So a convicted rapist of a 13 year old girl in Oklahoma is threatening suicide if the state doesn't pay for sex-change therapy.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out of this life, buddy.
I mean, he wasn't even smart enough to molest a child in California. He'd have gotten his sex change, no muss, no fuss. Location, location, location.
Showing posts with label silliness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label silliness. Show all posts
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Friday, June 29, 2012
Absolutely not
- John M Thank you Karen. Hitler carrying out "Gods will" has no relevance to what you believe. That was kind of what I was getting at in terms of irrelevance. Hitler is not relevant to this issue. Neither is MLK honestly.2 hours ago
- Rhology John,
Why would anyone be bothered by the fact that Adolf Hitler had a false belief (that false belief being that his conduct was in accordance with the will of the Creator)? - Rhology Pagans like Hitler have a lot of false beliefs, incidentally. http://
rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2007/ 10/hitler-christian.html2 hours ago - John M You couldn't prove his actions weren't in accordance with the creator any more than he could prove your actions aren't in accordance with the creator. Thats because youre both using the same unaccounted for god concept to justify your beliefs.
- Rhology And if he can't prove it, then why isn't the Christians' complete disavowal of Hitler as a Christian completely valid?
- John M God, the way your religion describes him, cannot be demonstrated. Only asserted.
It's valid, but hypocritical, because youre doing the same thing as he is (claiming you know the will of a god that can't be demonstrated). - Rhology \\God, the way your religion describes him, cannot be demonstrated. Only asserted. \\
As a matter of fact, this is completely wrong.
www.proofthatgodexists.org
\\It's valid, but hypocritical, because youre doing the same thing as he is (claiming you know the will of a god that can't be demonstrated).\\
I don't see how it's hypocritical. If both of us make statements that can't be verified (just for the sake of your argument), don't Christians get to define our own position and what it means to be a member of our group?
Can I say "I'm an atheist and I believe that there are millions of gods and that science is bunk"? Would that be consistent and rational? - John M I don't know if absolute truth exists ---> Absolutely true/false? I don't know if not knowing if absolute truth exists is absolute. I wonder if the next question would be is not knowing whether you don't know if absolute truth exists absolute? Probably, but that would ruin the whole false dichotomy. Fun word game though.
- Rhology \\I don't know if not knowing if absolute truth exists is absolute.\\
Then you are not getting it, and that's sad.
Is it absolutely true that you don't know if not knowing if absolute truth exists is absolute?
Think hard. - John M I don't know if it's absolute that I don't know. I already said that. We can't account for absolutes with our current capabilities, and probably will never be able to. You can say they exist, but it's merely an assertion.
- Rhology is it absolutely true that you don't know if it's absolute that you don't know?
is it absolutely true that we can't account for absolutes with our current capabilities?
Is it absolutely true that it's merely an assertion? - John M And thats the hole in your argument. You can't get anywhere unless you get me to concede that I know things absolutely. How can I verify whether or not what I know is absolute?
Fun game though. - Rhology \\And thats the hole in your argument\\
Is that absolutely true?
If you don't, why did you say it?
\\You can't get anywhere unless you get me to concede that I know things absolutely\\
Is that absolutely true?
If you don't, why did you say it?
\\How can I verify whether or not what I know is absolute? \\
You can't. Unless Jesus is Lord, there is no way to do so. That's the point of the website, actually.
All these foolish things you keep saying - they are more and more demonstration of the utter absurdity of your worldview. - John M We can account for absolutes only through the unverified divinity of a man named Jesus from 2000 years ago. Got it.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Blabber
Brabble Frabbitz said:
But theologues abandon such common sense
Then again, he also said:
It's such a reflex of yours, dashing off to the logical fallacy chart to determine which one a detractor violated. I wasn't even saying Christianity is wrong on any particular position.
and
I have a knack for spouting off, then realizing the need to restrict my comments to rational argumentation
and
But what the hey -- a fallacy doesn't cost me a dime and sometimes it's fun to sling a few.
and also, ironically:
I can't stomach arrogant hypocrites.
That's worth a chuckle.
But theologues abandon such common sense
Then again, he also said:
It's such a reflex of yours, dashing off to the logical fallacy chart to determine which one a detractor violated. I wasn't even saying Christianity is wrong on any particular position.
and
I have a knack for spouting off, then realizing the need to restrict my comments to rational argumentation
and
But what the hey -- a fallacy doesn't cost me a dime and sometimes it's fun to sling a few.
and also, ironically:
I can't stomach arrogant hypocrites.
That's worth a chuckle.
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Stephen Hawking says the universe was not created by God!
All our hopes are dashed!
And by "nothing", he no doubt means "something" - gravity and stuff on which gravity could act.
What else can the thinking person do but laugh at such sophistry?
God did not create the universe, the man who is arguably Britain's most famous living scientist says in a forthcoming book.
In the new work, The Grand Design, Professor Stephen Hawking argues that the Big Bang, rather than occurring following the intervention of a divine being, was inevitable due to the law of gravity.
In his 1988 book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking had seemed to accept the role of God in the creation of the universe. But in the new text, co-written with American physicist Leonard Mlodinow, he said new theories showed a creator is "not necessary".
The Grand Design, an extract of which appears in the Times today, sets out to contest Sir Isaac Newton's belief that the universe must have been designed by God as it could not have been created out of chaos.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.
"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
(Source, emph. mine)
And by "nothing", he no doubt means "something" - gravity and stuff on which gravity could act.
What else can the thinking person do but laugh at such sophistry?
Friday, July 16, 2010
Romish apologetics at its best
Starting here:
Adomnan said...
Adomnan: I read the Scriptures, too; and the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit tell me that that the Catholic faith is the true faith.
Fortunately, I'm not alone.
----------
Rhology said...
Rhology: The astute reader will note that the reason I argued that way is b/c Paul Hoffer forced me to. Read the first few lines.
Adomnan: The astute reader might not get beyond the first few lines.
So Paul forced you to make a bad argument and repeat it a dozen times? Or was it Bush's fault?
-----------
Rhology said...
Adomnan said...
Adomnan: I read the Scriptures, too; and the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit tell me that that the Catholic faith is the true faith.
Fortunately, I'm not alone.
----------
Rhology said...
"The Holy Spirit tells me..."
1) That's no different from the Mormon "burning in the bosom".
2) RCs like to rip Protestants for "me and my Bible under a tree", but you've here expressed the same concept.
I just think it's funny how you guys change position when the situation calls for it.
1) That's no different from the Mormon "burning in the bosom".
2) RCs like to rip Protestants for "me and my Bible under a tree", but you've here expressed the same concept.
I just think it's funny how you guys change position when the situation calls for it.
-----------
Adomnan said...
Rhology: 1) That's no different from the Mormon "burning in the bosom".
Adomnan: The Holy Spirit supports the Magisterium. If I got a burning in the bosom, I'd take a Tums.
On the other hand, Calvin, like the Mormons, let his gut tell him what books constituted Scripture. He certainly paid no heed to the Magisterium.
Rhology: 2) RCs like to rip Protestants for "me and my Bible under a tree", but you've here expressed the same concept.
Adomnan: No, I haven't.
Rhology: I just think it's funny how you guys change position when the situation calls for it.
Adomnan: Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
Actually, though, I'm being consistent in this instance. It's not inconsistent to expect the Holy Spirit to endorse what the Magisterium teaches.
The Holy Spirit doesn't "speak" to me by inspiring an emotion, but through illumination of the mind. That's my experience at least.
Adomnan: The Holy Spirit supports the Magisterium. If I got a burning in the bosom, I'd take a Tums.
On the other hand, Calvin, like the Mormons, let his gut tell him what books constituted Scripture. He certainly paid no heed to the Magisterium.
Rhology: 2) RCs like to rip Protestants for "me and my Bible under a tree", but you've here expressed the same concept.
Adomnan: No, I haven't.
Rhology: I just think it's funny how you guys change position when the situation calls for it.
Adomnan: Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
Actually, though, I'm being consistent in this instance. It's not inconsistent to expect the Holy Spirit to endorse what the Magisterium teaches.
The Holy Spirit doesn't "speak" to me by inspiring an emotion, but through illumination of the mind. That's my experience at least.
Rhology: The astute reader will note that the reason I argued that way is b/c Paul Hoffer forced me to. Read the first few lines.
Adomnan: The astute reader might not get beyond the first few lines.
So Paul forced you to make a bad argument and repeat it a dozen times? Or was it Bush's fault?
-----------
Rhology said...
The Holy Spirit supports the Magisterium.
You're right it does.
Wait, no it doesn't. You know what? It's both. Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
On the other hand, Calvin, like the Mormons, let his gut tell him what books constituted Scripture.
Prove it.
Calvin WAS a Mormon. So was Jesus. Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
It's not inconsistent to expect the Holy Spirit to endorse what the Magisterium teaches.
Actually, it's both consistent and inconsistent at the same time, in the same way.
The astute reader might not get beyond the first few lines.
Lemme guess. Astuteness is another hobgoblin of small minds.
You're right it does.
Wait, no it doesn't. You know what? It's both. Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
On the other hand, Calvin, like the Mormons, let his gut tell him what books constituted Scripture.
Prove it.
Calvin WAS a Mormon. So was Jesus. Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
It's not inconsistent to expect the Holy Spirit to endorse what the Magisterium teaches.
Actually, it's both consistent and inconsistent at the same time, in the same way.
The astute reader might not get beyond the first few lines.
Lemme guess. Astuteness is another hobgoblin of small minds.
-----------
Adomnan said...
Rhology, I see the hobgoblin has captured your small mind.
Ever hear of Emerson, ignoramus?
I didn't think so.
Ever hear of Emerson, ignoramus?
I didn't think so.
-----------
Rhology said...
I've both heard of and not heard of Emerson. My mind is simultaneously small and equal to God's.
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Orthodox whining
Okay, I'm unclicking the email comments to me thing.
Rho,
I don't know you and I don't know Lvka. I assume that Lvka is female, since I clicked on the blog and a female's picture was there.
Why do you feel, both on this blog and on Perry's, that you must insult everyone you talk to? Insult me all you want. I don't care. But are you not the least bit embarrassed that you are speaking so disrespectfully, not only to fellow Christians, but to ladies?
I'm still following David's blog, but I really can't stomach to read your comments anymore. And there is no point debating you. You really don't know enough about epistemology and church history to continue the discussion. For example, Lvka, Perry, david, and myself are all humanistic postmodernists because we appeal to tradition and that's circular reasoning.
But on the other hand, how is it not circular reasoning for you to appeal to the bible (like a Platonic document) simply because it's the Bible? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
And Lvka is saying the reason you aren't coming to Arian conclusions on those passages is because you are already presupposing trinitarian dogma--ancient Christian tradition is informing your exegesis. You aren't going on "pure bible."
LotG,
For someone who's complaining about being insulted, you can sure dish 'em out. But it doesn't bother me, really. The probability of my having a thicker skin seems high.
that you must insult everyone you talk to?
I don't see the insults, really. In my experience, many complain of insults, but when I ask them for a direct quote, it's rare for me to see one. But I'll ask again - please quote me being insulting.
You really don't know enough about epistemology and church history to continue the discussion.
Sure, OK.
For example, Lvka, Perry, david, and myself are all humanistic postmodernists because we appeal to tradition and that's circular reasoning.
Now you're on a trip to the bizarre.
1) I never called you "humanistic postmodernists". I've called you "humanists", sure. It's what you are. if that insults you, drop the humanism out of your worldview.
2) Identifying that you EMPLOY *ONE* pomo argument doesn't make you "a postmodernist". It means you employ a pomo argument.
3) I've never called anyone a "postmodernist" in my interactions with you.
4) Your appeals to tradition are CIRCULAR, and that's not what you label me as having said.
5) I called David a humanist for one thing b/c his faith is in historical analysis to the limits of human power. That's humanism, and that's not "you're a humanist b/c you appeal to tradition".
6) The pomo argument you employed is the lame "that's just your private interp!" argument. Much like a pomo, you remain blissfully unaware how that argument slits your own throat as well, but I've come to expect that.
I suppose that you'll just complain about more insults b/c I dared to say you were wrong. You know, if you don't want to be called a pomo, you shouldn't act like one.
But on the other hand, how is it not circular reasoning for you to appeal to the bible (like a Platonic document) simply because it's the Bible?
Well, since you're unsubscribing, I guess you won't know my answer. If you'd asked me, I'd've answered; in fact, I already answered DavidW multiple times on this question including in my formal debate with him, which you claim to have read, which means you have no excuse not to interact with what I've already said on it.
You aren't going on "pure bible."
You can *say* that, sure. But you can't DEMONSTRATE it. In point of fact, I go where the Bible leads me. I'm sorry to disappoint you, as I'm sure you'd prefer I be more nefarious in real life so you could whine even more.
Peace,
Rhology
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
You are not nearly as cool as you think you are
Ed Young Jr, that would be you.
This is beyond ridiculous. The worst thing is that ISTM that he just barely didn't make it over the top enough to make me think he meant this to be a joke.
Titus 1:5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 6 namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. 7 For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.
Oh, you mean like refute heretics like the Oneness Pentecostal TD Jakes? The Word of Faith wolf Brian Houston? The always-smiling "This is my Bible. I hold it up at the beginning of my sermon and then never mention it afterwards" moron Joel Osteen?
You know, that's funny. This reminds me of a question I heard earlier about how we figure out who is approved...
Thursday, February 05, 2009
I don't get $93,803 for no work
What a great story!
Summary - a Native American man sues the state, who employs him, for some kind of discrimination, gets transferred to another dept, and now draws $93K a year for doing literally nothing.
Let me say first off that I would love this situation. What is this guy, a complete idiot?
He says: "I don't know how I could get through the day without my iPod."
I do - get a master's degree! Get a seminary degree! Read through Calvin's Institutes, Schaff's History of the Christian Church, Plantinga's Warrant series! Spend an hour in the Bible and an hour in prayer every day! Go to night school, get a 2nd job, and catch up on sleep during the day job! Dang, the possibilities are nearly endless. And he has the gall to say: "Every day it's a struggle for me to bring in something I haven't read or listened to."
Awww, did he read through all the Dean Koontz and Dan Brown novels in the bookstore? Is he on his 15th listen-thru of the latest Justin Timberlake album? Sheesh.
It's so funny how the grass is always greener on the other side. This would be a dream "job" for me. If I were in that position, though, and I were chafing at the confinement, I'd make it a big public deal about my job. YouTube - a video of "The way I spend my time at work every day." A blog that I'd set up to make the same entry every day, to which I'd point all the time, just for the cheekiness and PR of it.
The article says: A member of the Passamaquoddy Tribe in Maine, he said he is being discriminated against because of his national origin and retaliated against for having sued the state.
You know, in the gud ol' days, them Injuns would know whut it is to be diskrmn...decrimina...oppressed because they'd be half-dead ever' night on account 'a' 18 hourz o' manyool labor.
Anyway, seriously, you're going to sue because the state pays you nearly 100 fazoozas a year to do nothing? And you're working for the state? What, you think you'd crack the 200G ceiling if you had an actual job where you actually work?
Hinton wants to be director of investigations for real investigating insurance fraud for the Insurance Fund. He said that responsibility was given to a GOP appointee, a white male, who is paid $140,800 a year, according to state records. Or, he said, he would be a good director of internal controls, a newly established job also given to a white male in October. The Insurance Fund is paying the newcomer $82,363.
So he could maybe get 140 a year, but he'd have to work. Or, he could get less money per year and have to work. Boy, does this guy have his priorities in order!
"He has nothing to do and has had nothing to do for the last two and a half years and what he had to do before that was relatively insignificant," said Obertubbesing. "It's an unfortunate situation."
All you working stiffs out there, like me, join me in a brief chorus: 'Lucky bum!'
Now, the irony meter spikes: He said Hinton thought things would improve when Eliot Spitzer became governor
Snicker, chortle, smirk. What a naïf.
"I'm ashamed of my situation. I'm embarrassed. Nobody cares. They don't care about Indians."
Presumably he has evidence of another "Indian" who is paid a medium-high salary by the state gov't to do nothing, which would add the plural "s" to "they don't care about Indians".
Seems to me they're treating him pretty darn well.
Summary - a Native American man sues the state, who employs him, for some kind of discrimination, gets transferred to another dept, and now draws $93K a year for doing literally nothing.
Let me say first off that I would love this situation. What is this guy, a complete idiot?
He says: "I don't know how I could get through the day without my iPod."
I do - get a master's degree! Get a seminary degree! Read through Calvin's Institutes, Schaff's History of the Christian Church, Plantinga's Warrant series! Spend an hour in the Bible and an hour in prayer every day! Go to night school, get a 2nd job, and catch up on sleep during the day job! Dang, the possibilities are nearly endless. And he has the gall to say: "Every day it's a struggle for me to bring in something I haven't read or listened to."
Awww, did he read through all the Dean Koontz and Dan Brown novels in the bookstore? Is he on his 15th listen-thru of the latest Justin Timberlake album? Sheesh.
It's so funny how the grass is always greener on the other side. This would be a dream "job" for me. If I were in that position, though, and I were chafing at the confinement, I'd make it a big public deal about my job. YouTube - a video of "The way I spend my time at work every day." A blog that I'd set up to make the same entry every day, to which I'd point all the time, just for the cheekiness and PR of it.
The article says: A member of the Passamaquoddy Tribe in Maine, he said he is being discriminated against because of his national origin and retaliated against for having sued the state.
You know, in the gud ol' days, them Injuns would know whut it is to be diskrmn...decrimina...oppressed because they'd be half-dead ever' night on account 'a' 18 hourz o' manyool labor.
Anyway, seriously, you're going to sue because the state pays you nearly 100 fazoozas a year to do nothing? And you're working for the state? What, you think you'd crack the 200G ceiling if you had an actual job where you actually work?
Hinton wants to be director of investigations for real investigating insurance fraud for the Insurance Fund. He said that responsibility was given to a GOP appointee, a white male, who is paid $140,800 a year, according to state records. Or, he said, he would be a good director of internal controls, a newly established job also given to a white male in October. The Insurance Fund is paying the newcomer $82,363.
So he could maybe get 140 a year, but he'd have to work. Or, he could get less money per year and have to work. Boy, does this guy have his priorities in order!
"He has nothing to do and has had nothing to do for the last two and a half years and what he had to do before that was relatively insignificant," said Obertubbesing. "It's an unfortunate situation."
All you working stiffs out there, like me, join me in a brief chorus: 'Lucky bum!'
Now, the irony meter spikes: He said Hinton thought things would improve when Eliot Spitzer became governor
Snicker, chortle, smirk. What a naïf.
"I'm ashamed of my situation. I'm embarrassed. Nobody cares. They don't care about Indians."
Presumably he has evidence of another "Indian" who is paid a medium-high salary by the state gov't to do nothing, which would add the plural "s" to "they don't care about Indians".
Seems to me they're treating him pretty darn well.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Closed
Someone accused me of being closed-minded today.
He's so closed-minded. Closed-minded against closed-mindedness and against closed-minded people. He needs to be open to diversity and diverse people.
He's so closed-minded. Closed-minded against closed-mindedness and against closed-minded people. He needs to be open to diversity and diverse people.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Desperation
Over at PhillyChief's place, I've been pressing him to answer basic questions about the standards he uses to make moral value judgments. True to form, he's running away as fast as he can from the questions. No surprise there.
Another commenter named Quantum_Flux made the assertion that Christianity is irrational. I asked him to prove it. He pointed me to three posts.
Here's the first paragraph from the first one.
I'm nearly speechless at the sheer idiocy. This is what the Bible meant when it referred to the fool that has said in his heart, "There is no God".
Anyway, here's the comment I left:
So I ask you for evidence that Christianity is irrational and you point me to this post? Hahahaha, that's pathetic.
Let's just take the 1st section, b/c the craptacular nature of this entire post is overwhelming.
-Prove Moses was "psychedelic" (whatever that means). You probably mean that he saw things that you haven't seen, but haven't LOTS of people seen things you haven't seen?
-Prove Moses poisoned the water of Egypt with LSD.
-To what biblical event do you refer when you speak of a volcanic event?
-If the pillar of fire, how is it that the "volcano" showed up only at night and moved around the desert?
-Exactly which volcano was it in Egypt that erupted? Where is the lava flow? Can you point it out in some study or google earth or something?
-I didn't realise that Egypt had volcanic activity. What are the active or recently-dormant volcanos there?
-Prove the snake-chasing-snake thing was a dream rather than an actual event.
-Surely you realise that the skinny cows eating fat cows occurred in the book of Genesis, not Exodus. It was 400+ years before Moses' time.
-The 40-yr journey in the Sinai wasn't "miraculous" at all. It was more precisely counter-miraculous, a punishment from God for the Israelites' unbelief. Cherry-picking seems to be your specialty.
-They ransacked the cities b/c God was fighting for them. You know, the whole "walk around 7 times and the walls fell down" thing. If you have an omnipotent God acting in your behalf, don't you think that might make things a tad easier?
-They spared lots of people, depending on the instance you're talking about. You probably ignorantly think it was one big slaughter b/c you haven't even read the Old Testament. Pitiful.
-What biblical passage do you refer to when you speak of "Yahweh's booming voice"? I'm curious about this one.
-What biblical psg do you refer to when you say that "papyrous" (sic) scrolls were passed around to the group?
And that's just the 1st paragraph. Your crusade has started with an epic fail. Who exactly were you expecting to take this seriously?
Peace,
Rhology
----
I'll be dealing with the other two posts over time. This one is a nice Christ-mas present, though.
Another commenter named Quantum_Flux made the assertion that Christianity is irrational. I asked him to prove it. He pointed me to three posts.
Here's the first paragraph from the first one.
Well, theism started out good at least. I mean, psychedelic Moses saw this burning bush that told him to poison the water of Egypt with LSD when there was a giant volcano event that allowed the Jewish people to escape into the desert led by a giant pillar of fire in the sky. There were trippy dreams about snakes chasing snakes and skinny cows eating fat cows. People thought that it took 40 years traveling in the desert to complete a miraculous journey that should have taken a week tops on camelback. Then this great big group of runaway slaves completely ransacked a whole bunch of cities and spared nobody except for the young women because Yahweh's booming voice of justice was heard loud and clear by the high preists who then wrote it down on papyrous scrolls in hebrew and passed it around to the group.
I'm nearly speechless at the sheer idiocy. This is what the Bible meant when it referred to the fool that has said in his heart, "There is no God".
Anyway, here's the comment I left:
So I ask you for evidence that Christianity is irrational and you point me to this post? Hahahaha, that's pathetic.
Let's just take the 1st section, b/c the craptacular nature of this entire post is overwhelming.
-Prove Moses was "psychedelic" (whatever that means). You probably mean that he saw things that you haven't seen, but haven't LOTS of people seen things you haven't seen?
-Prove Moses poisoned the water of Egypt with LSD.
-To what biblical event do you refer when you speak of a volcanic event?
-If the pillar of fire, how is it that the "volcano" showed up only at night and moved around the desert?
-Exactly which volcano was it in Egypt that erupted? Where is the lava flow? Can you point it out in some study or google earth or something?
-I didn't realise that Egypt had volcanic activity. What are the active or recently-dormant volcanos there?
-Prove the snake-chasing-snake thing was a dream rather than an actual event.
-Surely you realise that the skinny cows eating fat cows occurred in the book of Genesis, not Exodus. It was 400+ years before Moses' time.
-The 40-yr journey in the Sinai wasn't "miraculous" at all. It was more precisely counter-miraculous, a punishment from God for the Israelites' unbelief. Cherry-picking seems to be your specialty.
-They ransacked the cities b/c God was fighting for them. You know, the whole "walk around 7 times and the walls fell down" thing. If you have an omnipotent God acting in your behalf, don't you think that might make things a tad easier?
-They spared lots of people, depending on the instance you're talking about. You probably ignorantly think it was one big slaughter b/c you haven't even read the Old Testament. Pitiful.
-What biblical passage do you refer to when you speak of "Yahweh's booming voice"? I'm curious about this one.
-What biblical psg do you refer to when you say that "papyrous" (sic) scrolls were passed around to the group?
And that's just the 1st paragraph. Your crusade has started with an epic fail. Who exactly were you expecting to take this seriously?
Peace,
Rhology
----
I'll be dealing with the other two posts over time. This one is a nice Christ-mas present, though.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
We can't all be rock stars
I thought it might be edifying (or not) to boil down a bit what passes for argumentation in larryniven's (who's stopped by to grace us all with his presence over the past couple of weeks in recent comboxes) world.
Can you read?
Any reason why you felt compelled to ask that again? Haven't got that far in Hooked on Phonics?
You, sir, are a sophist by your own admission.
feel free to never post here again.
The world deserves better people than you, so I encourage you to remove yourself from society as much as possible until the happy day when your body becomes as dead as your brain. Failing that, at least have the common courtesy to get off the internet, you insufferable windbag.
(The latest) My goal, you self-satisfied ignoramus, is to squelch propaganda, which is all you have to offer. So far, precisely zero of your arguments have even come close to approaching logical validity, so, as per my comments policy, I'll be deleting the rest of your utterly useless comments, including this latest one. If you want to be heard, learn how to argue without all the ____.
(Source)
...nobody, not even those of us looking for an argument on the internet, should have to deal with someone that embarrassingly stupid. Seriously.
(Source)
Have you read the Bible? All things considered, it isn't that long - it's gotta be shorter than the Lord of the Rings trilogy, for instance.
(Source)
For those interested, I've read both the Bible and LOTR. The Bible is longer, trust me.
Anyway, my apologies to all who've been waiting around for me. I've been sick for a week now and am still weak and can't exert myself much without pain. Prayers are appreciated.
Update:
Well, since larryniven deleted my latest comment, I'll just post it here so anyone can see who's offering naked assertions and who's attempting to get to the bottom of the issue.
Any reason why you felt compelled to ask that again? Haven't got that far in Hooked on Phonics?
I was just making sure I understood you correctly.
But your refusal and insulting comments are duly noted. Your standard for making moral judgments is undefined by you, so a reasonable person has every right and justification to consider any moral judgment you might express as simple personal stipulation on your part. Personal stipulation is also known as naked assertion, and to defeat a naked assertion, one needs only to assert the opposite.
Let's see how far you let me get when I just assert that Jesus Christ is Lord of all.
I'm not going to argue for it here, I'm just going to assert it. My assertion and your assertions you've made in this post have (so far) the same epistemic justification. The backing argument is that which provides the strength of the assertion. Your blog has "Philosophy" in it, but maybe you missed Phil 101 class that day.
No more than you've been reading into mine.
Oh please. This is just a knee-jerk "Nuh uh, yeah huh!!!" reaction. Anyone can see who's doing what here.
You, sir, are a sophist by your own admission.
Really? Where did I state such?
feel free to never post here again.
Wow, are you not into entertaining other points of view or sthg? Does chumming around exclusively with sycophants give you a tickly good time?
If you believe that God's nature is good and God's commandments stem from God's nature, you do in fact believe in divine command theory
Divine command theory is the idea that that which is good is good b/c God commands it. that's why it's called Divine command theory.
My position is not that.
You do not have the right to make words mean whatever you want them to just so that you can win arguments
The blindness you display here is amazing.
The world deserves better people than you, so I encourage you to remove yourself from society as much as possible until the happy day when your body becomes as dead as your brain. Failing that, at least have the common courtesy to get off the internet, you insufferable windbag.
Wow. Well, if your goal is to squelch conversation from opponents to your views, you're doing a decent job.
Peace,
Rhology
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Don't imprison those suicide bomber guys
I just can't resist. merkur, who prides himself on his powerful insights into this question, has been weighing in on the question of waterboarding. Here's his latest offering. I love it. Rarely does the argument ad absurdum yield such striking results, and I wasn't even really applying it all that heavily!
I said:
merkur responded:
Anyway, getting to the rest of his comment, I'm also curious who are the lawyers? The statement's name? Is it the Geneva Convention or does it derive its authority therefrom?
On what basis does it apply to, say, everyone, everywhere, at all times? Does it apply to the jihadists? Since they do worse to their prisoners such as cutting off body parts just for changing their religion, throwing acid in Christian young women's faces for refusing to marry a Muslim, etc, what does that mean for this question?
Depriving someone of sleep is torture, really? A tour of the gallows? Systematic feeding them pork chops (say, once a week)?
Man, you're strict! Next thing you'll say is that imprisonment is torture.
Oh, oops...
(Edit: See at least the 1st 3 comments, as I apparently mistook merkur's meaning. He's still being inconsistent and baselessly pontificating his morality all over the place, but I was wrong about what he meant on imprisonment.)
I said:
Shoot, being in prison has been known to cause severe mental suffering.
merkur responded:
Which is why the Convention explicitly excludes being in prison and other legal incidences.I can only assume he means the Geneva Convention but I invite his correction on that. But just look at the splendor of that idea! These bombings and things are not acts of war. They're not even crimes. Or, they might be crimes, but surely we, an enlightened society, won't be so inhumane as to put people in prison for doing bad things to others, will we?
Anyway, getting to the rest of his comment, I'm also curious who are the lawyers? The statement's name? Is it the Geneva Convention or does it derive its authority therefrom?
On what basis does it apply to, say, everyone, everywhere, at all times? Does it apply to the jihadists? Since they do worse to their prisoners such as cutting off body parts just for changing their religion, throwing acid in Christian young women's faces for refusing to marry a Muslim, etc, what does that mean for this question?
Depriving someone of sleep is torture, really? A tour of the gallows? Systematic feeding them pork chops (say, once a week)?
Man, you're strict! Next thing you'll say is that imprisonment is torture.
Oh, oops...
(Edit: See at least the 1st 3 comments, as I apparently mistook merkur's meaning. He's still being inconsistent and baselessly pontificating his morality all over the place, but I was wrong about what he meant on imprisonment.)
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Sniping from the mud tower
Looks like I've provoked a clarification in AC Chase's comment policy. I think this is funny.
For one thing, you know, the term "troll" is too easily thrown around these days, it seems. That makes twice in one week that my on-topic comments, posted under "Rhology" with a link back to my own blog (that is up-to-date), have provoked the appellation "troll". People need to learn a bit what "troll" means. While they're at it, I'd like 'em to look into the definition of "objective" as well...
I hate also to leave comboxes unanswered, but I've had to recently. Oh well. I figure the reader profits most from the interaction, and I'm here to help the reader.
If a comment goes unanswered, it's up to the reader to figure out whether that unanswered comment really did respond substantively to the points it allegedly answers.
It's the philosophy of giving the interlocutor enough rope to hang himself. Apparently Alex does not subscribe to that idea.
But let's see if I didn't comply with his rules:
1. Stick to the topic at hand and be clear and concise.
Check.
2. If you expect respect, show some.
Check. And look how he responded to ME...
3. Anonymous commenting is not allowed, so don't do it.
I commented with my regular blogger ID.
4. If you are looking for a fight, argument and/or pointless, endless debate, don't waste your time. My readers & I won't be wasting our own time by sparring with you ad nauseum.
Look how I worded my original comment. It was intended as a clarification. It was only after he pretended to correct me that I came back. I'd say the argument is HIS doing.
And of course, if he doesn't want debates, why does he post such argumentative material? He's content to snipe behind adamantium walls rather than get his hands dirty. He's welcome to that approach!
5. Know when to comment and when it is more appropriate to e-mail me.
Why would I email him when I intend my clarifications and responses more for his lurkers than for him?
6. No spamming.
Check.
Basically, he's just excluded me b/c I made him uncomfortable. Like I said in the previous post, I thought he was all for free exchange of ideas and communications and such. I guess atheists get freer expression than others. This, my friends, is partly what we're up against in political discourse. Intolerance is not only redefined by the other side, it's redefined inconsistently.
He said:
A Comment Policy has been on my To-Do list for a while, but became an immediate priority today when an obnoxious, antagonist ChristianLet the reader judge who wins the gold star for being more obnoxious or antagonist.
Haha, he didn't want to give me a venue? My heart is broken! As if I need pub from his blog. It would seem that I'm doing him a favor by linking to him and giving him all this attention. He could sure use it - check out his profile views as of 4March08:
I deleted the entire conversation, not wanting to give him, his blog or his childish tactics a venue (which is why this Christian, who I am sure is proud of himself, is not being identified now).
As opposed to my own. There are tons of blogs out there with tons more traffic than mine, and that's totally fine with me, but for someone like him to throw that kind of rock at someone whose profile views outnumber his more than 10 to 1 is kind of funny to me.
Anyway, this was a fun sideshow, but there are greener pastures out there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)