, at some point the sanctity of belief has to be put to the side until people stop getting killed over it.

ALL religions seek to hold dominion over the world. Don't you think that eventually, we're going to reach a critical point where one religion takes the stronghold and decides that the other religions must vanish in the face of their "truth"?

Will it then be obvious that the "right to believe" in an abstract belief system should not be so fiercely protected? Will it then be apparent that billions of human beings clinging to opposing religions is going to cause chaos and turmoil, and that by protecting these abstract belief system's "right" to sanctity, we are thereby validating them and subtly encouraging them to gain dominance over other abstract belief systems?

The "right to believe" should be a given anyway, as we can't very well take away that right from any human being, as we have no way of controlling what goes on in each other's minds. But the "right to exclaim that your religion is more sanctimonious than others" should be squelched in it's entirety.

Look at skin color. We've come a long way in understanding that black, yellow, red, brown or white, we are still essentially the product of the same stuff, none of us better or worse for having a different skin tone. Every person of every color has equal human rights and is no more or less valid than any other person.

Same should apply to religion. Let there be proud Christians, proud Muslims and proud Hindus. Give them the right to be proud, and freely practice their faith, as people of different races and different cultures be given the right to act in accordance to their traditions.

But the first time you allow any (or all) of these groups the right to feel sanctimonious over the other groups, you encourage conflict and are opening doors that will allow one dominant race or religion to take over the others, purely on the basis that their race or religion is more genuine than the others.

So suppose we gave one race the right to feel sanctimonious above all other races. Other races would rightfully disagree, and depending on how enthusiastic they are at disproving the race who is seeking dominance over them, they will revolt. Conflict ensues. This is what happens when we give "rights" to the sanctimonious religions.

You're trying to sound clever by using the 'Christanity is a Meme' argument, except replacing it with 'Atheism is a Meme'. The reason it doesn't work is because Atheism is a LACK of a belief system, and is based on empirical evidence and logical conclusion instead.

The possibility that atheism may be a lack of a belief system is irrelevant to considering whether it is a meme. It is an idea that self-propagates from mind to mind, that makes it a meme.

Newsflash, fucktard: if every single person on this planet believed in young-earth creationism, that wouldn't magically vanish all of the fossils, restructure the planet's geology and alter the decay time of carbon. The fact that you think memes = magic show just what a fucking asstard you are (though come to think of it, next to the utter shit in the Bible, memes being magical almost looks sensible).

Seriously, just because you can type 'meme' doesn't make you any more intelligent. The fact that you think empirical evidence is somehow objectively negated by memetic concepts shows that you know NOTHING about memes, so shut the fuck up about them.

1. Different memes place different amounts of importance on empirical evidence. It is only because you are held by a science meme that you feel it provides some kind of ultimate measure of truth.

2. That said, I don't feel the creationist meme denies empirical evidence, but they have developed strategies for dealing with evidence that opposes it. I am aware of two premises which allow this to be done to any argument that uses evidence to disprove creationism, but there are probably others. The first is that Satan put the evidence there to fool them into disbelieving in God. The second is that the bible is more trustworthy than scientists, so that where they disagree, the bible is given priority.

Even assuming that memes somehow did invalidate Atheism (which they don't, ever), they'd also logically invalidate your stupid-ass fucking claim about them in the first place, paradoxially, proving yourself wrong if you happened to be right.

I bet you can't provide any empirical evidence to back up your belief that I claimed memes invalidate atheism. Probably, because I didn't.

...

My philosophy contains no normative components. I don't feel there is a "right to believe" except where it is given by whoever possesses power over the believer.

Whenever someone has a meme, they think it is positive. If someone is religious, they will see their religion as beneficial.

It matters not what someone SEES. I am talking about HISTORICALLY and included that in my original quote. HISTORICALLY speaking the meme of science has been better to humanity that the meme of religion.

These things are only important if you already accept the science meme as better than the christian meme. If we don't grant that these things matter more than what christianity values, then this argument falls apart..

I do grant that the meme of science has led us to a better place than the meme of religion EVER could. I am not suggesting one to blindly accept the meme of science. QUITE the contrary. Do some reasearch. HISTORY again is on my side. Meme of science has brought us anti-biotics, organ transplants, mass communication, more food, better living conditions, clean water, artificial limbs, fast transportation, and longer lives. Essentially a better world than when religion called a scientist a heretic.

If christians were unable to cope with daily problems, then christianity would have died out within months of it being established. Since it's survived 2000 years, I'd say this argument is plain wrong..

I NEVER said UNABLE to cope with daily problems. Please DO NOT twist my words. For someone who fancies himself playing by the rules in arguments you should know that twisting someones words is a BIG NO NO.

Furthermore, the existence of a community of other people who share their beliefs provides a significant amount of social support to aid the overcoming of significant problems..

Yes and a community of highly irrational people who share irrational beliefs will burn other communities alive in the name of those irrational beliefs. This is some of that history I was mentioning. Read up on it a bit.

This is only seen as bad if you already accept creationism is wrong. If you accept it as right, then teaching it is education..

By the technical definition of education you are correct. However, it is BULLSHIT education. It is BULLSHIT b/c it has no evidence to support it. EX: I can teach my children that when nobody is looking I turn bright purple. I can "Educate" them of this but it does not change the fact that it is BULLSHIT. I am still educating my children by telling them this however, due to the definintion of education.

Where is your evidence that christianity harms technological advancement? Even if it did, then it simply means that christianity doesn't value technology, so using technology as a scale to judge christianity is pointless..

Christianity harms technological advancement by hampering science. Educate yourself on history and you will find plenty of cases of the Church persecuting scientists. Gallilao for one.

They hamper science b/c, as you may well know, science tends to lean with the evidence. The evidence does NOT point towards an intelligent creator. I DO NOT use technology as the SOLE way to judge or value christianity. NEVER SAID I DID.

For the most part, in this post you have simply criticised one meme from the perspective of another, and in the process assumed that the opposing meme is incorrect in order to prove it is incorrect. Essentially, hollow rhetoric.

YES I DO assume christianity false as I do Elvis sightings, Nessie and Ghosts as their is NO EVIDENCE TO BACK THIS SHIT UP. That is what my meme of scientific thought does. It tells things with no evidence to go and fuck itself. AS A DIRECT RESULT OF DOING this we now have anti-biotics, organ transplants, mass communication, more food, better living conditions, clean water, artificial limbs, fast transportation, and longer lives. Essentially a better world than when religion called a scientist a heretic.

It matters not what someone SEES. I am talking about HISTORICALLY and included that in my original quote. HISTORICALLY speaking the meme of science has been better to humanity that the meme of religion...

...I do grant that the meme of science has led us to a better place than the meme of religion EVER could. I am not suggesting one to blindly accept the meme of science. QUITE the contrary. Do some reasearch. HISTORY again is on my side. Meme of science has brought us anti-biotics, organ transplants, mass communication, more food, better living conditions, clean water, artificial limbs, fast transportation, and longer lives. Essentially a better world than when religion called a scientist a heretic...

...Yes and a community of highly irrational people who share irrational beliefs will burn other communities alive in the name of those irrational beliefs. This is some of that history I was mentioning. Read up on it a bit.

Historical facts are not seen as beneficial or harmful until someone who values specific things looks at them and decides whether these historical events helped or hindered their own cause. It is memes that give you these values. Of course your meme complex considers science to be better for humanity, because science is what it values.

I NEVER said UNABLE to cope with daily problems.

How could you acquire evidence that it is harmful to dealing with daily problems on a lesser scale then complete inability to cope?

By the technical definition of education you are correct. However, it is BULLSHIT education. It is BULLSHIT b/c it has no evidence to support it.

In other words, you don't like it because it is not education into your own meme complex.

Christianity harms technological advancement by hampering science. Educate yourself on history and you will find plenty of cases of the Church persecuting scientists. Gallilao for one.

And yet Galileo's ideas did eventually become accepted by the church. All societies have mechanisms to guarantee that technology does not harm more than it helps. European society in the late middle ages happened to be more cautious than you would like. And caution is hardly a damning criticism.

I DO NOT use technology as the SOLE way to judge or value christianity. NEVER SAID I DID.

I never said you did either.

YES I DO assume christianity false as I do Elvis sightings, Nessie and Ghosts as their is NO EVIDENCE TO BACK THIS SHIT UP. That is what my meme of scientific thought does. It tells things with no evidence to go and fuck itself. AS A DIRECT RESULT OF DOING this we now have anti-biotics, organ transplants, mass communication, more food, better living conditions, clean water, artificial limbs, fast transportation, and longer lives. Essentially a better world than when religion called a scientist a heretic.

Of course if you don't accept the premises of an argument then there is little need to accept the conclusion. But, that doesn't mean the argument itself is flawed, only that you haven't considered it seriously.

Fallinghouse is an idiot and full of shit.
I'd suspect trolling, if it wasn't for the arrogance.

Dear Fallinghouse:
Your entire premise is fucking retarded. Like, what are you trying to accomplish?

Let's assume a big black man breaks into your house, and starts raping you, because he believes you are a giant vagina. In your fantasy world, his 'you are a vagina' meme would be just as valid as your 'avoid rape' meme, thereby making him completely justified in raping you. If you disagree with this point, you are a hypocrite. If you agree with this point, you are a sophist with empty premises.

The reason the black man's meme is incorrect is that we can empirically prove you are not a giant vagina. Just because you ACT like a vagina doesn't mean the black man is correct in assuming you ARE a vagina. Therefore, we can surmise that the 'you are a vagina' meme is false and we can discard it.

I remember from another thread that you're a Christian, and, ironically, the Christianity meme is essentially making you spout off bullshit. And before you criticize that last sentence and ignore the rest, I'd like you to know that other people are reading this, and they think you're a fucktard also. May I recommend leaving the discussion and taking your sophistry with you?
You're so fucking stupid it's infuriating.

Fallinghouse is an idiot and full of shit.
I'd suspect trolling, if it wasn't for the arrogance.

Seems to be less of an idiot than most, and I can't see any shit.

Dear Fallinghouse:
Your entire premise is fucking retarded. Like, what are you trying to accomplish?

Let's assume a big black man breaks into your house, and starts raping you, because he believes you are a giant vagina. In your fantasy world, his 'you are a vagina' meme would be just as valid as your 'avoid rape' meme, thereby making him completely justified in raping you. If you disagree with this point, you are a hypocrite. If you agree with this point, you are a sophist with empty premises.

Also which entire premise is retarded?

From what I've read he's not trying to justify anything. From what I see you're are trying to say that a meme somehow objectively justifies something, which it doesn't. The black guy feels justified in fucking you, the gaint vagina, because his meme says 'Fuck that hug vagina!', you are justified in wanting to avoid rape because I'm assuming rape isn't all that fun.

I can't see much evidence of an objective justification of anything.

The reason the black man's meme is incorrect is that we can empirically prove you are not a giant vagina. Just because you ACT like a vagina doesn't mean the black man is correct in assuming you ARE a vagina. Therefore, we can surmise that the 'you are a vagina' meme is false and we can discard it.

Sometimes empirical testing means shit. This hypothetical dude is obviously fully in the grip of feeling that you are a gaint vagina and that he should fuck you, no amount of empirical evidence will convince him other wise if he is truly convinced you are a vagina. He is merely accepting the premise that he holds as true.

P1. You are a vagina
P2. I fuck vaginas
C1. I will fuck you

just because you do not accept P1 does not mean that he does not. I mean, he obviously does, he's just broken into some guys house to rape him cause he believes him to be a gaint vagina, if he didn't believe in P1 I'm sure he wouldn't be raping this poor guy.

Is it as easy as you say for the individual to recognise their meme as wrong and simply discard it? I don't think it's that easy at all. If it was, couldn't we just renovate our entire mental outlook in an instant?

I remember from another thread that you're a Christian, and, ironically, the Christianity meme is essentially making you spout off bullshit. And before you criticize that last sentence and ignore the rest, I'd like you to know that other people are reading this, and they think you're a fucktard also. May I recommend leaving the discussion and taking your sophistry with you?
You're so fucking stupid it's infuriating.


I can't see how you justify the first sentence.

And I don't see what he is saying as sophistry, as far as I can see he is pointing out that what you accept as neccesarily true, needn't be neccesarily true.

Also you don't seem to have actually addressed a single of his points.

What he is sayong highlights, to me anyway, a very important point. How do I reach and acknowledge the Truth?

Finally, I may be mis-understanding fallinghouses ideas entirely, but in anycase, they make far more sense to me than anyone elses arguments in this thread.

...

No, you're not understanding me.
The black man's beliefs are patently false, when compared to objective reality. What I meant by 'we can discard them' is that because we KNOW a belief is incorrect, there's no point in using it. Upon seeing for yourself that black man's vagina meme is baseless (and that he is obviously delusional) you wouldn't go 'well, in the mind of the black man he believes this to be true, so we should treat it as such'. That's utterly ridiculous. Using a variant on this kind of reasoning is a technique used by rape apologists, (amongst other people who are full of shit) who are trying to justify their actions by negating responsibility. If that's not a sign that something's flawed, I'm not sure what is.

And yes, it IS sophistry. He's simply using 'memes' in a reductio ad absurdum fallacy. We need to make presuppositions based on what we know of reality, through sensory input, in order to construct a valid argument. Saying 'well, everything is a meme, so all concepts are equally valid' is a pointless assertation, since all it's doing is negating the validity of the discussion at hand, without setting up a counterpoint that can be refuted.

Saying 'well, everything is just as false/true as everything else, and there's no objective reality nor objective reasoning' is easy. ANY idiot can SAY that, but there's not a single fucking person who truly believes it. I'm sure if a big black man rapes you, or greasy latino man mugs you, or a psychotic white man murders your parents, you wouldn't be saying 'well, that doesn't matter, because I can't objectively prove that rape/theft/murder is bad, I may as well shrug it off'.

I remember I was on Stickam and a Christian tried this exact same shit, and he got torn to shreds for being a fucking idiot. I'm disappointed that more people haven't called fallinghouse out on his bullshit.

I would dub falling houses style of arguing as a "I know you are, but what am I?" argument.

As far as your syllogism goes Jesus....P1 Is a false premise. YOU CANNOT have a valid conclusion with a false premise. P1 CAN EASILY be PROVEN false. You do not have a valid conclusion, thus a valid argument. FAIL.

Back to fallinghouse and his thoughts of the mid-ages "just being cautious of science" is bullshit. I STRONGLY urge you to grab a history book and read about it. You will find that the MAJORITY of the intellectual world regards the scientific persecution in the mid ages a DIRECT result of hoaky supernaturalistic beliefs. Fear of science disrupting religious teachings. Their fears were valid. See creationism vs. evolution.

My final point is this......the major difference between the meme of theism and the meme of science is this......agendas. The memes have a different agenda. Theisms agenda (for sake of argument) involves saving a person's soul. It could be construed as a meme designed for social control given it's history, but for sake of argument we can safely say the primary objective of religion is to save the souls of humans. The meme of religion by it's very nature is a VERY strict and rigid meme, taking what LITTLE changes it does, very slowly.

The primary agenda of science is truth. Using methods of logic to find truth. To hold things true until evidence comes up to the contrary. To accumulate a body of knowledge that is as true as it can possibly be. This meme IS the best method humantiy has come up with so far to determine TRUTH. Science is willing and ABLE to change by the VERY nature of the meme that is science.

HISTORICALLY, (grab a fucking book kids) the meme of science has been BETTER in many, many, many ways for humantiy that the meme of theism. This IS the way it fucking is. One WILL BE assigned more value BASED upon results for humanity as a fucking whole throughout history. YOU CAN believe these memes even. You can believe you shit ice cream for all I care. What you CANNOT do is prove either. I can and have, all you have to do is pick up an 8th grade science, biology, and history book.

FIN.

Pyronos: You are taking what I have said, and then attempting to build a model for how you think that I think people should act. That model is of your mind alone, I have not made normative claims, only descriptive ones.

What you have done is analogous to someone thinking that moral relativism means that people should be tolerant.


As far as your syllogism goes Jesus....P1 Is a false premise. YOU CANNOT have a valid conclusion with a false premise.

Consider the following argument:

premise 1: p
premise 2: q
∴ q

The validity of the conclusion is independent of the truth of the first premise. Clearly, you can have a valid conclusion with false premise.

Back to fallinghouse and his thoughts of the mid-ages "just being cautious of science" is bullshit. I STRONGLY urge you to grab a history book and read about it. You will find that the MAJORITY of the intellectual world regards the scientific persecution in the mid ages a DIRECT result of hoaky supernaturalistic beliefs. Fear of science disrupting religious teachings.

Of course they feared that their religious teachings would be disrupted, because they believed what would result from that (the eternal torment of many souls) to be disastrous. This only highlights why they were cautious. As I said, all societies have mechanisms to guarantee that any future technological advances will not do more harm then good, and this was just the mechanism of pre-modern Europe.

My final point is this......the major difference between the meme of theism and the meme of science is this......agendas. The memes have a different agenda. Theisms agenda (for sake of argument) involves saving a person's soul. It could be construed as a meme designed for social control given it's history, but for sake of argument we can safely say the primary objective of religion is to save the souls of humans. The meme of religion by it's very nature is a VERY strict and rigid meme, taking what LITTLE changes it does, very slowly.

Judging religion as strict and rigid, then implying that this harms it is nothing more than the application of your own subjective criteria for how a beneficial meme behaves. A christian could easily use their own criteria and reply that the reason there is little change is that little change is needed.

Also, there is no Grand Theistic Agenda.

The primary agenda of science is truth. Using methods of logic to find truth. To hold things true until evidence comes up to the contrary. To accumulate a body of knowledge that is as true as it can possibly be. This meme IS the best method humantiy has come up with so far to determine TRUTH. Science is willing and ABLE to change by the VERY nature of the meme that is science.

HISTORICALLY, (grab a fucking book kids) the meme of science has been BETTER in many, many, many ways for humantiy that the meme of theism. This IS the way it fucking is. One WILL BE assigned more value BASED upon results for humanity as a fucking whole throughout history. YOU CAN believe these memes even. You can believe you shit ice cream for all I care. What you CANNOT do is prove either. I can and have, all you have to do is pick up an 8th grade science, biology, and history book.

It should go without saying that you consider your meme to have the agenda of truth, I doubt you'll find many who don't give that agenda to their beliefs. It should further go without saying that all memes are beneficial by their own criteria of beneficial, so asserting that your own meme passes all its own tests is no proof at all of its superiority; and this is exactly what you have attempted to do throughout this discussion.

Pyronos: You are taking what I have said, and then attempting to build a model for how you think that I think people should act. That model is of your mind alone, I have not made normative claims, only descriptive ones.

You're either a hopeless retard or intellectually dishonest. I notice how you didn't comment on the part where I display how utterly full of shit you are. Here, I'll repeat it:

Copypasting from Logic 101 does not constitute relevance: your points are useless and can be discarded. You have no argument, you have a reductio ad absurdum fallacy.
What you're doing is defending your outrageously stupid belief in supernatural, superfluous bullshit by deconstructing a perfectly valid presupposition.

Grow up, please.

Consider the following argument:

premise 1: p
premise 2: q
∴ q

The validity of the conclusion is independent of the truth of the first premise. Clearly, you can have a valid conclusion with false premise.

He specifically said "As far as your syllogism goes", as in, that is the context being worked with; you cannot then conjure up a new context to refute his point. In the syllogism provided by JesuitArtiste, the first premise was not irrelevant to the whole deductive argument. He said:

"P1. You are a vagina
P2. I fuck vaginas
C1. I will fuck you"


This is classic modus ponens, and both premises are required to reach the conclusion.


He is entirely correct in saying you cannot reach the conclusion (through that argument at least) if you know that either one of those two premises is false.

You're either a hopeless retard or intellectually dishonest. I notice how you didn't comment on the part where I display how utterly full of shit you are. Here, I'll repeat it:

Copypasting from Logic 101 does not constitute relevance: your points are useless and can be discarded. You have no argument, you have a reductio ad absurdum fallacy.What you're doing is defending your outrageously stupid belief in supernatural, superfluous bullshit by deconstructing a perfectly valid presupposition.

First, reductio ad absurdum is not a logical fallacy, but is in fact a valid form of argument that's been accepted for thousands of years. I doubt you'll believe me, so here are a couple of sources that you might consider reliable on the topic:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/reductio.htm
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ReductioadAbsurdum.html

Second, I have only used the reductio ad absurdum to argue a single minor point in this thread, which was that christians can use logic. In the grand scheme of the discussion, this was a point that had little impact, so even if reductio ad absurdum were fallacious, the fallacy would have little effect at all.

...

Ok, I'll concede that point. It was just a minor nit-pick anyway and I thought he was referring to a point I made in a different thread, as opposed to Jesuit.

First, reductio ad absurdum is not a logical fallacy, but is in fact a valid form of argument that's been accepted for thousands of years. I doubt you'll believe me, so here are a couple of sources that you might consider reliable on the topic:

These are valid forms of argument in that they define "absurd" as a logical contradiction. Finding a logical contradiction in an argument is certainly valid, but that's not what he is saying you're doing. I believe he is saying you're reducing the arguments to things you believe are absurd (i.e. not a logical contradiction but just something you think is strange or weird). Essentially, a parody of the argument being given, which would be a logical fallacy.


Second, I have only used the reductio ad absurdum to argue a single minor point in this thread, which was that christians can use logic. In the grand scheme of the discussion, this was a point that had little impact, so even if reductio ad absurdum were fallacious, the fallacy would have little effect at all.

In the way he's using the term, you've been using it all over the thread.

Your own objections can be dismissed by with the use of your very own statements.

For example: "In other words, you don't like it because it is not education into your own meme complex."

What stopping anyone from saying "In other words, you think it's that he doesn't like it because it is not an education in his own meme complex, because of your own meme complex."

This can be carried out ad nauseam: all equally meaningless statements. If you reduce everything to meme, and then imply that they are all equally meaningful, or equally correct - depending on a persons' perspective - then you've dissolved any point you had in the first place!

In the way he's using the term, you've been using it all over the thread.

Your own objections can be dismissed by with the use of your very own statements.

For example: "In other words, you don't like it because it is not education into your own meme complex."

I didn't make that statement, or statements like that, because I thought Broke's view was somehow 'strange' or 'weird', and should hence be rejected for that reason.

No, what I was doing was suggesting an alternate hypothesis that fits the data equally well, but does not serve his agenda. Not some bastardised form of reductio, but the philosophical use of a skeptical hypothesis. The point of this is to show how evidence could just as easily help my cause as his, so that his meme complex containing the rules of argument will require that he come up with some way of negating my hypothesis if he wants to assert his own.

What stopping anyone from saying "In other words, you think it's that he doesn't like it because it is not an education in his own meme complex, because of your own meme complex."

Nothing at all, but that is just another hypothesis, which only increases the number of of them that he needs to negate in order to assert his own.

This can be carried out ad nauseam: all equally meaningless statements. If you reduce everything to meme, and then imply that they are all equally meaningful, or equally correct - depending on a persons' perspective - then you've dissolved any point you had in the first place!

Simply by participating in the debate, I am denying that I support the idea that all memes are equally correct. Brokeprophet has the meme containing the rules of argument, and I am pretending to have this meme, in order that there is some arbiter to go to and discussion may take place. We have set this meme higher than all the others.

I may have implied one meme was equally meaningful as another, but I did not imply that all memes are equally meaningful. But, if I did imply that equality, as I do in some threads, then the discussion would simply hinge on whatever memes were held in common, which would have the same end result as the previous paragraph.

I didn't make that statement, or statements like that, because I thought Broke's view was somehow 'strange' or 'weird', and should hence be rejected for that reason.

I wasn't using that specific quote as an example, I'm sorry if it gave that impression. I was using that quote to show where I thought your argument failed.

An example of reducing it in the way (I'm assuming) he meant, would be saying that a memes value depends on what the meme complex itself values.



Nothing at all, but that is just another hypothesis, which only increases the number of of them that he needs to negate in order to assert his own.

Yet if you dismiss his claim as simply part of his "meme complex" and thus only true to him, then he can dismiss the claim that it's only part of his "meme complex" and only true to him, as well. That's the point. Your objection self refutes.



I may have implied one meme was equally meaningful as another, but I did not imply that all memes are equally meaningful. But, if I did imply that equality, as I do in some threads, then the discussion would simply hinge on whatever memes were held in common, which would have the same end result as the previous paragraph.

The problem is that you're attributing a memes value to the person's belief:

"Historical facts are not seen as beneficial or harmful until someone who values specific things looks at them and decides whether these historical events helped or hindered their own cause. It is memes that give you these values. Of course your meme complex considers science to be better for humanity, because science is what it values."

We can apply the exact same thing to your whole argument. For example:

Say that your argument is X, then of course your meme complex considers X to be a true and valid argument, because that argument is what it values.

The position that a meme's value depends on the observer, a relativist position, means that very claim - if the product of a meme - is intrinsically without inherent value itself.

We are alive right now thanks to this planet. Therefore our planet created us, and is god.

I happen to believe this statement and live by it.

...

As the discussion is taking place within the context of the shared meme regarding rules for argument, then in order to dismiss a claim, the grounds for dismissal must be in accordance with this meme.

A dismissal of a claim because it is an unshared value judgement is in accordance, unless evidence can be provided to somehow establish said value as contained within the rules of argument.

A dismissal of a claim because it is the belief of the one asserting it is not in accordance; unless there is some further problem, ie. it is contradictory or fallacious or draws on values that have not been justified.

You have no doubt noted that some (perhaps most or even all) of my skeptical hypotheses simply draw attention to the fact that something is the belief of the person who is asserting it, in the manner of the previous paragraph. The reason that this doesn't break the rules is that a skeptical hypothesis is not a dismissal of the opposing claim.

For example, consider Descartes' skeptical hypothesis that there is an all powerful demon deceiving him. This is not a dismissal of the idea that there is no demon, it is a dismissal of the idea that there could be no demon. Now imagine that some other philosopher comes along and raises a counter hypothesis, saying that Descartes could himself be deceiving us without us knowing it. This new skeptical hypothesis is in no way a refutation of the possibility of Descartes' demon, it simply raises the alternate possibility that Descartes might be wrong, which was already admitted in the first place.

In terms of the current debate, this means that a critic might raise a skeptical hypothesis that all of my own skeptical hypotheses are no more than memes, but this does not refute my arguments, all it does is raise the possibility that I may be wrong, which I concede already.

It is not a new "skeptical hypothesis". I'm not proposing another possible situation. I'm reaching the necessary conclusion of the exact same "skeptical hypothesis" you created.

If the value of a meme is relative to the person that holds it, as your skeptical hypothesis has essentially stated, then that very skeptical hypothesis' value lies only with you and/or anyone else that holds it. Thus, your very own "skeptical hypothesis" refutes itself, or has no objective truth value except to those who accept it as true to begin with. In other words, you've just removed any power your "skeptical hypothesis" had as an argument.

If the value of a meme is relative to the person that holds it, as your skeptical hypothesis has essentially stated, then that very skeptical hypothesis' value lies only with you and/or anyone else that holds it. Thus, your very own "skeptical hypothesis" refutes itself, or has no objective truth value except to those who accept it as true to begin with. In other words, you've just removed any power your "skeptical hypothesis" had as an argument.

I agree that if the value of a meme is relative to the person that holds it, then then the conclusions arrived at from that meme are simply the subjective beliefs of that person. I further agree that when this is applied to itself, it means that the skeptical hypothesis becomes simply the subjective belief of whoever would claim it. But this is not enough to dismiss it or make it without value, and my reasons for thinking this I will now give.

In an argument, if opposing claims could be dismissed simply because they are the beliefs of the one asserting them, then the argument would never get anywhere. That is why such dismissals are against the rules of argument. And these very rules of argument are providing the framework for the whole debate.

This means a critic can't dismiss my skeptical hypothesis because it is subjective belief, just as the hypothesis itself can't dismiss BrokeProphet's claims simply because they are subjective belief. The only path left open with this sort of argument is to raise the possibility of error, so that if one wished to assert as true the thing that is being argued against, then the argument needs to be ruled out.

BrokeProphet is asserting as true his ideas that his meme is better than another, so I can apply the skeptical hypothesis against it. I am not asserting that the skeptical hypothesis is true, only possible, so applying it to itself does no real damage.

In an argument, if opposing claims could be dismissed simply because they are the beliefs of the one asserting them, then the argument would never get anywhere. That is why such dismissals are against the rules of argument. And these very rules of argument are providing the framework for the whole debate.

You're not representing the problem correctly.

It's not just because "their are the beliefs of the one asserting them" that it is a problem. You could say I have the belief that 2 + 2 = 4. The difference between that and what your "skeptical hypothesis" has done is that math does not reduce the value of the statement 2 + 2 =4 to the observers relative opinion. Math doesn't care what you or I think; 2 + 2 = 4 would be true regardless of our opinions.

That is very different from stating that the truth value of the belief itself is only given by the person stating the belief in the first place.

If the truth value of your "skeptical hypothesis" is relative to the observer, then you can't really apply the "skeptical hypothesis" against BrokeProphet's claims, because your "skeptical hypothesis" isn't inherently in favor or against anything! That would depend on the observer!

Arguing such a subjective "skeptical hypothesis" would be tantamount to arguing what color is prettiest. There is no ground to work with.

If the truth value of your "skeptical hypothesis" is relative to the observer, then you can't really apply the "skeptical hypothesis" against BrokeProphet's claims, because your "skeptical hypothesis" isn't inherently in favor or against anything! That would depend on the observer!

This would be troublesome if I were asserting the skeptical hypothesis as truth, but I am not. I am asserting that it is a possibility that whenever something is being asserted that the assertion only appears true because it is supported by a meme. I am asserting that it is a possibility that the truth value of a particular assertion is entirely relative to the observer.

What this means is that if the skeptical hypothesis is applied to itself, then all that re-application does is raise the possibility that the old possibility of a certain claim only appearing true because it is supported by a meme is non-existent. This new possibility does not make the one that was already there disappear from all possible worlds, so the original still needs to be ruled out in order to assert the claim.

This "possibility" talk is irrelevant. A possibility only shows that there are chances it could be true, and chances were it couldn't be true. However, we are talking hypothetically of a scenario where it is the case; other scenarios were it isn't the case don't interest us because if it wasn't true there would be no objection to begin with.

In the scenario were it is the case, it self refutes because it's truth value would be relative to the observer; it ceases to be a problem for BrokeProphet, unless he subjectively decides that it is a problem.

Been gone for a couple of days...

From what I have read it seems that fallinghouse is having to resort to more and more abstract, absurd thought process to defend what he is saying. Continuing down this path eventually your argument for religion WILL DISSOLVE into this:

B L I N D F A I T H

Blind faith is the ONLY logical argument a thiest has to defend their chosen faith. PERIOD. You cannot have a logical discourse of ANY kind to prove a belief in GOD as anything more than blind faith.

IF YOU STILL FEEL THAT YOU, CAN PLEASE MAKE AN ARGUMENT AS SUCH AND FILL IN THE PREMISES WITH A LOGICAL SYLLOGISM HAVING A VALID CONCLUSION THAT PROVES OR VALIDATES GOD. ONLY THEN CAN YOU USE GOD AS A FUCKING PREMISE.

Continue to talk circles if you wish but until you fill in the blanks for you super cool logical argument for faith and god...your argument will have no basis.

You cannot do this. YOU CANNOT DO THIS. IF you could, you would be on David Letterman tonight as he holds up your picture on time magazine as man of the year. Since you have not mentioned being booked on the Late Show, methinks your talking out of your ass entirely.

:)

This "possibility" talk is irrelevant. A possibility only shows that there are chances it could be true, and chances were it couldn't be true. However, we are talking hypothetically of a scenario where it is the case; other scenarios were it isn't the case don't interest us because if it wasn't true there would be no objection to begin with.

In the scenario were it is the case, it self refutes because it's truth value would be relative to the observer; it ceases to be a problem for BrokeProphet, unless he subjectively decides that it is a problem.

Except that it is applied separately to each assertion, so it could be true with regards to one assertion and false with regards to another. So it could be true with regards to Brokeprophet and false when applied to itself.

Except that it is applied separately to each assertion, so it could be true with regards to one assertion and false with regards to another. So it could be true with regards to Brokeprophet and false when applied to itself.

Science was invented and logic is used to untangle the webs of shit people like you wish to create in an argument.

Except that it is applied separately to each assertion, so it could be true with regards to one assertion and false with regards to another. So it could be true with regards to Brokeprophet and false when applied to itself.

Memes as a whole would would be included, not just the ones you pick and choose. No to mention that that statement in itself would rest on the observer as well - ad nauseum.

In any case, if your whole point is that there is some remote possibility that he could be wrong then that's a pretty trivial objection to begin with. It seems you're just grasping at straws.

Memes as a whole would would be included, not just the ones you pick and choose.

All memes would have the potential to be included, but if one meme has truth value relative to the observer, it hardly follows that all do.

No to mention that that statement in itself would rest on the observer as well - ad nauseum.

That statement in itself could rest on the observer as well. And all that does is raise another possibility without eliminating the one already given.

In any case, if your whole point is that there is some remote possibility that he could be wrong then that's a pretty trivial objection to begin with. It seems you're just grasping at straws.

What grounds is there to say the possibility that he is wrong is remote? If it is accepted that more people in history have been wrong when they thought they were right than people who were right, then that possibility grows to a probability.

But raising the possibility is not the final goal of the skeptical hypothesis. Because it explains the evidence he has provided just as well as the theory that he is right, then he has no evidence that allows him to assert his own hypothesis over my skeptical hypothesis.

All memes would have the potential to be included, but if one meme has truth value relative to the observer, it hardly follows that all do.

No, the fact that you implied all did, and that there is nothing stopping your line of reasoning from being applied to all memes, except your convenience, does.



That statement in itself could rest on the observer as well. And all that does is raise another possibility without eliminating the one already given.

That statement itself rests on the observer as well. You can reply that that would raise yet another possibility, and I would then apply the same criteria there: that would rest on the observer.

We can continue that ad nauseum and we would be left with a line of reasoning that does not have a verifiable final claim that would assures us of the possibility of the meme having objective value.


Because it explains the evidence he has provided just as well as the theory that he is right, then he has no evidence that allows him to assert his own hypothesis over my skeptical hypothesis.

Hardly. You cannot claim, as a fact, that it it explains the evidence because you haven't established that. Indeed, you've refuted the possibility of you ever establishing that if we consider your "hypothesis" as true to begin with.

No, the fact that you implied all did,

Did I?

and that there is nothing stopping your line of reasoning from being applied to all memes, except your convenience, does.

The applying of my hypotheses only raises possibilities against all memes. And if all memes possibly have their truth value relative to the observer, it hardly follows that all do.

That statement itself rests on the observer as well. You can reply that that would raise yet another possibility, and I would then apply the same criteria there: that would rest on the observer.

We can continue that ad nauseum and we would be left with a line of reasoning that does not have a verifiable final claim that would assures us of the possibility of the meme having objective value.

Each time someone applies the hypothesis to itself, the original possibility hypothesised remains, and the only thing that changes is that another possibility is added. Since this iterative process has no mechanism to remove possibilities, there is no reason to think that the original possibility might somehow disappear after large amounts of recursion.

Hardly. You cannot claim, as a fact, that it it explains the evidence because you haven't established that. Indeed, you've refuted the possibility of you ever establishing that if we consider your "hypothesis" as true to begin with.

Yes, I made a mistake there. I should have said that my skeptical hypothesis possibly explains the evidence just as well as his theory, so if he wants to assert his theory, he needs to either find new evidence that is not possibly explained by me as well, or show that the possibility of him being in error is negligible.

To counter my argument that the meme of science is better than the meme of religion, all you have done is taken a really long to say this:

That's just your opinion dude.

If that is the whole of your counter argument I think we are done.

Did I?

Pretty much, yes; at least you gave no valid reason why your argument would stop where you want it to stop, save for arbitrary ones that seem to exist there only out of convenience.


The applying of my hypotheses only raises possibilities against all memes. And if all memes possibly have their truth value relative to the observer, it hardly follows that all do.Again, you cannot say that, for a fact, because that in itself would depend on the observer as well.


Each time someone applies the hypothesis to itself, the original possibility hypothesised remains, and the only thing that changes is that another possibility is added. Since this iterative process has no mechanism to remove possibilities, there is no reason to think that the original possibility might somehow disappear after large amounts of recursion.Wrong. This very reasoning you're using to justify the claim that the "original possibility hypothesised remains" would be dependent on the observer as well. Until you manage to resolve it's truth value, you can't magically conclude that it is true.

We are left with a never ending lists of claim that rest on the value of the observer which can only be resolved if, at the end you can claim, for a fact, that the Xth iteration does not depend on the observer. You haven't done so, thus you cannot claim what you're saying is true. Well you can claim it but you can't back it up - further highlighting the ridiculous nature of your objection.

You are also assuming that because you can dream up the scenario, a possibility of it being true exists.


Yes, I made a mistake there. I should have said that my skeptical hypothesis possibly explains the evidence just as well as his theory, so if he wants to assert his theory, he needs to either find new evidence that is not possibly explained by me as well, or show that the possibility of him being in error is negligible.Needs to? That depends on the observer as well! I hope you see how ridiculous your objection is.

...

All I'm trying to say is that this dude believes P1 to be true and acts accordingly.

Unless you are going to tell me that the black man who believes you are a vagina ,and so wants to rape you, does not think you are a vagina.

To act in the way he has the black man MUST believe the argument, P1 and P2 must be true so the the Conclusion is true. Now objectively it is obviously absurd to suggest that an individual is a vagina, as vaginas and individuals are seperate by definition.

I've no intention of proclaiming that he is, or is not right.

To act in the way he has the black man MUST believe the argument, P1 and P2 must be true so the the Conclusion is true. Now objectively it is obviously absurd to suggest that an individual is a vagina, as vaginas and individuals are seperate by definition.

I've no intention of proclaiming that he is, or is not right.

You cannot have a valid conclusion with false premise. Anyone can question a premise. Taking a look at the evidence will determine if the premise is true or false and determine the validity of the conclusion and the validity of the argument.

In this case the conclusion is NOT true no matter how deluded the black dude is in THINKING it his premises true.

Fallinghouse, memetics is not concerned with the truth value of memes, but with their psychological and sociological effects and evolution. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to prove.

You cannot have a valid conclusion with false premise. Anyone can question a premise. Taking a look at the evidence will determine if the premise is true or false and determine the validity of the conclusion and the validity of the argument.

In this case the conclusion is NOT true no matter how deluded the black dude is in THINKING it his premises true.

Of course the conclusion is true, assuming that he fucks you, then he's fucked you, hasn't he?

But whatever, you have your ideas, I'll have mine.

Pretty much, yes; at least you gave no valid reason why your argument would stop where you want it to stop, save for arbitrary ones that seem to exist there only out of convenience.

What do you mean by 'arbitrary ones'? I'm not suggesting that my line of reasoning can't be applied to all memes, I'm only suggesting that the notion that all memes are either truth value relative or none are is not my line of reasoning at all.

Again, you cannot say that, for a fact, because that in itself would depend on the observer as well...

...Wrong. This very reasoning you're using to justify the claim that the "original possibility hypothesised remains" would be dependent on the observer as well. Until you manage to resolve it's truth value, you can't magically conclude that it is true.

We are left with a never ending lists of claim that rest on the value of the observer which can only be resolved if, at the end you can claim, for a fact, that the Xth iteration does not depend on the observer. You haven't done so, thus you cannot claim what you're saying is true. Well you can claim it but you can't back it up - further highlighting the ridiculous nature of your objection.

You are also assuming that because you can dream up the scenario, a possibility of it being true exists...

...Needs to? That depends on the observer as well! I hope you see how ridiculous your objection is.

Application of basic reasoning is justified under the rules of argument meme. The notion that if someone can't negate their opponent, then they can't make their assertion is also justified under the rules of argument.

Fallinghouse, memetics is not concerned with the truth value of memes, but with their psychological and sociological effects and evolution. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to prove.

I'm trying to prove just that. I'm arguing against BrokeProphet's repeated suggestions that because religion can be described as a meme, then it is both stupid to be religious and that religion is some kind of disease.

I can't believe this topic isn't dead yet. We're still talking about this shit?
Fine, I'll bite.

I'm trying to prove just that. I'm arguing against BrokeProphet's repeated suggestions that because religion can be described as a meme, then it is both stupid to be religious and that religion is some kind of disease.

Aha. No, the way that religion differs as a meme from... say, a "delicious cake" meme, is this:
Religion needs to hijack a person's OTHER memes.
A priest will never try and sell religion stand-alone. He has to attach bits of 'Justice' and 'Truth' to it, for you to swallow it. And once you do, you're forever associating the fundamental concept of Truth or Justice with 'Jesus'. People like this are VERY manipulable. You don't need more proof of that than the fucking Vatican itself.

I'm trying to prove just that. I'm arguing against BrokeProphet's repeated suggestions that because religion can be described as a meme, then it is both stupid to be religious and that religion is some kind of disease.

NO. I DO NOT BELIEVE (as you suggested) THE XTIAN MEME IS BAD SIMPLY B/C IT IS DESCRIBED AS A MEME.

I recognize many concepts in society behave or can be described as a meme. Some have more value than others for a society.

HERE ARE MY POINTS FOR YOU AGAIN.....

Relgious memes actively seek out young underdevoloped minds more so than more mature minds.
The Xtian meme is one propagated by fear (of Hell for example).
The meme itself states that in order for you to avoid Hell you MUST spread the meme.
This makes religion a VERY infectious meme.
Historically, the meme has it's host murder those who oppose the meme itself in horrific fashion.
The meme requires 10% of your income to help propagate the meme.


To sum it up the Xtian meme uses fear to propagate itself amongst young more readily succeptible minds in an effort to elimate other memes (through violence and oppression) and generate wealth to help propagate the Xtian meme.

^^^^This makes the Xtian meme one of the WORST memes known to mankind. That was my point.

Aha. No, the way that religion differs as a meme from... say, a "delicious cake" meme, is this:
Religion needs to hijack a person's OTHER memes.
A priest will never try and sell religion stand-alone. He has to attach bits of 'Justice' and 'Truth' to it, for you to swallow it. And once you do, you're forever associating the fundamental concept of Truth or Justice with 'Jesus'. People like this are VERY manipulable. You don't need more proof of that than the fucking Vatican itself.

What do you mean "a priest will never try and sell religion stand-alone"? Ideas about truth and justice are included inside the meme. There is no hijacking, a religion meme complex is the sum of the attached memes.

But even if I accepted these judgements as accurate, then do you have any proof of an objective scale of value that means from here you can definitively call religion a bad thing?

NO. I DO NOT BELIEVE (as you suggested) THE XTIAN MEME IS BAD SIMPLY B/C IT IS DESCRIBED AS A MEME.

"Google meme complex for more information on the mental illness that is theism."

"You see what you wanna see when if comes to this crap. If you are infected with a Xtian fundamentalist meme then you will of course see the clear predictions of revelations that have already begun to come true."

"That rift when you sin is this...your meme complex kicking in forcing the guilt that someone told you to have for your natural actions to the surface."

"Read up on Meme complex. It takes a long time to rid yourself of this disease of the mind. I wish you luck in defeating this indoctrined [sic] and viral mental illness that is all theism."

"The nature of theism is a meme complex a mind virus. It is an idea that spreads like a virus through a culture. Urban legends are an example of a mind virus. "


^^^^This makes the Xtian meme one of the WORST memes known to mankind. That was my point.

Do you have any proof of an objective scale of value that justifies your opinion when you assert that something is 'worst'?

You said:
"To sum it up the Xtian meme uses fear to propagate itself amongst young more readily succeptible minds in an effort to elimate other memes (through violence and oppression) and generate wealth to help propagate the Xtian meme. "

But even if I accepted these judgements as accurate, then you still need to provide proof that these things are bad.

You said:
"To sum it up the Xtian meme uses fear to propagate itself amongst young more readily succeptible minds in an effort to elimate other memes (through violence and oppression) and generate wealth to help propagate the Xtian meme. "

But even if I accepted these judgements as accurate, then you still need to provide proof that these things are bad.

Google Inquisition, Dark Ages, Crusades.

My proof is with history. I will not quote the NUMEROUS books and articles that you will find with one click of your goodle button on the webernet here. These things were pretty damn bad. These things are b/c of the this:

To sum it up the Xtian meme uses fear to propagate itself amongst young more readily succeptible minds in an effort to elimate other memes (through violence and oppression) and generate wealth to help propagate the Xtian meme.

Me considering thiesm bad BECAUSE it is a meme...is false. I consider the MEME that is thiesm to be bad. Many things are memes. A dirty joke is a meme. I do not consider a dirty joke bad for humanity. You can stop trying to paint that shitty picture now.

Google Inquisition, Dark Ages, Crusades.

My proof is with history. I will not quote the NUMEROUS books and articles that you will find with one click of your goodle button on the webernet here. These things were pretty damn bad. These things are b/c of the this:

To sum it up the Xtian meme uses fear to propagate itself amongst young more readily succeptible minds in an effort to elimate other memes (through violence and oppression) and generate wealth to help propagate the Xtian meme.

Where is your proof that any of these things are bad? Where is your proof that the people who participated in the inquisition, dark ages and crusades held the same meme complex that Christians do today? Where is your proof that religion is to blame for the so called 'dark' ages?

Me considering thiesm bad BECAUSE it is a meme...is false. I consider the MEME that is thiesm to be bad. Many things are memes. A dirty joke is a meme. I do not consider a dirty joke bad for humanity. You can stop trying to paint that shitty picture now.

I'm glad to see you've recognized your mistake and hope you won't continue to make it. Of course, the way you rationalise changing your opinion is by telling yourself you've thought this way all along, so I don't expect you to admit anything.

"Where is your proof that any of these things are bad?"

Please kill yourself, you aren't doing any good being alive.

Where is your proof that any of these things are bad? Where is your proof that the people who participated in the inquisition, dark ages and crusades held the same meme complex that Christians do today? Where is your proof that religion is to blame for the so called 'dark' ages?

WOW.

Do you believe that the millions of women and children who were killed possessed magic (witches)?

If you do then you yourself represent my problem with fundamentalist christianity better than I could EVER justify it through words.

If you do NOT then I present to you proof that these people were murdered. Ahem......MURDER BAD.

Proof that the people who participated in the inquistition, dark ages, and crusades hold the same meme that xtains do today.........THE BIBLE IS UNCHANGED!!! SAME FUCKING TEXT BOOK THAT THEY USED TO JUSTIFY THE MURDERS OF MILLIONS!!! The bible itself is patient zero. HAS TO BE PATIENT ZERO. Patient zero represents the starting point of the pandemic mind virus that is christianity.

Proving that religion caused the dark ages is not so simple as the two previous TRUTHS I have presented you with. I do not expect you will agree to this simple notion but here goes....

Christianity murdered and excommunicated scientists and learned men who may have disagreed with the church. First and foremost you genetically remove genes better adapt at intelligence from the gene pool. Second, those men do not get to pass on their memes of science. This causes a drop in average intelligence. People of less intelligence may NEVER figure out that fleas are spreading the plague. May never figure out a lot of shit, simple economics, rotating crops to prevent famine, not to fucking eat yellow snow. Since humans are societal animals a drop in societal intelligence affects humans a great deal. Society crumbles and education might as well be in the dark.

I would not say religion is COMPLETELY responsible for the dark ages but it did attribute to it a great, great deal.

If you do NOT then I present to you proof that these people were murdered. Ahem......MURDER BAD.

Where is your proof that murder is bad?

Proof that the people who participated in the inquistition, dark ages, and crusades hold the same meme that xtains do today.........THE BIBLE IS UNCHANGED!!! SAME FUCKING TEXT BOOK THAT THEY USED TO JUSTIFY THE MURDERS OF MILLIONS!!! The bible itself is patient zero. HAS TO BE PATIENT ZERO. Patient zero represents the starting point of the pandemic mind virus that is christianity.

Non sequitur. Christians are not the bible. A book alone is nothing. What is important is how the people who follow that book interpret it. And the interpretations of Christians today vary vastly from those of Christians a thousand years ago. For example, few modern Christians accept more than a handful of the proposals of Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Few modern Christians call for the trial of heretics, with death as penalty. How do I know this? Because if they did want those things, they would perform them in every country in which Christians are a majority and/or possess significant power, including the USA.

Christianity murdered and excommunicated scientists and learned men who may have disagreed with the church. First and foremost you genetically remove genes better adapt at intelligence from the gene pool. Second, those men do not get to pass on their memes of science. This causes a drop in average intelligence. People of less intelligence may NEVER figure out that fleas are spreading the plague. May never figure out a lot of shit, simple economics, rotating crops to prevent famine, not to fucking eat yellow snow. Since humans are societal animals a drop in societal intelligence affects humans a great deal. Society crumbles and education might as well be in the dark.

Do you have a source for any of this?

I doubt it, primarily because you are working from false assumptions, foremost of which is that the Dark ages were a period of chaos. This is the popular view of that period of history but is in fact supported by few (if any) historians. In fact, many modern historians don't even use the term 'Dark Ages' because of it's false connotations.

Furthermore, I've got the source of an expert with a Ph.D in the history and philosophy of science, David Lindberg, who writes:

"As for the ills that threatened literacy, learning and especially science during the Middle Ages [from the years 450 to 1450], blame is most often laid at the feet of the Christian Church, which is alleged to have placed religious authority above personal experience and rational activity, thereby snuffing out the faint sparks of scientific and other forms of intellectual creativity that had survived the barbarian invasions of late antiquity. But this is a caricature, the acceptance of which has proved an obstacle to an understanding of the Middle Ages as they really were."

Donald R. Shanor, David C. Lindberg, Ronald L. Numbers, When Science & Christianity Meet, p.7

Where is your proof that murder is bad?.

You being a Christian trying to defend the Inquisition I can understand (effort to win argument) WHY you would fiegn such ignorance, just cannot believe you actually would in an argument, and consider it a smart thing to do.

Few modern Christians call for the trial of heretics, with death as penalty. How do I know this? Because if they did want those things, they would perform them in every country in which Christians are a majority and/or possess significant power, including the USA.

The only reason they DO NOT do these things is b/c the State and the people will not allow it. It's literal intepretations (kill fags etc.) is held in check by secular society. To see how a fellow Abrhamic religion does when not held in check by secular society, see Iran, to give you a modern perspective.

But this is a caricature, the acceptance of which has proved an obstacle to an understanding of the Middle Ages as they really were.".

Your good Doctor did not say FALSE did he? I have not read the book but if he does not attribute some of the dark ages (as I do) to the backward ass ways of the church then they should burn his diploma and beat him with a wet hose.

Why don't you write this doctor and ask him why murder is bad, better yet tell him to prove it to you....be sure to include your age, else he will think you ARE FUCKING 8 YEARS OLD.

LOL.

:)

Where is your proof that murder is bad?

Fuck it, I do not even require a response from you for all of the above. This simple quote shows me where you are at mentally. I find it hilarious you would actually have me believe that YOU are this ignorant. Then again.........you do believe in evil fruit and zombie men.

You being a Christian trying to defend the Inquisition I can understand (effort to win argument) WHY you would fiegn such ignorance, just cannot believe you actually would in an argument, and consider it a smart thing to do...

...Fuck it, I do not even require a response from you for all of the above. This simple quote shows me where you are at mentally. I find it hilarious you would actually have me believe that YOU are this ignorant. Then again.........you do believe in evil fruit and zombie men.

1. I'm not a Christian.

2. That's no proof that murder is bad. If it is so obvious, then it should be a simple matter to give your evidence.

The only reason they DO NOT do these things is b/c the State and the people will not allow it. It's literal intepretations (kill fags etc.) is held in check by secular society. To see how a fellow Abrhamic religion does when not held in check by secular society, see Iran, to give you a modern perspective.

1. If Christians are a majority, then in a democratic society, they control the state, and they are the people.

2. We are talking about Christianity here, not Islam.

Your good Doctor did not say FALSE did he? I have not read the book but if he does not attribute some of the dark ages (as I do) to the backward ass ways of the church then they should burn his diploma and beat him with a wet hose.

1. That's not an argument. That's just saying that if he disagrees with you then he is wrong. Where is your evidence?

2. The word caricature, when used in this context, implies that the claims are an exaggeration and/or distortion of the facts, so asserting those claims is a mistake.

That's no proof that murder is bad. If it is so obvious, then it should be a simple matter to give your evidence.

I can but what would be the point. If you have resorted to this level of infantile shit why waste my time. Seriously, I could point out that if I murdered your mother it would be bad for you. If she was a key member in the community it could be bad for the community.

To which you would reply with some more infantile shit such as "what if I did not love my mother" or "maybe she was a violent criminal".

I can point out that murder is destructive and unproductive for a society and culture.

To which your new straw man can be "Some murders are productive, you could murder a theif for example"

Fact is, you know murder is bad you know why it is bad, you are arguing a point you already know b/c you lost the original argument. It is bullshit and a waste of my time. You lost the point dickhole, deal with it. Inquistion was murder for profit by the church and it was bad. PERIOD.

"To sum it up the Xtian meme uses fear to propagate itself amongst young more readily succeptible minds in an effort to elimate other memes (through violence and oppression) and generate wealth to help propagate the Xtian meme. "

This is my original point. If you cannot accept the history or this being bad...don't. You do not get to win the argument by being that obtuse however. Sorry.

Seriously, I could point out that if I murdered your mother it would be bad for you.

Why is my sadness a bad thing?

If she was a key member in the community it could be bad for the community.

Why is the death of a key member of society a bad thing?

I can point out that murder is destructive and unproductive for a society and culture.

Why are destructive and unproductive things bad?

Fact is, you know murder is bad you know why it is bad, you are arguing a point you already know b/c you lost the original argument. It is bullshit and a waste of my time. You lost the point dickhole, deal with it. Inquistion was murder for profit by the church and it was bad. PERIOD.

Au contraire, I'm arguing this point because it is at the heart of the discussion. If you are going to label a meme as bad, then you need to provide proof for an objective scale by which to judge such things.

Furthermore, my original arguments still stand, but this approach is much simpler.

"To sum it up the Xtian meme uses fear to propagate itself amongst young more readily succeptible minds in an effort to elimate other memes (through violence and oppression) and generate wealth to help propagate the Xtian meme. "

Even if I accepted these judgements, why are any of these things bad?

but this approach is much simpler.

Indeed. "Simpler" as in asinine, dull, half-witted, idiotic, ignorant, and/or inane

To claim something is bad, and expect that this claim has force in an argument, requires an objective scale by which to judge such things.

It is not asinine, dull, half-witted, idiotic, ignorant or inane to ask for evidence when such claims are made, especially when it is upon these claims that his argument rests.

Indeed. "Simpler" as in asinine, dull, half-witted, idiotic, ignorant, and/or inane

Here, here...

If the best you have for your argument fallinghouse is resorting to a little child muttering "why?" after every answered question then you have failed. The funniest part of it all is you do not even realize that simple truth.

Furthermore, my original arguments still stand, but this approach is much simpler.

Your "standing" argument is beaten so badly it is defended soley by this:

"Why is murder bad...Why are unproductive things bad for a society."

This makes you a cunt...never forget it.

If you have resorted to a façade of condescension instead of argument, then you have failed.

You remain unable to provide proof for your claims, so I see no reason to accept them.

It is not asinine, dull, half witted, idiotic, ignorant or inane to ask for evidence when such claims are made, especially when it is upon these claims that his argument rests.

Huh? I can't understand you. Have you established a objective method of communication? An Objective definition for all the words that you're using? Until you do we simply cannot communicate, nor can I ever be expected to provide the "proof" (whatever that means) you seek. Your argument rests on you establishing this objective language.

-----

Really productive, huh? :rolleyes:

His arguments assumes a general sense of what's good and bad, like "murdering" and the like; something which apparently society has deemed "bad" since it deems it necessary to "punish" it in a specific manner. If you agree, then his argument can continue; if you don't, then it cannot (at least with you) and thus you should stop posting Either way your objections are ridiculous.

To claim something is bad, and expect that this claim has force in an argument, requires an objective scale by which to judge such things.

It is not asinine, dull, half-witted, idiotic, ignorant or inane to ask for evidence when such claims are made, especially when it is upon these claims that his argument rests.


You are correct my claims that the murders of millions of innocent people is bad is where the argument rests. That is why you have lost.

Fact is if you are going to ask "why" after everything, I must in ALL seriousness assume you are legally retarded. I try not to debate with the legally retarded. If you believe murdering is not a bad thing, that unproductive things in a society is a good thing...you need much more education than I am WILLING to give you.

If you have resorted to a façade of condescension instead of argument, then you have failed.

Why is that failure?

How was murdering them ACTUALLY a good thing (besides the church stealing their wealth)?

Until you can come up with something better than......

Well maybe murder is not a bad thing

We're done.

Huh? I can't understand you. Have you established a objective method of communication? An Objective definition for all the words that you're using? Until you do we simply cannot communicate, nor can I ever be expected to provide the "proof" (whatever that means) you seek. Your argument rests on you establishing this objective language.

Inter-subjectivity serves as objectivity for all practical purposes.

His arguments assumes a general sense of what's good and bad, like "murdering" and the like; something which apparently society has deemed "bad" since it deems it necessary to "punish" it in a specific manner. If you agree, then his argument can continue; if you don't, then it cannot (at least with you) and thus you should stop posting Either way your objections are ridiculous.

This general sense of good and bad is clearly not held by someone trying to punish those they deem heretics with death, so inter-subjectivity does not exist here with regards to morality in the way it does with regards to language. So he has no grounds to expect his moral claims to be taken seriously.

Fact is if you are going to ask "why" after everything, I must in ALL seriousness assume you are legally retarded. I try not to debate with the legally retarded. If you believe murdering is not a bad thing, that unproductive things in a society is a good thing...you need much more education than I am WILLING to give you.

1. I'm not asking why after everything, only after moral claims.

2. This is not childish, it is the meta-ethical philosophical view known as moral scepticism.

Why is that failure?

Because derision does not constitute argument.

How was murdering them ACTUALLY a good thing (besides the church stealing their wealth)?

In their moral system, obeying Catholic interpretations of theology was the most important ethical imperative. So when these interpretations called for the killing of heretics, not to kill them would been seen as an incredible sin.

Inter-subjectivity serves as objectivity for all practical purposes.

Sorry I cannot understand you. Please provide an objective definition for all those words. Your argument rests upon it.



This general sense of good and bad is clearly not held by someone trying to punish those they deem heretics with death, so inter-subjectivity does not exist with regards to morality in the way it does with regards to language. So he has no grounds to expect his moral claims to be taken seriously."Clearly not held by them"? Prove it. If it's that "clear" then it should be easy to prove.

---

I'm rather enjoying using the same bullshit tactic against you. Keep it up.

All shits & giggles aside, it is precisely on the idea that "Inter-subjectivity serves as objectivity for all practical purposes" that his argument rests on! He doesn't care if those who punish heretics to death are in agreement with him, he cares if the rest of the people are. He cares about his audience, which he is assuming has that general belief. If they do, then awesome. If they don't, then again: they should stop posting.

Your simple moral skepticism does not sufficiently disprove moral realism, since there could still be objective moral truths regardless of our evidential situation.

Murder is bad for a society. It is bad because if everyone were to murder everyone we would weaken ourselves, become unable to work together and be taken over by bands of humans that work together rather than kill each other. This would end our society as we know it. This is then bad for the society as it ends it.

The fact that the church saw murdered humans that they believed (falsely) had magical powers was then a bad thing.

This is bullshit. Why am I even talking to someone as obtuse as you. Your only defense against my argument is so abstract and bullshitty I cannot put it into words. Oh wait I can...

Prove to me that murdering millions of innocent people is bad.

Awesome argument buddy.

Sorry I cannot understand you. Please provide an objective definition for all those words. Your argument rests upon it.

LOL...exactly. Can anyone consider this type of argumentation as anything but buying time and derailing an argument?

Sorry I cannot understand you. Please provide an objective definition for all those words. Your argument rests upon it.

Huh? I can't understand you either. Have you established a objective method of communication? An Objective definition for all the words that you're using? Until you do we simply cannot communicate, nor can I ever be expected to provide the "objective definition" (whatever that means) you seek. Your argument rests on you establishing this objective language.


Since that way of thinking falls apart as you demonstrated yourself, then we are left with my position (as opposed to your caricature of my position), which is that inter-subjectivity serves as objectivity for all practical purposes.

"Clearly not held by them"? Prove it. If it's that "clear" then it should be easy to prove.

p1. If not killing was seen as a moral imperative more important than obeying the church, then the inquisition would not have happened.
p2. The inquisition happened.

therefore:
c1. Not killing was not seen as a moral imperative more important than obeying the church.
therefore:
c2. This general sense of good and bad is not held by someone trying to punish those they deem heretics with death.

All shits & giggles aside, it is precisely on the idea that "Inter-subjectivity serves as objectivity for all practical purposes" that his argument rests on! He doesn't care if those who punish heretics to death are in agreement with him, he cares if the rest of the people are. He cares about his audience, which he is assuming has that general belief. If they do, then awesome. If they don't, then again: they should stop posting.

Indeed, but if Christians today agree with his moral claims, making them inter-subjective, then these Christians do not in fact have the same meme as the Christians who participated in the inquisition, meaning his criticism does no damage to modern Christianity.

Your simple moral skepticism does not sufficiently disprove moral realism, since there could still be objective moral truths regardless of our evidential situation.

Not all moral sceptics claim to have disproved moral realism. Myself included.

Murder is bad for a society. It is bad because if everyone were to murder everyone we would weaken ourselves, become unable to work together and be taken over by bands of humans that work together rather than kill each other. This would end our society as we know it. This is then bad for the society as it ends it.

However, the inquisitors saw the continuation of society as a secondary goal to guaranteeing the passage of souls to heaven. Furthermore, they were not killing more than a fraction of the population, and the ones they were killing were opposed to the status quo. Either way, their actions could easily be construed as good, so I'm back to waiting for proof, unless you want to admit that Christians back then did not have the same meme complex as Christians today.

Since that way of thinking falls apart as you demonstrated yourself, then we are left with my position (as opposed to your caricature of my position), which is that inter-subjectivity serves as objectivity for all practical purposes.

The same could be said of your inane caricature of his position.

Demanding "proof" of things that are already assumed to be true for the sake of argument is inane. That's what you're doing, hence your argument is "simple" indeed.



p1. If not killing was seen as a moral imperative more important than obeying the church, then the inquisition would not have happened.
p2. The inquisition happened.

therefore:
c1. Not killing was not seen as a moral imperative more important than obeying the church.
therefore:
c2. This general sense of good and bad is not held by someone trying to punish those they deem heretics with death.Which proves fuck all because his argument doesn't rest on any of those two conclusions.

Not to mention that it was just a play on your ridiculous argument - a play which would still stand (you'd have to define those words, that logic, those letters, etc).



Indeed, but if Christians today agree with his moral claims, making them inter-subjective, then these Christians do not in fact have the same meme as the Christians who participated in the inquisition, meaning his criticism does no damage to modern Christianity.That does not follow. They not having the exact same meme does not mean his criticism does no damage. The meme could evolve, the Inquisition still serving as a very good example of its potential damage, and its appalling history.

The same could be said of your inane caricature of his position.

Demanding "proof" of things that are already assumed to be true for the sake of argument is inane. That's what you're doing, hence your argument is "simple" indeed.

It is not inane when I don't share those assumptions.

Which proves fuck all because his argument doesn't rest on any of those two conclusions.

Which is exactly why I didn't feel the need to prove it until you demanded that I do so!

Not to mention that it was just a play on your ridiculous argument - a play which would still stand (you'd have to define those words, that logic, those letters, etc).

I've already explained why that is not my own argument.

That does not follow. They not having the exact same meme does not mean his criticism does no damage. The meme could evolve, the Inquisition still serving as a very good example of its potential damage, and its appalling history.

Ah, but if one part of the meme that has changed is that the inquisition is no longer seen as a good thing, then the chance of Christianity committing another inquisition becomes negligible.

It is not inane when I don't share those assumptions.


If you don't share the assumptions, it is inane to continue to argue about them! Again, the same applies:

Since that way of thinking falls apart as you demonstrated yourself, then we are left with my position, which is that those who disagree with the assumptions, for the sake of argument, should shut the fuck up.


Which is exactly why I didn't feel the need to prove it until you demanded that I do so!...and I demanded that you do so because you were making comments like these:

"This general sense of good and bad is clearly not held by someone trying to punish those they deem heretics with death"



Ah, but if one part of the meme that has changed is that the inquisition is no longer seen as a good thing, then the chance of Christianity committing another inquisition becomes negligible.Really? Prove it. After you do, then please explain how that refutes anything at all, since there could be other "bad" things, besides "another inquisition".

If you don't share the assumptions, it is inane to continue to argue about them! Again, the same applies:

Since that way of thinking falls apart as you demonstrated yourself, then we are left with my position, which is that those who disagree with the assumptions, for the sake of argument, should shut the fuck up.

Hardly. If all were expected to make the assumptions requested by their opponents during debate, then few debates would ever take place. Furthermore, he has on several occasions claimed to hold evidence based beliefs, so me asking for this evidence with regards to an assumption should be simple to deal with.

Really? Prove it.

p1. Enacting an inquisition is a conscious choice.
p2. If a situation is seen as bad by person X, then X will not consciously choose to make this situation more likely.
p3. Christians see the inquisition as a bad thing.
p4. If a situation can only be brought about by conscious choices of people in group Y then if it is to occur, someone in Y must consciously choose to bring it about.

therefore:
c1. Christians will not consciously act to make an inquisition more likely. (from p1, p2 and p3)
therefore:
c2. No inquisition will be enacted by Christians. (from p4 and c1)

After you do, then please explain how that refutes anything at all, since there could be other "bad" things, besides "another inquisition".

There is always a chance that people following any meme will do unforeseen bad things. This possibility is no more damaging to Christianity than it is to any meme.

Life is no more than an extremely adaptable crystal.

Hardly. If all were expected to make the assumptions requested by their opponents during debate, then few debates would ever take place. Furthermore, he has on several occasions claimed to hold evidence based beliefs, so me asking for this evidence with regards to an assumption should be simple to deal with.

Did I say you would have to take every assumption made as true? No. Stop putting words in my mouth.

This isn't an assumption made once the debate ins under way. It's one presupposed for the argument to take place in the first place. If you don't agree with it, don't participate in it. Demanding proof of something assumed for the argument to take place in the first place is idiotic.


therefore:
c1. Christians will not consciously act to make an inquisition more likely. (from p1, p2 and p3)
therefore:
c2. No inquisition will be enacted by Christians. (from p4 and c1)
I didn't ask for a deductive argument. A proof would entail proof of the premises as well, which you haven't provided.


There is always a chance that people following any meme will do unforeseen bad things. This possibility is no more damaging to Christianity than it is to any meme.Yet it is perfectly reasonable to be more cautious of those memes (or memes derived for those memes) that share that history; that have done "unforeseen bad things".

This isn't an assumption made once the debate ins under way. It's one presupposed for the argument to take place in the first place. If you don't agree with it, don't participate in it. Demanding proof of something assumed for the argument to take place in the first place is idiotic.

Perhaps it was presupposed by him and you, but it was not by me. And unless I am mistaken, nowhere was it set out explicitly that certain ethical positions are to be assumed for the debate, until after I had already questioned those positions.

Also, despite your repeated claims that if I don't accept a specific morality as a base assumption then argument cannot continue, it is continuing nevertheless, so I wonder if those assumptions are so important after all.

I didn't ask for a deductive argument. A proof would entail proof of the premises as well, which you haven't provided.

Premise one would be inter-subjectively assumed, I imagine. To deny it would mean that the people giving and following the orders were somehow hypnotised or held hostage, which seems unlikely, and if that were true it would mean that Christianity isn't even to blame for the inquisition.

Premise two is true by definition.

Premise three is true, or there is no inter-subjectivity with regards to ethical claims, meaning his moral judgements would have no value.

Premise four is true by definition.

Yet it is perfectly reasonable to be more cautious of those memes (or memes derived for those memes) that share that history; that have done "unforeseen bad things".

Really? Prove it. After you do, then please explain how that refutes anything at all, since whether we are cautious of a meme or not has little to do with BrokeProphet's claim that "[Christianity is] one of the WORST memes known to mankind"

However, I doubt a proof will be forthcoming, because if modern Christians are unlike medieval Christians with regards to inquisitions, why should we assume they will be alike with regards to doing bad things?

I made a reply and then deleted it to make a better one, but then I realized I don't give a fuck. You're not worth it. This whole thread isn't worth it. Congratulations.

I made a reply and then deleted it to make a better one, but then I realized I don't give a fuck. You're not worth it. This whole thread isn't worth it. Congratulations.

That is why I quit. It is fallinghouses trademark to bog down an argument and derail it when he has lost.

This is my argument....

"To sum it up the Xtian meme uses fear to propagate itself amongst young more readily succeptible minds in an effort to elimate other memes (through violence and oppression) and generate wealth to help propagate the Xtian meme. "

To which your response and defense of your position is....."Morally the church did nothing wrong, b/c there are no morals (moral skepticism)."

This pretty much sums it up?

It is not inane when I don't share those assumptions.

You honestly DO NOT share my assumption murder is a bad thing. HONESTLY?

Well then let me take some time to get to know you better. Do you think rape is a bad thing? Child molestation? Theft? I would love to know, along these lines, what you think is a bad thing.

You have to think something is morally real b/c you said this...

Not all moral sceptics claim to have disproved moral realism. Myself included.

If it is not disproved by your skepticism, what are we arguing?

If this were a FORMAL debate on the meme of religion vs. the meme of science, and your argument falls back on "prove murder is bad" "maybe killing innocent children and robbing their parents is not a bad thing" you WILL lose the formal debate.

Hell, fuck it, I'll argue with you fallinghouse.

Right let's say that the Meme of Christianity is the same as Mediaeval Christianity (don't mind me using these terms?). Let's say that this meme is concerned with the continuation of itself through whatever means. During the 'dark ages' (seeing as we're not calling them that anymore :P) those under the influence of the Christianity meme had the freedom, and the ability, to use violence as a means of continuing this meme, and did so.

In the present because the christianity meme no longer possesses this freedom, so it continues itself in whatever way it can. Violence is no longer used (or used less collectively) because there would be a backlash which would be damaging to the survival of the meme. It can be reasoned that the most effective way to continue the meme is now through another of the original methods; through using propaganda (using this for lack of a better term).

I would argue that they are the same not in their methods, but in their intent. The intent is the survival of the meme at whatever acceptable cost.

Hope that works.

Right, now onto Christianity being the worst meme.

...Uh... Well, I'm gonna have to wing this one a bit, but here it goes:

Well, 'cause I can't think of anything else, let's look at evolution/adaption (I'm grouping these together mainly so I can draw allegory from as much as I can... Uh...). Things evolve to adapt to their enviroment to survive. Things that don't adapt die. Survival is the purpose of adaption, and death is the result of lack of adpation .

We can see that it is preferable to survive, and less preferable to die, naturally things strive to live, and avoid death. If this is the case in nature, then can we not drag this over into morality? Naturally man wishes to live, and to avoid death. Death is bad because it reduces the chance of breeding, and so continuing on the race.

You could argue that murder is not neccesarily bad, as it can have positive effects, and that killing, drawing on the bits above, is natural to sustain life, and so we apparently have a reason that the murder/killing is acceptable.

However, murder and killing beyond defence and survival, and breaching over into genocide harm the race as a whole by reducing the gene pool that we can draw from. Also by targeting men of science our race has less chance to continue because science provides medicine etc, and, in the long term, the possibility of escaping from this planet and spreading ourselves across the universe, and so ensuring the continuation of our race for a longer time is diminshed (albeit not that greatly).

So Christianity is the worst meme, because in the past it has harmed the growth of our race, and or survival as a whole through genocide, and through preventing those that could continue the existence of our race beyond this planet it significantly damages the race as a whole by reducing our chance of survival.


Man... That is crap. Well, luckily I'm arguing for the sake of it rather than because I care :D

I made a reply and then deleted it to make a better one, but then I realized I don't give a fuck. You're not worth it. This whole thread isn't worth it. Congratulations.

You are probably the only person in the world more arrogant than I am.

That is why I quit. It is fallinghouses trademark to bog down an argument and derail it when he has lost.

This is my argument....

"To sum it up the Xtian meme uses fear to propagate itself amongst young more readily succeptible minds in an effort to elimate other memes (through violence and oppression) and generate wealth to help propagate the Xtian meme. "

To which your response and defense of your position is....."Morally the church did nothing wrong, b/c there are no morals (moral skepticism)."

This pretty much sums it up?

Actually my response is that if you are going to call something bad and use that in an argument, then you either need to provide proof that you are objectively right, or at the least show there is inter-subjective agreement with all relevent people. Then there are three paths:

1. If you somehow provide objective proof that things such as the inquisition were bad, then you still need to establish that they were done by people with the same meme as modern Christians.

2. If there is inter-subjective agreement, then modern Christians do not have the same meme as those people who committed the crimes of the past, so your criticism misses it's target.

3. If there is not inter-subjective agreement, then there is no reason for any Christian to accept any of your arguments, so said arguments lose force against anyone that didn't already agree with you.

Either way, you have failed to establish that the Christian meme is bad and have not responded to any of the three lines of argument. All you have done is repeatedly express outrage that I would question something you hold dear.

You honestly DO NOT share my assumption murder is a bad thing. HONESTLY?

Well then let me take some time to get to know you better. Do you think rape is a bad thing? Child molestation? Theft? I would love to know, along these lines, what you think is a bad thing.

I don't believe in any objective morality. If I don't do something, it's because I either don't want to or society would punish that action in a way that outweighs the benefits; I don't have to delude myself into thinking that I am following some kind of universal system of right and wrong.

You have to think something is morally real b/c you said this...

All that is required by that statement is that I think there is a possibility that something is morally real.

If it is not disproved by your skepticism, what are we arguing?

Moral scepticism may not rule out moral realism, but to assert moral realism is to deny moral scepticism.

If this were a FORMAL debate on the meme of religion vs. the meme of science, and your argument falls back on "prove murder is bad" "maybe killing innocent children and robbing their parents is not a bad thing" you WILL lose the formal debate.

Why, pray tell?

Right let's say that the Meme of Christianity is the same as Mediaeval Christianity (don't mind me using these terms?). Let's say that this meme is concerned with the continuation of itself through whatever means. During the 'dark ages' (seeing as we're not calling them that anymore :P) those under the influence of the Christianity meme had the freedom, and the ability, to use violence as a means of continuing this meme, and did so.

In the present because the christianity meme no longer possesses this freedom, so it continues itself in whatever way it can. Violence is no longer used (or used less collectively) because there would be a backlash which would be damaging to the survival of the meme. It can be reasoned that the most effective way to continue the meme is now through another of the original methods; through using propaganda (using this for lack of a better term).

I would argue that they are the same not in their methods, but in their intent. The intent is the survival of the meme at whatever acceptable cost.

According to the table on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_by_country&oldid=173042655), the following countries have over 80% Christian populations:

Anguilla, Brazil, Bulgaria, Colombia, Georgia, Grenada, Haiti, Lithuania, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Philippines, Romania, Seychelles, Uganda, Puerto Rico.

Now, most (maybe all, I'm not up to date with politics) of those countries have elections of some kind, so if the Christians wanted to, they could easily vote in a theocratic system reminiscent of medieval Christian government. And, if they did not achieve this goal through elections, they could likely do so by the use of force, since they are an overwhelming majority. So the question is, if it is really the same meme, why are none of those countries Christian theocracies?

note: I'm using wikipedia because it has collected data from a number of sources, saving me the trouble of citing them all independently. If you want to check the accuracy of the data, the sources for each value are listed in the table.

Well, 'cause I can't think of anything else, let's look at evolution/adaption (I'm grouping these together mainly so I can draw allegory from as much as I can... Uh...). Things evolve to adapt to their enviroment to survive. Things that don't adapt die. Survival is the purpose of adaption, and death is the result of lack of adpation .

We can see that it is preferable to survive, and less preferable to die, naturally things strive to live, and avoid death. If this is the case in nature, then can we not drag this over into morality? Naturally man wishes to live, and to avoid death. Death is bad because it reduces the chance of breeding, and so continuing on the race.

You could argue that murder is not neccesarily bad, as it can have positive effects, and that killing, drawing on the bits above, is natural to sustain life, and so we apparently have a reason that the murder/killing is acceptable.

However, murder and killing beyond defence and survival, and breaching over into genocide harm the race as a whole by reducing the gene pool that we can draw from. Also by targeting men of science our race has less chance to continue because science provides medicine etc, and, in the long term, the possibility of escaping from this planet and spreading ourselves across the universe, and so ensuring the continuation of our race for a longer time is diminshed (albeit not that greatly).

So Christianity is the worst meme, because in the past it has harmed the growth of our race, and or survival as a whole through genocide, and through preventing those that could continue the existence of our race beyond this planet it significantly damages the race as a whole by reducing our chance of survival.

The problem with justifying morality by appeal to man's natural desires is that while it may describe how we developed moral systems in all of our societies, it does not give any normative reason to obey natural morality if one does not wish to. What I mean is, if man naturally sees genocide (or some other bad thing) as bad, it does not follow that people should not commit genocide, all it does is explain the cases where they don't.

That's the problem with trying to establish morality from empirical data. There is no way to traverse between what actually happens and what ought to be, and empirical data only gives us the former.

You are probably the only person in the world more arrogant than I am.

Don't confuse you not being worthy (of a reply) with me being worthy or important. I know I don't.

1. If you somehow provide objective proof that things such as the inquisition were bad, then you still need to establish that they were done by people with the same meme as modern Christians.

2. If there is inter-subjective agreement, then modern Christians do not have the same meme as those people who committed the crimes of the past, so your criticism misses it's target.

3. If there is not inter-subjective agreement, then there is no reason for any Christian to accept any of your arguments, so said arguments lose force against anyone that didn't already agree with you.

No. It's cool.

To all people who hold murder to be a bad thing...(which is a lot)...I present to you sensible people why the Christian meme is bad.

I say that christians possess the same meme b/c their meme originates from the SAME EXACT WORD FOR WORD book they receive their meme from today.

This meme was used to gain ruling power over the people and the power gained was used to murder innocent humans for profit.

I do not care to argue moral skepticism as I see it as a last ditch pathetic effort by you to win this debate. Fact is, if you do not recognize morals you cannot have a moral debate. Sorry you cannot. Try not to have them in the future either. Very abstact and Obbe of you. Please exit stage left.

Don't confuse you not being worthy (of a reply) with me being worthy or important. I know I don't.

I've outlined my argument as follows, and see no reason why it is so unworthy of reply:

"If you are going to call something bad and use that in an argument, then you either need to provide proof that you are objectively right, or at the least show there is inter-subjective agreement with all relevent people. Then there are three paths:

1. If you somehow provide objective proof that things such as the inquisition were bad, then you still need to establish that they were done by people with the same meme as modern Christians.

2. If there is inter-subjective agreement, then modern Christians do not have the same meme as those people who committed the crimes of the past, so your criticism misses it's target.

3. If there is not inter-subjective agreement, then there is no reason for any Christian to accept any of your arguments, so said arguments lose force against anyone that didn't already agree with you."

The whole debate is over whether a particular thing is bad, so of course the assumptions that are going to be challenged are those regarding which things are bad.

If I am denied from challenging those assumptions, as you would apparently wish, then the discussion proves nothing at all, except that perhaps if we accept BrokeProphet's premises about good and evil, then his conclusion follows.


To all people who hold murder to be a bad thing...(which is a lot)...I present to you sensible people why the Christian meme is bad.

If there is inter-subjective agreement with the notion that past acts by people claiming to be Christian were immoral, then the people who agree with you do not have the same memes as those people who committed the crimes of the past (I will explain this further below). This means that anyone who accepts your assumptions is not damaged by the argument, and anyone who denies your assumptions is not damaged by the argument, making it totally ineffective.

The problem with the approach you have taken here is that people seeing the inquisition and such as immoral is mutually exclusive with those people having the same meme as those who committed the immoral acts.

I say that christians possess the same meme b/c their meme originates from the SAME EXACT WORD FOR WORD book they receive their meme from today.

If people think the inquisition or crusades or whatever were bad things, then they clearly have different values and interpretations to the people who historically supported those things, meaning they have different memes.

Furthermore, the following countries have over 80% Christian populations:

Anguilla, Brazil, Bulgaria, Colombia, Georgia, Grenada, Haiti, Lithuania, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Philippines, Romania, Seychelles, Uganda, Puerto Rico.

Now, most (maybe all, I'm not up to date with politics) of those countries have elections of some kind, so if the Christians wanted to, they could easily vote in a theocratic system reminiscent of medieval Christian government. And, if they did not achieve this goal through elections, they could likely do so by the use of force, since they are an overwhelming majority. So the question is, if it is really the same meme, why are none of those countries Christian theocracies?

I do not care to argue moral skepticism as I see it as a last ditch pathetic effort by you to win this debate.

If it is such a pathetic effort, then it should be a simple matter to refute it. Why then have you repeatedly avoided to do so?

Fact is, if you do not recognize morals you cannot have a moral debate. Sorry you cannot. Try not to have them in the future either.

On the contrary, I just see moral claims like any other premise- in need of evidence to back them up.

I've outlined my argument as follows, and see no reason why it is so unworthy of reply

I don't expect you to consider it unworthy, it's your own argument after all. I doubt you'd be honest enough to admit how worthless it is.

Nice attempt at fishing a response to your "argument" though.

I've outlined my argument as follows, and see no reason why it is so unworthy of reply.

I do not care to argue moral skepticism the debate between it and moral realism is at a standstill. Both have valid points. The problem is that I thought we held assumed values of morals. We do not. So my original argument is pointless with you. It is as pointless as debating favorite colors with someone who has been blind his whole life.

The whole debate is over whether a particular thing is bad, so of course the assumptions that are going to be challenged are those regarding which things are bad.

NO the debate is over whether or not the meme of religion is worse than the meme of science. Your NEW argument is entirely about moral skepticism. Moral skepticism would H A V E to be argued first in order to get back to the ORIGINAL argument we were both having. Hence, side tracked by you.

If there is inter-subjective agreement with the notion that past acts by people claiming to be Christian were immoral, then the people who agree with you do not have the same memes as those people who committed the crimes of the past (I will explain this further below). This means that anyone who accepts your assumptions is not damaged by the argument, and anyone who denies your assumptions is not damaged by the argument, making it totally ineffective.

The peope who committed those acts lived in fear of the church. They did not have the freedom people today do to express their distaste for particular actions. The difference is not one of memes but of how much POWER and authority the people today ALLOW the meme to have. The meme is unchanged but the authority we give has. That is all your argument proves.

If people think the inquisition or crusades or whatever were bad things, then they clearly have different values and interpretations to the people who historically supported those things, meaning they have different memes.

The meme is the same. It has to be the same. It comes from the same book. It is interpretated differently ONLY b/c the state does not allow this meme to exercise real authority over the people under law.

So the question is, if it is really the same meme, why are none of those countries Christian theocracies?.

This is a completely different argument. This is begging the question. Look up begging the question and you will find it under circular logic. There could be a hundred different reasons, but since you are BEGGING THE QUESTION and exercising circular logic, we do not have to get into those for the argument to continue.

If it is such a pathetic effort, then it should be a simple matter to refute it. Why then have you repeatedly avoided to do so?.

It is no simple matter as moral skepticism is not unproven, and has some valid points. Neither is moral realism, which has some valid points. They both have valid points and one cannot disprove the other. It is pointless and derails from the original argument as we would have to discuss soley moral skepticism and moral realism.

I thought we were arguing about this from an understanding that murdering innocent people is wrong. I believe that murder is harmful to the fabric of a society. Unchecked rampant murder in a society WILL undo said society. Assuming you think the ceasation of a society is a bad thing, then murder is a bad thing for a society.

This debate continues however, as you can say "why is the ceasation of a society a bad thing, why is the ceasation as opposed to continuation a bad thing" to which I would love to jab a fork in your mother's eye for no reason, killing her, and hear you prattle on about 'no right and wrong'.

I would have to call you liar if you said you would continue to believe in no right and wrong and a hypocrite if you continued preaching it.

I do not care to argue moral skepticism the debate between it and moral realism is at a standstill. Both have valid points. The problem is that I thought we held assumed values of morals. We do not. So my original argument is pointless with you. It is as pointless as debating favorite colors with someone who has been blind his whole life.

If you are going to make the assumption of your own system of morality every time you are damning a religion as a bad meme, then I see you as no different from a Christian arguing that Hinduism is wrong because they break the ten commandments. Both of you are doing nothing more than preaching your own particular faith.

NO the debate is over whether or not the meme of religion is worse than the meme of science. Your NEW argument is entirely about moral skepticism. Moral skepticism would H A V E to be argued first in order to get back to the ORIGINAL argument we were both having. Hence, side tracked by you.

Really?

"To sum it up the Xtian meme uses fear to propagate itself amongst young more readily succeptible minds in an effort to elimate other memes (through violence and oppression) and generate wealth to help propagate the Xtian meme.

^^^^This makes the Xtian meme one of the WORST memes known to mankind. That was my point."

The peope who committed those acts lived in fear of the church. They did not have the freedom people today do to express their distaste for particular actions. The difference is not one of memes but of how much POWER and authority the people today ALLOW the meme to have. The meme is unchanged but the authority we give has. That is all your argument proves.

In that case it is not the Christian meme that is at fault for those things is it? It's the people who they were in fear of. Either way serves my position.

The meme is the same. It has to be the same. It comes from the same book. It is interpretated differently ONLY b/c the state does not allow this meme to exercise real authority over the people under law.

What about all those countries where Christians control the state? Why don't they turn their countries into theocracies? It seems to me that they don't want to, meaning they don't have the same meme.

This is a completely different argument. This is begging the question. Look up begging the question and you will find it under circular logic. There could be a hundred different reasons, but since you are BEGGING THE QUESTION and exercising circular logic, we do not have to get into those for the argument to continue.

What exactly am I assuming in order to prove that assumption? What exactly am I begging?

It is no simple matter as moral skepticism is not unproven, and has some valid points. Neither is moral realism, which has some valid points. They both have valid points and one cannot disprove the other. It is pointless and derails from the original argument as we would have to discuss soley moral skepticism and moral realism.

Moral skepticism doesn't need to disprove moral realism in order to be effective. By raising doubts against moral facts, skepticism forces a realist to back themselves up when they make a moral claim. It is not pointless, nor a derail, considering that the outcome of that discussion decides the outcome of the original argument.

I thought we were arguing about this from an understanding that murdering innocent people is wrong. I believe that murder is harmful to the fabric of a society. Unchecked rampant murder in a society WILL undo said society. Assuming you think the ceasation of a society is a bad thing, then murder is a bad thing for a society.

Let's suppose I conceded all the arguments about moral skepticism and allowed you to make this assumption, then your argument still has no power, because that assumption is mutually exclusive with the memes of the people who performed those crimes.

So if you are arguing against a Christian, they will either agree with your assumption, in which case the criticism doesn't reflect upon their meme, or they will disagree, in which case they have no reason to accept your conclusions.

In that case it is not the Christian meme that is at fault for those things is it? It's the people who they were in fear of. Either way serves my position.

How dense can you be? The people they were in fear of possessed the destructive meme of christianity. The people who were in fear possessed the destructive meme of christianity. How does this serve you at all? YOu just SAY things like that.

What about all those countries where Christians control the state? Why don't they turn their countries into theocracies? It seems to me that they don't want to, meaning they don't have the same meme.

What exactly am I assuming in order to prove that assumption? What exactly am I begging?.

You are assuming these countries do not turn their countries into theocracies b/c they do not possess the same meme. THAT IS YOUR ASSUMPTION. You are not taking into account that these third world "democractic" countries you just named are rife with corruption on almost a dictatorship level. A dictator who will not fight for control with the church. FOR EXAMPLE. You surmised a conclusion from a NEW ARGUMENT in an effort to help your case, without examining ANY of the relevant facts.

In order to do so we will take YET ANOTHER side track in THIS argument. You are terrible at this.

Moral skepticism doesn't need to disprove moral realism in order to be effective. By raising doubts against moral facts, skepticism forces a realist to back themselves up when they make a moral claim. It is not pointless, nor a derail, considering that the outcome of that discussion decides the outcome of the original argument.

IT IS POINTLESS considering that you can use moral skepticism to bog down or halt any moral argument. AGAIN LISTEN UP LITTLE FELLA.......I was under the impression for quite some time that we were arguing this argument with the understanding that we both held certain morals to be objective....such as murder. YOU DONT. Does not mean I lack valid points or an argument....just means you do not hold morals to be objective.

IT IS ANOTHER ARGUMENT YOU FUCKING CUNT.

So if you are arguing against a Christian, they will either agree with your assumption, in which case the criticism doesn't reflect upon their meme, or they will disagree, in which case they have no reason to accept your conclusions.

Yup. Arguing with anyone about anything they will disagree or agree. Nice work?

I am about to get off of work here. I will leave you with this...This argument began under the assumption that we both held morals to be objective. I tend to hold that assumption because most people in the world and throughout history (I mean a V A S T majority) have held to some moral realism.

Since you do not hold morals to be objective it is not really a point for you to get into a moral debate.....that is a debate regarding which moral codes are better for a society or which have been historically. There is no point for you to enter a debate as your conclusion "Niether" is completely useless to society and not really in the spirit of the debate.

I would call moral skepticism useless. Unless you are losing a moral debate argument. Then this bullshit comes in real handy.

I am done arguing with you as you are not partcipating in and seem not to recognize the original debate, Meme of science vs. Meme of christianity, to which your end view is utterly pointless and baseless...."both".

Im out.

How dense can you be? The people they were in fear of possessed the destructive meme of christianity. The people who were in fear possessed the destructive meme of christianity. How does this serve you at all? YOu just SAY things like that.

In that case the people controlling the inquisition wanted it, so they do not have the same meme as modern Christians who think it is an immoral thing, so your argument is attacking a meme that died out hundreds of years ago. As I said, either way favours my position.

You are assuming these countries do not turn their countries into theocracies b/c they do not possess the same meme. You are not taking into account that these third world "democractic" countries you just named are rife with corruption on almost a dictatorship level. A dictator who will not fight for control with the church. FOR EXAMPLE. You surmised a conclusion from a NEW ARGUMENT in an effort to help your case, without examining ANY of the relevant facts.

According to the Freedom in the World annual report for 2007 (http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=372&year=2007), out of the countries I listed, Brazil, Bulgaria, Grenada, Lithuania, Mexico, Romania and Puerto Rico have political rights rated one or two on a seven point scale, where one is best and two means there is considerable power in the hands of the people.

Even if I accepted the rather dubious notion that a majority of 80% would not be able to control a country simply because it did not have certain political freedoms, theis new list of countries are clearly not under dictatorial control. How then do you explain that none of these countries have established a Christian theocracy other than by my explanation, which is that they don't want to?

IT IS POINTLESS considering that you can use moral skepticism to bog down or halt any moral argument.

That doesn't make it pointless, that makes it effective. Regardless, even if I conceded and allowed your ethical assumption, then your argument still falls flat.

I was under the impression for quite some time that we were arguing this argument with the understanding that we both held certain morals to be objective....such as murder. YOU DONT. Does not mean I lack valid points or an argument....just means you do not hold morals to be objective.

As I've said, even if I grant that, your argument still has no power, because that assumption is mutually exclusive with the memes of the people who performed those crimes.

So if you are arguing against a Christian, they will either agree with your assumption, in which case the criticism doesn't reflect upon their meme, or they will disagree, in which case they have no reason to accept your conclusions.

Yup. Arguing with anyone about anything they will disagree or agree. Nice work?

The point is that even if they agree with your assumptions, that very act of agreement guarantees that your argument does no damage to their meme.

This argument began under the assumption that we both held morals to be objective. I tend to hold that assumption because most people in the world and throughout history (I mean a V A S T majority) have held to some moral realism.

Since you do not hold morals to be objective it is not really a point for you to get into a moral debate.....that is a debate regarding which moral codes are better for a society or which have been historically. There is no point for you to enter a debate as your conclusion "Niether" is completely useless and not really in the spirit of the debate.

If you are going to make the assumption of your own system of morality every time you are damning a religion as a bad meme, then I see you as no different from a Christian arguing that Hinduism is wrong because they break the ten commandments. Both of you are doing nothing more than preaching your own particular faith, using assumptions without proof to justify your hatred of an opposing position.

The universe was created by god. God just exists.

Makes more sense than "nothing just exists", "the universe spontaneously came from nothing".

Makes more sense than "nothing just exists", "the universe spontaneously came from nothing".

Wrong. You're adding an unessacary entity to the equation; if your inherently illogical construct can "just exist" to create the Universe, then it makes far more sense that the Universe, some which we know exists can simply "just exist."

Just because something exists doesn't mean that someone had to be there to conjure it up.

I believe in god because it just makes logical sense. New people are on the earth all the time, and people die, but really we are all made of the same shit that the people of the earth were made of thousands of years ago. These organic molecules aren't destroyed when we die; they just go through the next step in the process. Dust to dust so to speak, we are created from living matter that was consumed by our mothers, and then we die, decompose, and back to the soil and the circle of life. So the people of the future are going to be made of the same carbon, nitrogen, oxygen etc that we were, and the people of the past were. Not just people, plants, animals the waters and the soil.

I believe we came from this planet, this living spaceship, this terrarium we live on. Everything about is it alive, the geological actions, the water is alive, the soil is alive and the plants are alive. We are all part of this collective thing called life. The planet has had billions of years to develop this consciousness, an extension of itself. Our soul I will call it for lack of a better word, maybe you could call it our perception, our reality, whatever it is that is us, our self-awareness, is an extension of this collective entity, call it god if you will. I believe our minds are attached to our bodies, but not only a product of our bodies. More like our bodies anchor our minds to this plane of existence. I don’t believe every time someone is born, a new consciousness or soul is born, or when someone dies, one is destroyed. Like I stated above, they are just recycled through the cycle of life, not in the same form, but in the way our bodies are recycled.

And take a step back and look at things from the bigger picture. From what I understand from my rudimentary knowledge of cosmic workings, the big bang started from a singularity, a point of infinite mass and density. To create something like that, you would need either some big guy in the sky to snap his fingers and poof, or as I like to think of our creator, a black hole. The universe was made of pure energy at this point, as it was too hot to form chemical bonds. As this cooling matter drifted through space and formed hydrogen, stars were born from a release of energy in these clouds of hydrogen gas. At the heart of these stars, god again you could call it forged all of these new elements, by fusing elements of hydrogen and helium together.

As these stars began to gain mass, their gravity increased. Through this gravity, matter began to orbit them, eventually forming planets from the rotating dust clouds. Those close to the star’s radiance a molten core of rock and metal, but the further ones, masses of ice and gas. Some of these planets were alive then, before single celled organism. It wasn’t life, as we know it, but life in the geological sense. And the active living planet made life, as we know it possible through such things as liquid water, suitable temperatures, and a methane rich atmosphere to culture the early anaerobic forms of life, in the methane rich oceans. I am not saying life cannot exist outside these parameters, but it seems that is what fostered the life on this planet. With life being an ever-changing evolving thing, it wouldn’t surprise me at all to think life could exist in conditions we deem sterile.

When you look at the stars in the sky, all of those just being ones you can see with the human eye, how could there not be other life out there. The Milky Way galaxy rotates around a center point, our solar system on one tendril of this galaxy full of many similar to ours. At the center of this galaxy must be an enormous source of gravity. There is not an enormous star, so the only other thing I can think of would be a black hole. So on a cosmic circle of life, everything will pass over the event horizon and be sucked into this black hole. And at the center of this black hole lies a singularity: the beginning, our origin, and the future.

In conclusion, if the above is true, and you want to call our creator god, it is safe to assume we are an extension of god, life is god, our planet is god, our star is god, the black hole is god, and this cycle is god. Or maybe some guy snapped his fingers and poof, you decide.

i wish i was as high as you are.

I believe in god because it just makes logical sense. New people are on the earth all the time, and people die, but really we are all made of the same shit that the people of the earth were made of thousands of years ago. These organic molecules aren't destroyed when we die; they just go through the next step in the process. Dust to dust so to speak, we are created from living matter that was consumed by our mothers, and then we die, decompose, and back to the soil and the circle of life. So the people of the future are going to be made of the same carbon, nitrogen, oxygen etc that we were, and the people of the past were. Not just people, plants, animals the waters and the soil.

I believe we came from this planet, this living spaceship, this terrarium we live on. Everything about is it alive, the geological actions, the water is alive, the soil is alive and the plants are alive. We are all part of this collective thing called life. The planet has had billions of years to develop this consciousness, an extension of itself. Our soul I will call it for lack of a better word, maybe you could call it our perception, our reality, whatever it is that is us, our self-awareness, is an extension of this collective entity, call it god if you will. I believe our minds are attached to our bodies, but not only a product of our bodies. More like our bodies anchor our minds to this plane of existence. I don’t believe every time someone is born, a new consciousness or soul is born, or when someone dies, one is destroyed. Like I stated above, they are just recycled through the cycle of life, not in the same form, but in the way our bodies are recycled.

And take a step back and look at things from the bigger picture. From what I understand from my rudimentary knowledge of cosmic workings, the big bang started from a singularity, a point of infinite mass and density. To create something like that, you would need either some big guy in the sky to snap his fingers and poof, or as I like to think of our creator, a black hole. The universe was made of pure energy at this point, as it was too hot to form chemical bonds. As this cooling matter drifted through space and formed hydrogen, stars were born from a release of energy in these clouds of hydrogen gas. At the heart of these stars, god again you could call it forged all of these new elements, by fusing elements of hydrogen and helium together.

As these stars began to gain mass, their gravity increased. Through this gravity, matter began to orbit them, eventually forming planets from the rotating dust clouds. Those close to the star’s radiance a molten core of rock and metal, but the further ones, masses of ice and gas. Some of these planets were alive then, before single celled organism. It wasn’t life, as we know it, but life in the geological sense. And the active living planet made life, as we know it possible through such things as liquid water, suitable temperatures, and a methane rich atmosphere to culture the early anaerobic forms of life, in the methane rich oceans. I am not saying life cannot exist outside these parameters, but it seems that is what fostered the life on this planet. With life being an ever-changing evolving thing, it wouldn’t surprise me at all to think life could exist in conditions we deem sterile.

When you look at the stars in the sky, all of those just being ones you can see with the human eye, how could there not be other life out there. The Milky Way galaxy rotates around a center point, our solar system on one tendril of this galaxy full of many similar to ours. At the center of this galaxy must be an enormous source of gravity. There is not an enormous star, so the only other thing I can think of would be a black hole. So on a cosmic circle of life, everything will pass over the event horizon and be sucked into this black hole. And at the center of this black hole lies a singularity: the beginning, our origin, and the future.

In conclusion, if the above is true, and you want to call our creator god, it is safe to assume we are an extension of god, life is god, our planet is god, our star is god, the black hole is god, and this cycle is god. Or maybe some guy snapped his fingers and poof, you decide.

This explanation is the closest one I've seen so far as to what my idea god is.

I read the dumb fuck op's stupid idiot first post shit, and how the fuck did this get 14 pages. God is not real. Get the fuck over it.

I read the dumb fuck op's stupid idiot first post shit, and how the fuck did this get 14 pages. God is not real. Get the fuck over it.

Oh... Right... Really?

Well, your compelling argument has swayed me.

Why I don't believe in God:

Because there's no evidence supporting his existence (or, the same reason why you don't believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster).

Oh... Right... Really?

Well, your compelling argument has swayed me.

It's really up to you theists to actually provide a rational/logical argument for God.

The OP stated that belief in God is logical because the earth/universe/etc. needs a creator (the Cosmological Argument).

However, this is totally unsupported by science (which is quite honestly the only champion of reason). Consider this:

The beginning of the universe/earth/etc. is already explained by science. The OP brings up that the 'singularity' was not able to create new energy or to form new chemical bonds. This issue has already been dealt with by the Casimir Effect.
If you use the Cosmological Argument, than you must ask, who created the creator, ad infinitum?
God is not logical or reasonable. As already stated, the beginnings of the universe are already well covered by science. However, it they weren't, then it still would not be logical to state that God, or some other kind of divine creator, created the universe. You would need some kind of evidence to support this hypothesis.
An infinite God is more illogical than an infinite universe. How could an infinitely complex being which supposedly communicates with millions of people at the same time (w/o any evidence supporting this, of course) exist before the infinitely simple singularity. Throughout history, we have observed a progression from simple to more complex (singularity > universal dust > galaxies > planets > microorganisms > animals > intelligent life), not from more complex to simple (God > singularity).
The Abrahamic God is illogical. For example, omnipotence. Can God create a stone so large that He cannot lift it? If he can create such a stone but not lift it, He is not omnipotent. If He cannot create such a stone, then He is not omnipotent. If He can create such a stone and lift it, He is illogical and cannot, therefore, exist. If, as some philosophers suggest, He only works within the confines of logic, he cannot be omnipotent to begin with.
The Abrahamic God is illogical (2). For example, omnipotence and omniscience. This combination is impossible. If you're omnipotent, you are all powerful. If you're omniscience, you know everything, future, present, and past. However, you cannot be omnipotent if you're omniscience, as then you would be able to change the future, which would destroy your omniscient ability to know everything in advance.

It's really up to you theists to actually provide a rational/logical argument for God.

The OP stated that belief in God is logical because the earth/universe/etc. needs a creator (the Cosmological Argument).

However, this is totally unsupported by science (which is quite honestly the only champion of reason). Consider this:

The beginning of the universe/earth/etc. is already explained by science. The OP brings up that the 'singularity' was not able to create new energy or to form new chemical bonds. This issue has already been dealt with by the Casimir Effect.
If you use the Cosmological Argument, than you must ask, who created the creator, ad infinitum?
God is not logical or reasonable. As already stated, the beginnings of the universe are already well covered by science. However, it they weren't, then it still would not be logical to state that God, or some other kind of divine creator, created the universe. You would need some kind of evidence to support this hypothesis.
An infinite God is more illogical than an infinite universe. How could an infinitely complex being which supposedly communicates with millions of people at the same time (w/o any evidence supporting this, of course) exist before the infinitely simple singularity. Throughout history, we have observed a progression from simple to more complex (singularity > universal dust > galaxies > planets > microorganisms > animals > intelligent life), not from more complex to simple (God > singularity).
The Abrahamic God is illogical. For example, omnipotence. Can God create a stone so large that He cannot lift it? If he can create such a stone but not lift it, He is not omnipotent. If He cannot create such a stone, then He is not omnipotent. If He can create such a stone and lift it, He is illogical and cannot, therefore, exist. If, as some philosophers suggest, He only works within the confines of logic, he cannot be omnipotent to begin with.
The Abrahamic God is illogical (2). For example, omnipotence and omniscience. This combination is impossible. If you're omnipotent, you are all powerful. If you're omniscience, you know everything, future, present, and past. However, you cannot be omnipotent if you're omniscience, as then you would be able to change the future, which would destroy your omniscient ability to know everything in advance.

Nice post.

1.) There is no need, in my mind, to seperate science from God. If science explains the beginning, it doesn't seem to prevent God. I know there's the whole Occams razor thing, but that doesn't PROVE anything, so I'm not willing to discount God on that count.

2.)Personally I think this argument has been... misunderstood. I see it as pointing to the fact that every material effect has a cause. In the material world there is cause and effect, and this stretches on unbroken for eternity. God does not have a creator, because God is not physical; God acts as the orgination or destination of the material universe.

But then again the standard cosmological argument is obviously flawed.

3.)Can't really argue with this, not without adding the word possibly in front of it.

4.)I think that is hard to think of this effectively as we relly have no experience of infinity. But I think that we are imagining it the wrong way, we imagine that God one day arbitrarily decides to create a universe. We imagine what may be an incredibly long time and then God suddenly poofing the universe into existence.

And, yes, I think this is flawed.

As an analogy try to imagine a real big circle, and then within this circle is a slightly smaller circle. The big Circle is god the small circle is the universe (only both these would be infinite, so maybe imagine one circle superimposed on the other.).

In this way the universe comes FROM God, but is not suddenly created. Creation myths use the allegory of God creating the universe merely to show that these things come from God, not that God one day decides to create a universe.

You'll have to excuse how garbled that is, really I'm not sure about my ideas, and I'm just putting them forth for the sake of it.

But simply, both God and the universe are infinite, but God is... greater than the universe.

5.)I think this is flawed because it assumes that God has not only a physical form but an inclination to pick up bloody big rocks.

God is not material. No matter how big a rock is it will never be greater than God , because at the end of the day it is a rock. How could a rock be made that could be bigger and greater than infinity?

This is a fallacy because it assumes that God is finite and that something greater than God can be created. God is infinite, and sure God could make an infinite rock, yet how could that rock be any greater than God who is himself infinite?

Oh, and finally, yeah, the Abrahmic God sucks.


6.) God is omnipotent in that he contains the possibility of everything. This is neccesary as God is the greatest thing from which everything else comes from. If God contains the possibility of everything, and being the greatest thing, then God must have knowledge of everything.

God does not predict the future, the possible future is contained within in him, the past is contained within in him and the present is the pivot around which everthing swings.

God does not predict a single futre, because that would limit him, god being limitless see's all future, or rather contains all future.




I apologise if any of that is badly written , or hard to understand, I'm not entirely sure how to put my ideas across, that and I suck.

Oh yeah, and I'm not a theist :P

God represents man's failure.

Failing to realize the true nature of things (God did it). Failing to cope properly with death (You don't really die). Failing to attribute responsiblity (Devil made me do it). Failing to live up to expectations (Perfect Jesus). Failing to use logic (God = Magic).

Ultimately, God represents a monumental failure in human cultural evolution. My only hope is that theism is but a road bump for humanity on it's way to realizing a better society and not the brick wall it has been, and most definitely is, of late.

Too many Christians, not enough lions.

God represents man's failure.

Failing to realize the true nature of things (God did it). Failing to cope properly with death (You don't really die). Failing to attribute responsiblity (Devil made me do it). Failing to live up to expectations (Perfect Jesus). Failing to use logic (God = Magic).

Ultimately, God represents a monumental failure in human cultural evolution. My only hope is that theism is but a road bump for humanity on it's way to realizing a better society and not the brick wall it has been, and most definitely is, of late.

Too many Christians, not enough lions.

You seem to be saying that all theism completely denies rationality of any kind.

I can't think of any proof for this. Can you? In fact I can't find any proof that theism is related to those points in your post.

In fact I can't find any proof that theism is related to those points in your post.

LOL.

Failing to realize the true nature of things (God did it). Failing to cope properly with death (You don't really die). Failing to attribute responsiblity (Devil made me do it). Failing to live up to expectations (Perfect Jesus). Failing to use logic (God = Magic).

Really?

Position of the Catholic Church"The Earth is the center of the universe, the sun revolves around the Earth.......why?.........b/c God did it." (Failing to realize the true nature of things).

Straight from Wiki to your face.....

Proof they believe God did it:
Western Christian biblical references "Psalm 93:1", "Psalm 96:10", and "1 Chronicles 16:30" include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same tradition, "Psalm 104:5" says, "[the LORD] set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, "Ecclesiastes 1:5" states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place, etc."[52]

Proof of the church's position:
By 1616 the attacks on Galileo had reached a head, and he went to Rome to try to persuade the Church authorities not to ban his ideas. In the end, Cardinal Bellarmine, acting on directives from the Inquisition, delivered him an order not to "hold or defend" the idea that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still at the centre. With the loss of many of his defenders in Rome because of *Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633.

Fun Fact and first official apology:
On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, as the result of a study conducted by the Pontifical Council for Culture.[64]

* This book has received high praise from both Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. As a result of this work, Galileo is often called, the "father of modern physics."

Clearly the Church believed God did it and this view made them FAIL to realize the true nature of things. They forced this belief upon their flock. Next time you "look up" proof....look harder.

I do not know about ALL theism but what I wrote certainly applies to Xtianity. I never mentioned all theism, but I am fairly certian it all follows the same basic structure of:

Take an unaswerable question (soul, afterlife, supreme being)
And fucking answer it.
Making it more difficult for man to realize the true nature of things. (God did it).

Perhaps some new age bullshit religion does not completely connect itself to my critique of God and his representing failure, but I believe most do based on the basic structure of most religions I know of.

1. The catholic church were entirely capable of realising their mistake, as no catholic today believes the sun goes around the earth, which shows an ability to rationally evaluate their positions. Which means they do not in fact fail to recognize this scientific fact.

2. Movement is the the change in position of one object with respect to another, so if one takes the earth as the reference point, it is entirely correct to say that it does not move and that the sun goes around the earth. The only reason that we do not do this is because it needlessly creates extra complexity in astronomical calculations.

3. Questions about the soul, afterlife, supreme being...etc are only unanswerable if one limits oneself to using science. What grounds do you have to believe that science and logic are the only ways to find truth?

1. The catholic church were entirely capable of realising their mistake, as no catholic today believes the sun goes around the earth, which shows an ability to rationally evaluate their positions.

2. Movement is the the change in position of one object with respect to another, so if one takes the earth as the reference point, it is entirely correct to say that it does not move and that the sun goes around the earth. The only reason that we do not do this is because it needlessly creates extra complexity in astronomical calculations.

Here we go. Squirt out the brown now fallinghouse.

1. Took the church hundreds of years to apologize and admit their mistake. Of course they are just as capable as anyone else on the planet of realizing their mistake, they just did not when they put the father of modern physics on trial for heresy. Clearly they did not realize that mistake at the time. God did it failed humans.

Some theists believe man and dinosaur lived together. Some believe in a 6,000 year old Earth.

2. WTF!!! Relative motion? Does not apply to my argument, the catholic church did not excommunicate Galileo b/c he did not take into account relative motion, they did it b/c he went against their book. PERIOD. Besides, how do you determine things like Gravity with relative motion, without REALIZING that the Sun makes the Earth move b/c it is more massive?

3. See church of the flying spagetti monster...

By the way, do you still believe murder is not a bad thing regardless of the circumstances? Awesome. Let me take you seriously some more. Many people believe your post modernist nonsense will dissapear in a few decades. I hope so.

Many people believe your post modernist nonsense will dissapear in a few decades. I hope so.

Postmodernism has to be the emptiest term in the universe. It’s like the place to stick modernists who ask too many questions or are suspiciously cheerful in the face of temporal discontinuity and the fragmentation of sense.

1. Took the church hundreds of years to apologize and admit their mistake. Of course they are just as capable as anyone else on the planet of realizing their mistake, they just did not when they put the father of modern physics on trial for heresy. Clearly they did not realize that mistake at the time. God did it failed humans.

None of it mattered the least until man went into space, by which time Galileo was accepted, so not agreeing with Galileo had no negative impact, so the idea that God did something did not fail humans.

Some theists believe man and dinosaur lived together. Some believe in a 6,000 year old Earth.

So? These things are not only entirely possible, but theists being wrong and believing they are right about these things would have no effect whatsoever, so believing them is hardly a failure.

2. WTF!!! Relative motion? Does not apply to my argument, the catholic church did not excommunicate Galileo b/c he did not take into account relative motion, they did it b/c he went against their book. PERIOD.

Irrelevant. They were still right, they were just using a different fixed point.

Besides, how do you determine things like Gravity with relative motion, without REALIZING that the Sun makes the Earth move b/c it is more massive?

If you think about it, you can still apply gravity, it is just much more complicated.

By the way, do you still believe murder is not a bad thing regardless of the circumstances? Awesome. Let me take you seriously some more. Many people believe your post modernist nonsense will dissapear in a few decades. I hope so.

Hmm let's see....

"Take an unaswerable question (soul, afterlife, supreme being)
And fucking answer it."

Your unanswerable question: What is bad?
Your answer: Murder is bad.

Oh no! It looks like you make exactly the same mistake as you say theists make. Oh dear. Unless you can provide evidence that murder is bad, you fall to your own critique.

I am, as always, amazed at the level of abstractness you sink to in an argument.

It is not irrelevant. They were incorrect that the Sun orbits the Earth. THEISTS WERE WRONG IN THINKING THE SUN REVOLVES AROUND THE EARTH!!!! They are only deemed correct by recent abstract intrpretations in physics that the father of modern physics wrote in the very book the church condemned. You are ridiculous in your argument. As you are in your other one:

Murder is bad for a society. A society without laws against murder will not survive and certainly will not thrive. Murder of course would be bad for you wouldn't it? Existence is greater than non-existence.

If I held a gun to your head right now and said "Choose one, existence or non-existence." What would you honestly say, and why?

I agree that postmodernism is empty and devoid of anything useful. For shits and giggles google The online Postmodernism Generator. Nonsensical shit is easy to do.

Better yet failinghouse answer this one thing:

If I held a gun to your head right now and said "Choose one, existence or non-existence." What would you honestly say, and why?

I agree that postmodernism is empty and devoid of anything useful. For shits and giggles google The online Postmodernism Generator. Nonsensical shit is easy to do.

Like you've ever read Borges, Foucault or Feyerabend. There are many great thinkers labeled postmodern. Just because the term is somewhat empty, it doesn't mean the people who have the term thrust upon them have nothing to say.

Like you've ever read Borges, Foucault or Feyerabend. There are many great thinkers labeled postmodern. Just because the term is somewhat empty, it doesn't mean the people who have the term thrust upon them have nothing to say.

NO I have not read those people. Tell me do thay have anything useful to offer philosophy or society in there dry critique and deconstruction of modernism?

I have only briefly studied this and could be wrong in my opinion that it is a whiny abstract form of argumentation designed to attack the opponent with nonsense and not so much a philosophy as it is a loooooooooong nonsensical critique of modernism.

It is not irrelevant. They were incorrect that the Sun orbits the Earth. THEISTS WERE WRONG IN THINKING THE SUN REVOLVES AROUND THE EARTH!!!! They are only deemed correct by recent abstract intrpretations in physics that the father of modern physics wrote in the very book the church condemned.

Wait...they were wrong...and right? And you think Galileo was the physicist who wrote about general relativity?

Murder is bad for a society. A society without laws against murder will not survive and certainly will not thrive. Murder of course would be bad for you wouldn't it? Existence is greater than non-existence.

This is no proof at all. All you have done is attempt to justify one moral claim by appealing to another that you think is more important (ie. the continuation of society is a good thing). This new claim is not self justified, so it does not justify your claim that murder is bad.

If I held a gun to your head right now and said "Choose one, existence or non-existence." What would you honestly say, and why?

I would choose existence, simply because I wanted it - not because I believe in some kind of invisible laws that mysteriously deem some arbitrary acts as higher on some arbitrary scale than other acts.

I would choose existence, simply because I wanted it - not because I believe in some kind of invisible laws that mysteriously deem some arbitrary acts as higher on some arbitrary scale than other acts.

But you value your existence above non-existence. You assign value to your existence. As I imagine you value your mother, brother, sister, uncle, father, and friends existence.

I think you would value societies that don't want to murder you. Now we have a set of standards most humans can agree on regarding murder. Let's call one........good (simple word representing more value) and one bad (simple word representing less value).

Gotta go for now failinghouse. Look foward to more nonsensical abstract horseshit from you soon. Society values your ideas of moral relativism...........badly (your ideas represent less value).

I have to go I get off work at 11.

Basically good and bad are just words that represent value. This value is subject to the individual as well as groups of individuals.

NO I have not read those people. Tell me do thay have anything useful to offer philosophy or society in there dry critique and deconstruction of modernism?

I have only briefly studied this and could be wrong in my opinion that it is a whiny abstract form of argumentation designed to attack the opponent with nonsense and not so much a philosophy as it is a loooooooooong nonsensical critique of modernism.


This is amazing, since postmodernism is applied to more than just philosophy, it’s applied to literature (Borges), art (Pollock) and film (Lynch). Furthermore, postmodernism is not always taken to be a critique of modernism, but also an aesthetic in its own right which is successive to modernism. An example is William S. Burroughs, who was into fragmentation, allusion, parody and play, like the quintessential modernists Joyce and Eliot, but unlike the modernists, was far more affirmative within play and difference, instead of trying to transcend it (the closest you will find to transcendence in Naked Lunch is a syringe or young boy being fucked in his moment of public execution, the latter a classic parody of modernism).

If you wish to limit the discussion to philosophy, however, then I will give a basic outline of two “postmodern” philosophers and their “usefulness” (I’m an opponent of utilitarianism, so I most likely do not mean “utility” by “useful”; nonetheless, Foucault, for example, has describe his books as collections of tools for the activist to supply to society). These outlines will demonstrate the disparity of postmodernists, hopefully, although that is not to say there is some resemblance among them (their inability to stop questioning, their cheerfulness within pure differentiation). However, I first want to state that postmodernism and deconstruction are not equivalent. To call postmodernism the ‘deconstruction’ of modernism shows your lack of acquaintance with the subject; this shall easily be demonstrated through my outline of Deleuze and Foucault.

Michel Foucault, for my first example, was concerned with what he coined the genealogy of the modern subject. He was interested in comprehending the sociohistorical relations of the sciences and politics to unveil apparently politically-innocuous institutions and demonstrate how these relations result in discourse, how we understand ourselves, how we are given private and social identities, and how we use these to manipulate one another. He desired to show how power was not a top-down hierarchy, but a grid of relations that can be unveiled, inverted and acted upon violently. He may not have believed that the sciences had detached themselves from society, that they were deeply enmeshed in power struggles, but this did not mean he reduced science to a social construction or was a relativist. He had no interest in the truth-value of sciences, merely their political affects. For example, dividing practices is where people are selected from undifferentiated masses and given an identity through the medium of a science which allows them to be spatially divided from the population and controlled (such as insane and the homeless in the 16th or 17th century through psychiatry and the Hospital General). I would say his ideas, his search for conditions of possibility, are very useful for interpreting society and indeed, they have deeply influenced activists, teachers, psychiatrists, doctors, social theorists, social scientists, and many other types of people.

As can be seen, Michel Foucault was deeply concerned with politics and social theory. He had little time for metaphysics, unlike Gilles Deleuze, who has called his philosophy ‘reverse Platonism’ on more than one occasion. His whole philosophy was an attempt to break from essentialism, hierarchies and foundations to find new means of philosophical exploration. I have never seen any harm in innovation within philosophy, even if it’s wrong, it may be the dawning of a whole new age of thought (as was the case for Descartes and modernism). Furthermore, his critique of the notions of identity, the same, and subordination of difference to identity have political, ethical, psychological, sociological, theological and scientific implications. His reversal of Plato’s model-copy-simulacrum model is so disparate from Foucault’s genealogy of the modern subject that one wonders why they’re in the same category.

But you value your existence above non-existence. You assign value to your existence. As I imagine you value your mother, brother, sister, uncle, father, and friends existence.

I think you would value societies that don't want to murder you. Now we have a set of standards most humans can agree on regarding murder. Let's call one........good (simple word representing more value) and one bad (simple word representing less value).

There is a difference between saying that 'I do not want to die' and 'my death would be a bad thing'. One can imagine someone saying that 'I do not want to die' and then saying that 'my death would be a good thing' and there is no contradiction there. If p and not q, then p is not equivalent to q.

Even ignoring that, the problem with this attempt to establish morality is that it is entirely descriptive, whereas all moral theories are inherently normative. If someone happens to disagree, then this theory gives no grounds to assert that they are wrong, only that they don't value the same things as whoever they disagree with.

Furthermore, even if your theory is correct, I fail to see how it helps your cause, since there is still the situation where anyone who accepts your premises is not affected by your argument and anyone who denies your premises is not affected by your argument.

However, I first want to state that postmodernism and deconstruction are not equivalent. To call postmodernism the ‘deconstruction’ of modernism shows your lack of acquaintance with the subject; this shall easily be demonstrated through my outline of Deleuze and Foucault.

You are correct I lack the acquaintance of the subject that you do. However, I was under the impression that post modernism was (at least orginally) a reaction to modernism, that more often than not, took the form of deconstruction or critique of modernism.

A quick search on wiki yeilded the following concerning deconstruction:
Deconstruction is a term which is used to denote the application of postmodern ideas of criticism, or theory, to a "text" or "artifact", based on the architecture deconstructivism. A deconstruction is meant to undermine the frame of reference and assumptions that underpin the text or the artifact.

As I have admitted I lack the understanding you do, but this definition seems to imply that post modernism gave rise to deconstructionism and that one cannot exist without the other.

Also, would failinghouses style of "argumentation" be considered deconstruction? Example: Failinghouse: "....Anyone who accepts your premises is not affected by your argument and anyone who denies your premises is not affected by your argument."

Can this statement be used to generically dismiss nearly ANY argument? Wouldn't this be deconstructionism? This also seems to be completely nonsensical bullshit.

There is a difference between saying that 'I do not want to die' and 'my death would be a bad thing'. One can imagine someone saying that 'I do not want to die' and then saying that 'my death would be a good thing' and there is no contradiction there. If p and not q, then p is not equivalent to q.

Good and evil refers to the evaluation of objects, desires, and behaviors across a dualistic spectrum, wherein in one direction are those aspects which are positive, and the other are negative.

THIS IS SUBJECTIVE TO THE INDIVIDUAL!!!

FACT: You value your existence.
FACT: I value my existence.

SCENARIO: We have to fight to the death.

FACT: Me killing you would be positive for me in terms of value.
FACT: Me killing you would be negative for you in terms of value.

When I use the term Good and Evil I am NOT referring to some intangible cosmic force. I am referring to a duelistic spectrum in which one end yields more positive results and one end yields more negative results. The results are of course subjective to the individual.

Sun revolves around the Earth.
The church was correct in that the Earth is the center of the universe.

That is your position, failinghouse?

Anyone who accepts your premises is not affected by your argument and anyone who denies your premises is not affected by your argument.

In short "That's just your opinion, dude".

Good and evil refers to the evaluation of objects, desires, and behaviors across a dualistic spectrum, wherein in one direction are those aspects which are positive, and the other are negative.

THIS IS SUBJECTIVE TO THE INDIVIDUAL!!!

FACT: You value your existence.
FACT: I value my existence.

SCENARIO: We have to fight to the death.

FACT: Me killing you would be positive for me in terms of value.
FACT: Me killing you would be negative for you in terms of value.

When I use the term Good and Evil I am NOT referring to some intangible cosmic force. I am referring to a duelistic spectrum in which one end yields more positive results and one end yields more negative results. The results are of course subjective to the individual.

Ok fine, I would personally define good and bad differently, but I'll accept this. What now? I don't see how this helps any of your previous arguments.

Sun revolves around the Earth.
The church was correct in that the Earth is the center of the universe.

That is your position, failinghouse?

Anyone who accepts your premises is not affected by your argument and anyone who denies your premises is not affected by your argument.

In short "That's just your opinion, dude".

A situation where anyone who accepts the premises is not affected by the argument and anyone who denies the premises is not affected by the argument only arises in specific cases where the acceptance of the premises is an act that demonstrates one is not a member of a group being criticised.

As far as I know, these situations only arise when the criticised argument involves a moral criticism across some kind of ideological boundary; which is not the case here.

The act of accepting the premises of my argument that the sun goes around the earth does not mean that one is excused from the conclusion, since the conclusion is not that something is undesirable, but that a specific fact about our solar system is true.

You are correct I lack the acquaintance of the subject that you do. However, I was under the impression that post modernism was (at least orginally) a reaction to modernism, that more often than not, took the form of deconstruction or critique of modernism.

A quick search on wiki yeilded the following concerning deconstruction:
Deconstruction is a term which is used to denote the application of postmodern ideas of criticism, or theory, to a "text" or "artifact", based on the architecture deconstructivism. A deconstruction is meant to undermine the frame of reference and assumptions that underpin the text or the artifact.

As I have admitted I lack the understanding you do, but this definition seems to imply that post modernism gave rise to deconstructionism and that one cannot exist without the other.

Also, would failinghouses style of "argumentation" be considered deconstruction? Example: Failinghouse: "....Anyone who accepts your premises is not affected by your argument and anyone who denies your premises is not affected by your argument."

Can this statement be used to generically dismiss nearly ANY argument? Wouldn't this be deconstructionism? This also seems to be completely nonsensical bullshit.

Deconstruction will be very hard for me to explain, because I am not very keen about Derrida (he is too Hegelian for me) and have not spent as much time with him as I have with, say, Foucault or Nietzsche. What I can say is that, fundamentally, deconstruction is a critique of the limitations of semiotics and all of metaphysics, from the Greeks to Heidegger, as it is interpreted through semiotics. Now semiotics was the brainchild of the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, who was innovative within the field of linguistics, even though he never published a book in his life. What was published was a posthumous collection of his and his students’ notes, all meshed into a single book by two pupils. The book presented semiotics, and thereby the mindset of the average language-user, as being very dichotomous. However, as recent discoveries of notes of Saussure prove, his dualisms were ways to simplify a highly complex, circular system of signs. He likened them to being like two sides of a single sheet of paper. To put it crassly, deconstruction was an attempt to undermine these dichotomies, this ‘black and white’ thinking (natural/unnatural, he/she, good/bad, love/hate, cat/dog, presence over absence) and so on and so on. It sits at the limits of philosophy, literature, etc., and unveils those little seams that, if pulled at, destroy everything. But really, as someone so supportive of science, I would have thought you would appreciate someone who points at the loose nuts and bolts and says they’re not tightened.

“Postmodernism”, on the other hand, as a critique of modernism (which it isn’t always considered), isn’t necessarily deconstructive. Often times it is a critique of the Enlightenment principles found held unquestionably within the works of modernists. It is a critique of what it sees as the dangers of progress, rationalism, absolutes, appeals to nature, foundationalism, positivism, scientism, etc. These arguments are many and different (Feyerabend, for example, uses historical reductio ad absurdums, which force you to either accept all scientific methods have limitations, or else Galileo was irrational for breaking their rules in the Copernican Revolution). As I have said before, it seems to me to be the category to lump disparate modernists who ask too many questions or are far too cheerful in the face of multiplicities, temporal discontinuity and the fragmentation of sense. It has often been said that modernism and postmodernism are two ways of looking at the same thing, the former as an existential crisis and the latter as liberation.

I have had words with the editors of wikipedia about this before. The people writing about postmodernism, deconstruction or poststructuralism, often have no idea what they are talking about. Many of them are like yourself, they read Richard Dawkins or Sokal’s straw man they love to knock down (can anyone define postmodernism? No! Then it is an unintelligible waste of time, not a loose collection of highly original thinkers who should each be taken on their own terms. If someone as smart as I cannot understand it, then what makes you think you can understand these statements taken out of context?) and think that is postmodernism.

As for FallingHouse, I’m not going to speak for him because I don’t know the guy personally. He is essentially arguing against you within the paradigm of foundationalism and is having a lot of fun with infinite regresses. Personally, I think he’s gotten you with his argument that if a Christian agrees or disagrees with you, that it proves nothing. Furthermore, I advise you to tread carefully about what you say about the Galileo affair. It is a very complicated matter and not a simple matter of Science vs. Religion.

Ok fine, I would personally define good and bad differently, but I'll accept this. What now? I don't see how this helps any of your previous arguments.

On this same duelistic spectrum, is murder more positive or more negative for society?

I realize that good and evil ARE subjective, however, I see no reason why the same duelistic spectrum can not be applied to a society.

But really, as someone so supportive of science, I would have thought you would appreciate someone who points at the loose nuts and bolts and says they’re not tightened.

I do appreciate it, if it is constructive. At times though post modernism seems so abstract that a 2nd year student in post modernist theory COULD effectively argue against anything with ANYONE. Almost akin to Obbes, everything is an illusion argument.

As for FallingHouse, I’m not going to speak for him because I don’t know the guy personally. He is essentially arguing against you within the paradigm of foundationalism and is having a lot of fun with infinite regresses. Personally, I think he’s gotten you with his argument that if a Christian agrees or disagrees with you, that it proves nothing. Furthermore, I advise you to tread carefully about what you say about the Galileo affair. It is a very complicated matter and not a simple matter of Science vs. Religion.

Infinite regresses seems to be like a child asking why after every answer. It is annoying.

My argument is that christianity in the inquisition held back the natural progression of scientific thought. That we should be farther along scientifically but are not. This seems pretty reasonable to me. I honestly fail to see how I need a Christian to agree or disagree or how that effects the argument.

Thanks for the info on postmodernism, I still honestly think it for the most part is a disorganized and less useful philosophy, but I agree that some of it can be constructive.

I wrote out a really lengthy response, but then I binned it because I cannot be bothered with you. If you are still calling postmodernism a philosophy (singular) than you have either not comprehended anything I have said, or you are trolling. Personally, I think the latter is indicated to be the case by your blatant misrepresentation of fallinghouse’s arguments. For he did not say that you would have to have Christians concede your point if you want to assert religion impeded upon the advancement of science. Rather, he was arguing against your assertion of the barbarism of the Christian meme when he said that (1) if a Christian were to agree with you that all murder is wrong, that their Christianity would not by barbarous by your definition, that (2) if they disagreed with you, morality would not be intersubjective and would collapse, so your assertion would be a mere assertion, and that (3) your only option left is to prove it to objectively be so, which isn’t likely and would still only go against certain Christianities.

On this same duelistic spectrum, is murder more positive or more negative for society?

I imagine that would depend on the specific circumstances. I can imagine situations where it would positive and ones where it would be negative.

I realize that good and evil ARE subjective, however, I see no reason why the same duelistic spectrum can not be applied to a society.

The problem is that if someone agrees with your subjective judgement, then they are not in the same group of people who committed the crimes, and so are not responsible for those crimes; and if they disagree with your subjective judgement then they simply ignore it as an unshared value claim.

I wrote out a really lengthy response, but then I binned it because I cannot be bothered with you.

Awesome. :)

Sorry to get your panties in a bunch over my opinion that post modernism is, for the most part, a waste of time.

The problem is that if someone agrees with your subjective judgement, then they are not in the same group of people who committed the crimes, and so are not responsible for those crimes; and if they disagree with your subjective judgement then they simply ignore it as an unshared value claim.

Assuming a society values is existence then murdering people holds negative value for the society, as people within a society murdering each other could eliminate the society itself.

Also, assuming people value having skilled people within their society (perhaps the reason they formed a society), then it would a negative thing to have these people gone or murdered.

This of course assumes that a vast majority of the people within a society value their lives and do not wish to be murdered b/c of this value and that this majority wants to have the society exist.

Then you enter in a certian meme which is designed for social control. This meme is abused, and people are murdered. This is a positive thing for the individuals in this group that supports this meme of social control b/c they get the murdered persons holdings.

How could we determine if it were a more positive thing or a more negative thing for the society if entire villages were to be wiped out by people USING this meme of social control? Would it be fair to look at the historical ramifications of this?

I have to go, bout to get off work.

Assuming a society values is existence then murdering people holds negative value for the society, as people within a society murdering each other could eliminate the society itself.

Also, assuming people value having skilled people within their society (perhaps the reason they formed a society), then it would a negative thing to have these people gone or murdered.

This of course assumes that a vast majority of the people within a society value their lives and do not wish to be murdered b/c of this value and that this majority wants to have the society exist.

1. The actual number of people killed in the inquisition was no more than a tiny percentage of the population. Wikipedia cites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Death_tolls) Ricardo García Cárcel's estimate of only about 3 000 deaths over the entire inquisition. Even when this is brought up to 5 000 as suggested, this number is nowhere near high enough to create a risk of the society eliminating itself.

By comparison, the US has executed over 14 000 people in it's history (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=8&did=269), a history which is only slightly longer than the inquisition lasted.

2. I would dispute that the people suffering at the hands of the inquisition were the academics or possessors of rare skills, so if that is going to be asserted, I must request a source.

Or are you referring to some event other than the Spanish inquisition?

3. Even if you manage to establish that the inquisition or any other crimes of the past were bad from this subjective moral standpoint, I fail to see how this resolves the main problem.

How could we determine if it were a more positive thing or a more negative thing for the society if entire villages were to be wiped out by people USING this meme of social control? Would it be fair to look at the historical ramifications of this?

When did Christians wipe out entire villages of people of their own society and if they did, how do you know it was their Christianity that made them do it?

Regardless, in order to evaluate an event as positive or negative, I imagine you would have to apply your subjective good/evil scale, which is useless in argument against anyone who doesn't already agree.

The bible is bullshit.

The bible is bullshit.

highlight'd for truth

Or are you referring to some event other than the Spanish inquisition?

Your numbers are bullshit. García Cárcel's numbers have changed three times growing MUCH less and less each time he published his book. According to the church itself, and at the request of Pope John Paul in 2000, only a few hundred died!

http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_pers3.htm

This site has far too much information on it to reproduce here. It lists numbers in the millions. The Inquisition started after Jews were forced to convert to Christianity. It was orginally designed to test their conversions for validity. Many people died.

[QUOTE=fallinghouse;9301592] Regardless, in order to evaluate an event as positive or negative, I imagine you would have to apply your subjective good/evil scale, which is useless in argument against anyone who doesn't already agree.

You have already accepted my subjectice good/evil scale. I will refer you to my argument for which you said you accepted it.

If you want to realize it is the same meme I refer you to the thread on here Christianity back to it's roots. It has an interesting video of Christians in Africa engaging in witch hunts.

I leave you to read what I have given you. If you still feel that the meme of christianity is not responsible for the inquisition, or at the very least responsible for setting the stage, and allowing the complacency needed of the population for such atrocities to be committed, go fuck yourself.

I will not respond to anymore of your bullshit, unless it is REALLY good.

There's something out there better than all of us.

That's why I believe in God.

Your numbers are bullshit. García Cárcel's numbers have changed three times growing MUCH less and less each time he published his book. According to the church itself, and at the request of Pope John Paul in 2000, only a few hundred died!

How does that effect their credibility?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_pers3.htm

This site has far too much information on it to reproduce here. It lists numbers in the millions. The Inquisition started after Jews were forced to convert to Christianity. It was orginally designed to test their conversions for validity. Many people died.

1. If I have to choose between unsourced numbers on website and the numbers given by a historian in his book on the topic, I will go with the book every time.

2. Even if your numbers are accurate, you yourself admit that the people being killed were the jews, meaning social outsiders, meaning there is little risk that a society will wipe itself out with this level of executions.

You have already accepted my subjectice good/evil scale. I will refer you to my argument for which you said you accepted it.

It is irrelevant whether I accept your scale. The problem is that if someone agrees with your subjective judgement, then they are not in the same group of people who committed the crimes, and so are not responsible for those crimes; and if they disagree with your subjective judgement then they simply ignore it as an unshared value claim.

If you want to realize it is the same meme I refer you to the thread on here Christianity back to it's roots. It has an interesting video of Christians in Africa engaging in witch hunts.

One case where one group of one sect of Christians in one country commits one crime does not establish that all Christians have the same meme as Christians did in the past. You have massively insufficient grounds for inference.

That could just as easily provide evidence that all black people are murderers as it does that all Christians are murderers (and both of these claims are clearly false). There are an enormous number of possible explanations, and to place the blame directly on Christianity is tremendously unscientific.

Wow, this thread sucks.

No, the thread doesen't suck. The conversation went to a completely different subject after the first page and that went way off topic in hurry.

1. If I have to choose between unsourced numbers on website and the numbers given by a historian in his book on the topic, I will go with the book every time.

2. Even if your numbers are accurate, you yourself admit that the people being killed were the jews, meaning social outsiders, meaning there is little risk that a society will wipe itself out with this level of executions.

Many sources are cited at the bottom of the website. If only 59 people were murdered as suggested by the pope in 2000, then the inquisition is certainly no big deal. If you believe the church in this regard, then continue to keep your eyes closed as tightly as you can.

It is irrelevant whether I accept your scale. The problem is that if someone agrees with your subjective judgement, then they are not in the same group of people who committed the crimes, and so are not responsible for those crimes; and if they disagree with your subjective judgement then they simply ignore it as an unshared value claim.

Someone can agree with my subjective judgement AND recognize themselves as being infected with the meme of Christianity that led to witch trials hundreds of years ago and witch trials today. Effectively being a part of the same group.

One case where one group of one sect of Christians in one country commits one crime does not establish that all Christians have the same meme as Christians did in the past. You have massively insufficient grounds for inference.

Until Christians infected African tribesmen with the meme of Christianity, Africans did not murder women and children in the name of Jesus, during witch trials. Accept it.

There is NO difference in the meme possessed by African witch hunters today, Inquisitors yesterday, and xtians everywhere in between. The difference is how external influences reign in more unpleasant aspects of the meme.

Without an educated society the meme of christianity does more damage. That is what my point is. The reasons we do not suffer the problems of theistic memes a majority of the third world does is b/c we have both a separation and a level of education.

A religion is a meme. Christian religion is relatively unchanged, ergo, relatively same meme.

No, the thread doesen't suck.

Yes, it does.

Many sources are cited at the bottom of the website. If only 59 people were murdered as suggested by the pope in 2000, then the inquisition is certainly no big deal. If you believe the church in this regard, then continue to keep your eyes closed as tightly as you can.

Only two sources are given on your website for actual accusations of mass murder. One of those leads to a website that no longer exists and the other leads to a book written in 1895 that is now widely disregarded by historians:

"Such judgements , however appealing though they may be to foes of "scientific creationism" and other contemporary threats to established science, fly in the face of mounting evidence that White read the past through battle-scarred glasses, and that he and his imitators have distorted history to serve ideological ends of their own."

source:
Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science
David C. Lindberg; Ronald L. Numbers
Church History, Vol. 55, No. 3. (Sep., 1986), page 340. (emphasis added)

Your source is useless, but even if it was accurate, you yourself admit that the people being killed were the jews, meaning social outsiders, meaning there is little risk that a society will wipe itself out with this level of executions. So you have failed to even label this as bad by a subjective scale of your own devising.

Someone can agree with my subjective judgement AND recognize themselves as being infected with the meme of Christianity that led to witch trials hundreds of years ago and witch trials today. Effectively being a part of the same group.

Not if your subjective judgement is in direct opposition to the actions and values of that group.

Until Christians infected African tribesmen with the meme of Christianity, Africans did not murder women and children in the name of Jesus, during witch trials. Accept it.

There is NO difference in the meme possessed by African witch hunters today, Inquisitors yesterday, and xtians everywhere in between. The difference is how external influences reign in more unpleasant aspects of the meme.

All conquerors label themselves as liberators, Pol Pot thought of himself as a hero and Avril Lavigne claims to be a punk rocker. What people call themselves gives no evidence as to what they really are.

Furthermore, even if those people who killed people in the name of Jesus in modern times actually do have the same meme (which you lack evidence to assert), you still have insufficient grounds to claim that [I]all Christians have the same meme.

Without an educated society the meme of christianity does more damage. That is what my point is. The reasons we do not suffer the problems of theistic memes a majority of the third world does is b/c we have both a separation and a level of education.

If education changes the minds of Christians about what they want, then they no longer have the same meme as people who do want those things.

For a meme as complex and long-lived as Christianity, a persistent memory must be part of the meme's coding. For the Christianity Meme, this persistent memory is the Bible. (Religious traditions also play a big part in integrity maintenance.) The Bible is Christianity's sacred text. It is the common point of reference for all Christians. Surely, the invention of the printing press has lead to a ubiquity of Bibles that have helped solidify the Meme.

The Bible as the Christianity Meme's persistent code leads to two paradoxes. First, the Bible contains many inconsistencies, contradictions, and scientific errors. Surprisingly, is not important for a meme to be fully self-consistent or factual for it to maintain its integrity. The second paradox is that not all of the Bible is really part of the Christianity Meme. The Bible is an enormous tome consisting of a vast number of stories and interrelated symbols. Only a subset of those stories are emphasized by the Churches. Different denominations pick different stories to emphasize and Christianity-based cults spring up emphasizing obscure Biblical passages.

The Bible is not unlike a strand of DNA containing lots of genetic codes that are not used in genes. Only at great intervals do these "noise" regions become expressed due to some mutation elsewhere in the strand.

It (the bible) is the common point of reference for all Christians. This creates a general fucking meme for all christians.

Different denominations pick different stories to emphasize and Christianity-based cults spring up emphasizing obscure Biblical passages. If I am talking about the evangelical meme I will say evangelical meme. If I am talking about the meme for all Christians I will call it the christian meme.

Christian meme is like a strand of DNA containing lots of genetic code not used in genes. Only at great intervals (certain criteria) do these "noise" (unused but still present in the fucking meme, thanks to the common point of reference that links all christians to the same meme; the bible) regions become expressed due to some mutation elsewhere in the strand (uneducated peoples, church enforcing governing laws)

One theory for the number of Early Modern witchcraft trials connects the counter-reformation to witchcraft. In south-western Germany between 1561 and 1670 there were 480 witch trials. Of the 480 trials that took place in southwestern Germany, 317 occurred in Catholic areas, while Protestant territories accounted for 163 of them.[55] During the period from 1561 to 1670, at least 3,229 persons were executed for witchcraft in the German Southwest. Of this number 702 were tried and executed in Protestant territories, while 2,527 were tried and executed in Catholic territories.[56] Nineteenth-century historians today dispute the comparative severity of witch hunting in Protestant and Catholic territories. “Protestants blamed the witch trials on the methods of the Catholic Inquisition and the theology of Catholic scholasticism, while Catholic scholars indignantly retorted that Lutheran preachers drew more witchcraft theory from Luther and the Bible than from medieval Catholic thinkers.”[57]


Fact is there is plenty of dispute among historians over the death toll of the inquisitions. The catholic church itself puts the toll under a hundred. The author of this wikipedia article believes it is around 3,000 in the German southwest. It is a greatly disputed thing. Some historians contend that an additional 100,000 died in jail due to malnutrition or illness.

# of words in thread 4,582
# of letters in thread 52,234
# of times "meme" appears 10^182

[I]For a meme as complex and long-lived as Christianity, a persistent memory must be part of the meme's coding. For the Christianity Meme, this persistent memory is the Bible. (Religious traditions also play a big part in integrity maintenance.) The Bible is Christianity's sacred text. It is the common point of reference for all Christians. Surely, the invention of the printing press has lead to a ubiquity of Bibles that have helped solidify the Meme...

...It (the bible) is the common point of reference for all Christians. This creates a general fucking meme for all christians.

They read the bible? That proves nothing. If a few assassins were avid fans of the catcher in the rye, it does not mean that my friend will turn into an assassin if he likes the book. The bible does nothing to establish that it is the same meme.

Different denominations pick different stories to emphasize and Christianity-based cults spring up emphasizing obscure Biblical passages.

Well then, if they emphasise different ideas and have different opinions on a significant number of topics then they do not have the same meme.

The Bible is not unlike a strand of DNA containing lots of genetic codes that are not used in genes. Only at great intervals do these "noise" regions become expressed due to some mutation elsewhere in the strand.

Christian meme is like a strand of DNA containing lots of genetic code not used in genes. Only at great intervals (certain criteria) do these "noise" (unused but still present in the fucking meme, thanks to the common point of reference that links all christians to the same meme; the bible) regions become expressed due to some mutation elsewhere in the strand (uneducated peoples, church enforcing governing laws)

If you expand the theory of memetics to such a level it becomes completely unfalsifiable and unable to predict anything at all, and could be used to criticise anyone.

To show the ridiculousness of your claims, consider this:

The members of my family are white. The members of Stalin's family were white. The white family meme is like a strand of DNA containing lots of genetic code not used in genes. Only at great intervals (certain criteria) do these "noise" (unused but still present in the fucking meme, thanks to the common point of reference that links all white people to the same meme; having white family members) regions become expressed due to some mutation elsewhere in the strand (lack of values, desire for power and control). Hence, using your reasoning, Stalin and I have the same meme, so despite having completely different values, opinions and philosophies to him, I am at least partially responsible for his crimes.

If a meme can result in widely ranging values, opinions and philosophies in the people who have this meme, then the theory of memes is useless.

Fact is there is plenty of dispute among historians over the death toll of the inquisitions.

Exactly, so to paint said inquisitions with brushes of horror is to assert what there is no grounds to assert.


I have given my argument numerous times and all possible avenues of response have been categorically ruled out. I'm not going to continue to explain why your claims are useless.

I don't believe in any objective morality. If I don't do something, it's because I either don't want to or society would punish that action in a way that outweighs the benefits; I don't have to delude myself into thinking that I am following some kind of universal system of right and wrong.
This thread is probably dead now, but I'd just like to point out a couple of things.

1.) You assign value to things. I don't know what they are, exactly, but this post clearly shows that you believe some things are desirable and some things are not. You are therefore able to recognize the concept of "better" or "worse."
2.) Other people also assign value to things and recognize those concepts.
3.) Things that are good to you are, well, good - by definition! Therefore they should be done. Other people, also being human, therefore like you, therefore desiring things as you do, should also receive good things: if it's good for you to receive goodness, it's good for them. To make things worse for a person is, well, worse: bad. True, they can define these things very differently, and difficulty can arise when one person holds as good something that another holds as bad - but that doesn't mean that the good things aren't good and the bad things bad. It only means a solution must be found to include the greatest amount of good.

So... to sum up my position, I believe that what exactly is good and bad varies from person to person, but there is still a general good at bad: it's bad to do what is bad as defined by the person whom the action is being done to, etc. Obviously it gets more complicated than this, but I view situations like "what about giving bad-tasting medicines to children" as problems in application, not with theory, as I've always found an acceptable (to me) solution.

To explain it another way, morals exist because of the way the universe and humanity are "set up." Because humans happen to be human, with human attributes such as desire, happiness, and the ability to suffer, some things - suffering, for instance - are bad and some (happiness?) are good. The analogy I like to use is that of gravity and the universe. Because the universe we live in happens to be like it is, there is a force called gravity that acts in such-and-such a manner. If the universe were different, maybe gravity would be different, or even not existent at all. If humanity were different, maybe morality would be. I just see it as a function of our condition. Not a universal truth, but existent all the same.

Just to say. :) Don't feel like a debate much now, but you're free to comment. Maybe I'll reply.

I'll grant you everything until 3. I take issue with this: "Other people, also being human, therefore like you, therefore desiring things as you do, should also receive good things: if it's good for you to receive goodness, it's good for them"

It seems like this passage doesn't hold force as an argument unless I accept the following premise:

Things that are like me (in that they desire things) should receive those things that they desire (called good things)

The use of the word 'should' means this is a moral judgement. Furthermore, it does not reflect something that I personally want. Since before this passage, the only thing that was established was that my personal desires translate to the concepts of morality, and this moral premise is not desired by me, then I can see no reason why I would accept this argument.

And if I don't accept the extension of morality from an individual to a social level, then concepts like 'should' and 'good' become superfluous when me doing what I want serves just fine by itself.

Two other moral principles are asserted in your post:

1. When one person holds as good something that another holds as bad. . .a solution must be found to include the greatest amount of good.
2. It's bad to do what is bad as defined by the person whom the action is being done to.

Along with the moral principle I looked at above, it seems that these principles form the basis for your whole system, but I can't see how any of them follow directly from the notion that people think some things are preferable to others.

I can understand why morality is useful for a society to hold itself together, but for social analysis it just gets in the way.

No doubt you have counter arguments, but I also don't really want a debate, so if you give them, I don't intend to respond. ;)

Thanks for the insightful comments. I have what I believe to be good (or at least adequate!) counter-arguments, but it helps to have objections put clearly - it's harder to critique your own ideas, at least for me.

But I DID prove something. We are alive right now thanks to this planet. Therefore our planet created us, and is god. The blackhole at the center of the milky way is god, and if it is not a black hole, what else would be such a source of gravity?

The Milky way is not the center of the universe.
It is just one of billions upon billions of galaxies.