User Profile: Blest

Blest

Member Since: January 11, 2013

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • August 28, 2014 at 3:01pm

    In science, consensus is achieved by dismissing anybody that disagrees with you. In history, consensus is achieved by ignoring anything that goes against the official timeline of events. In politics, consensus is achieved by getting rid of anybody that disagrees with you.

    Consensus should never be something you look for in the search for truth. Consensus is what you look for when you need to choose between the lesser of evils. Consensus is what you look for when you need a reason to justify killing people. It’s not something you want in science.

  • August 28, 2014 at 2:56pm

    To judge an idea based on the people presenting it is a logical fallacy called the “Fallacy of Origins” or the “Genetic Fallacy”. If you aren’t willing to listen to somebody’s ideas because they call themselves a creationist, then you’re no better than a racist who won’t listen to somebody’s ideas simply because the other person is black.

    The concept is exactly the same, you are judging the message based entirely on who the messenger is. What’s worse is that you seem to be under the impression that your ideology is somehow better because you think it is “newer” than myths and fables written in the Bronze age. If that’s the case, consider this: if God is a man-made fable from the Bronze age, what came before that? Spiritualism? Then what came before that? Belief in the supernatural? And then before that, and then before that thing, and then before THAT thing… and eventually, you’ll get back to “people believed in nothing”. And bam! You’ve got atheism, the oldest, most outdated concept ever known to the world. People may have invented the concept of God, but that’s because atheism is pointless. It’s an old fashioned, ancient, and outdated philosophy that died off long long ago when people said “Living a life for survival is pointless. There must be something more.”

    If God was a myth, an invention of mankind, then it was a good invention. It replaced a sick, twisted, pointless ideology for a reason: nobody cared.

  • August 28, 2014 at 2:43pm

    Well, surely an educated person like yourself would know about the concept of the “burden of proof”. You claim that intelligent design is just code for creationism. Well, prove it. What evidence is there that this is some “CODE” for creationism?

    To be honest, you sound like one of those extremely insane creationists yourself. Only instead of claiming that evolution is “code” for Eugenics, you are claiming that intelligent design is “code” for creationism.

    Responses (1) +
  • August 28, 2014 at 2:36pm

    Without some kind of intelligent design, you are left with the absurd notion that all things which you consider intelligent (including your brain) are simply the end result of a mindless, random, unguided process. If that is the case, why should you believe what your brain is telling you?

    Since you didn’t sleep through college, then surely by now you’ve read works like “Mind and Cosmos” by the atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel. There is no logical way to reconcile the neo-Darwinian evolutionary account with the concept of science. If evolutionary worldview is correct, then we cannot trust science as being objective, true, or even a conduit to objective reality.

    You see, if your computer were cobbled together by mindless, unguided processes, would you trust it? If your car were cobbled together by mindless, unguided processes, would you risk your life trying to drive it?

    Some of us don’t need a college education to debunk mindless nonsense. All we need is common sense and the concept of objective reality. The end of evolutionary theory will not come from religion, it will come from science and philosophy. In a hundred years, people will look back on evolution and laugh at how foolish people were for believing such nonsense. Just as we now look back on a scientific world that once believed that washing your hands between surgeries is a “waste of time”, and something that only superstitious religious people did.

    Responses (2) +
  • [1] August 28, 2014 at 1:52pm

    What you just said is known as an Fallacy of Origins. It’s also called the Genetic Fallacy or simply “racism” in some cases.

    You see, the problem here is that you are not judging ideas based on whether or not they are true, or have evidence, but rather, you are judging them based on WHERE THEY COME FROM.

    This logical fallacy is where all racism is derived. Someone who is racist against blacks deems the ideas of black people to be pointless, because they come from a black person’s mind. Sexist men think women are crazy, and never consider a woman’s perspective. An atheist who is bigoted against religious people will never consider any idea that comes from the religious person seriously, because of this logical fallacy.

    You see, it doesn’t matter if the guy isn’t taken seriously by anybody or not. The entire scientific community of Galileo’s era rejected his ideas. Nobody took Galileo seriously. Does that mean he was wrong? All the scientists of that era (called philosophers at the time) thought Galileo was a nut case.

    And according to your logic, that’s enough to dismiss Galileo’s ideas.

  • August 28, 2014 at 1:06pm

    While this article raises some interesting ideas, there is a major problem with the logic here. And the examples given were a little bit sketchy.

    First off, if somebody wanted to avoid the federal law of “you must hire back a soldier after he returns home”, they could easily do that by just firing the guy before he left for military service. So people can already get around that law if they choose to do so. Hobby Lobby doesn’t affect this in any way, shape, or form.

    Also, it’s already perfectly legal for companies to demand their employees remove jewelry and things like that which people wear for religious reasons. A person that works near an MRI machine can’t wear a cross around their neck. Neither can a person who climbs electrical poles to hang power lines. We already say it’s okay to do this stuff, so the Hobby Lobby decision makes no difference.

    Lastly, the Supreme Court made a VERY clear distinction between a “corporation” and a family business. They concluded that Hobby Lobby is a family business, and that the rights of individuals and families were applicable to it for the reason that the GOVERNMENT cannot pass laws that force a person to violate their religious beliefs. You cannot force a Jewish deli to serve pork. You cannot force a Catholic school to give out condoms. And you cannot force Hobby Lobby to pay for abortive contraception.

  • [15] August 28, 2014 at 12:20pm

    I’m sorry, you think a forum post on the internet is the same thing as a religious leader praying in front of his congregation?

    Also, everybody agrees that people who pretend to be Christians (like Westboro Baptist Church) are equally disturbed and disgusting. I’ve never seen anybody on this site pray to God to destroy all Arabs and commit genocide. Nobody goes around praying that Jesus will destroy all Arabs.

    If you have video of a real Christian pastor praying for God to destroy all the Arabs, then by all means post it. People will rightly condemn it just like they condemn this lunatic for praying to Allah.

    But the astonishing thing here to me isn’t the crazy Muslim guy. Crazy Muslims are abundant these days. What is astonishing to me is you. You claim to be part of some “tolerant, peaceful, and loving majority”, and yet you’re not. You are obviously intolerant of Christianity, and possibly all forms of religion. That makes you a bigot, not part of the tolerant majority.

    I don’t know you personally, but I know what kind of person you are based on what you do and say here. You remind me of a college professor I had. She had a giant “COEXIST” bumper sticker on her car, and constantly cut people off in traffic. She claimed “tolerance” as the highest virtue as well, only she never tolerated anybody who disagreed, and claimed that tolerance was pathetic.

    Like her, you are logically incoherent, and a fool.

  • [69] August 28, 2014 at 11:59am

    There is a reason why the word “Satan” means “The Accuser” in Hebrew, and why the 9th Commandment is “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”

    You see, a false accusation is more effective against an innocent person than a true accusation is against a guilty person. That’s why all it takes is a prank phone call to get the SWAT Team to invade an innocent situation, yet it takes millions of dollars, hundreds of lawyers, and thousands of testimonies, to send a SWAT team into a truly corrupt situation like the IRS headquarters.

  • [2] August 28, 2014 at 11:32am

    This is just absurd.

    If the Bible really is the Word of God, and is divinely inspired, then we should expect it to have multiple levels of meaning and revelation, because God would be a much more complex communicator than humans.

    Jesus says “I am the door” in the New Testament. He’s not saying that he is a plank of wood with a knob attached, so you can determine that it’s not a literalistic statement. The Bible isn’t meant to be taken literalistically. But then at the same time, Jesus is a real door, to a real place. So it isn’t figurative or allegory either. It’s a literary device called an analogy.

    We do this all the time when describing new concepts to children. We use analogies to try to communicate how the world works to those who have not yet experienced it themselves. And this is a high-level literature technique.

    The fact that the Bible uses it constantly, and uses it on multiple levels, forming multiple meta-analogies, shows that the Bible is ridiculously complex. And this is exactly what we should expect to find if the Bible truly is the Word of God.

    Responses (2) +
  • August 28, 2014 at 11:19am

    Since you’re “Looking for TRUTH”, then give me some truth on this. Answer these questions:

    If a doctor uses a gun and shoots an unborn baby to “abort” it, is that still okay? Or does it become murder just because the tool is a gun?

    Let’s imagine I want to murder an abortion doctor, and I have a time machine. If I go back in time and convince his mother to have an abortion so that he dies and is never born, is that the same as murder?

    If I yank you out of your warm, cozy home and drop you off naked and wet in the frozen tundra, is that murder?

    If abortion isn’t murder, does that mean I can come to your house and “abort” you?

  • [2] August 28, 2014 at 11:10am

    When liberals shout “Baby Killer!” at Vietnam veterans, who likely never killed any babies at all even though it was in the middle of a war zone, that’s fine.

    But when Christians shout “Baby Killer!” at abortion doctors, who kill babies every day as the primary purpose of their profession, it’s wrong, shameful, and an attack on women’s rights.

  • [2] August 28, 2014 at 10:57am

    This isn’t idiotic at all. You’re just not smart enough to recognize a Categorical statistic graph when you see one. The categories are what matter, because they are what Ebay uses to sell things.

    So what they did was pick 51 Categories of things most purchased on their website, and THEN they looked at which state purchased the most in that category, and matched them up. That’s why there’s a little * disclaimer at the beginning, saying that if a category was already taken by another state, it went to 2nd place instead.

    So say their number one selling item is Women’s Clothing. They go down the list and find that both California and Massachusetts both had “Women’s Clothing” as their #1 most-sold category. California has more people, and buys more women’s clothing, so they get it for the list. So Massachusetts then goes to “Photography supplies” instead or something like that.

    These lists are not idiotic. You are making that supposition based on your ignorance of the topic at hand, not on your vast knowledge of it.

    Responses (3) +
  • August 28, 2014 at 10:51am

    A lot of these make sense. I don’t buy stuff on e-bay if I can get it locally. So New Yorkers buying guns makes sense because they can’t get any locally. Arizona buying flowers and Missouri buying jewelry both follow the same logic.

    Colorado buying up loads of hydroponics equipment is a terrifying concept.

    And yes, if you paid attention, this is separated by category, not by state. So you select 51 categories and THEN find the states which purchase the most in that category.

  • [2] August 28, 2014 at 10:28am

    As far as I can discern, it’s because they think it will lead to eternal life; either by uploading consciousness to computers, or by creating computers that will live forever and remember us.

    It’s so funny that they have a longing for eternal life, and a desire to create things, and be “like God”, and they don’t seem to be making the logical connection to the Judeo-Christian faith. Some people are so dense. It never dawns on them that the reasons they have these longings for eternal life, godlike power, and creativity, are because that’s how we were originally created to be.

  • August 28, 2014 at 10:19am

    This is never going to happen for 3 reasons:

    1. Science hasn’t even figured out what energy or gravity are, much less consciousness. The idea of using a computer to create consciousness is like the idea of using a computer to create matter and energy.

    2. Most philosophers have soundly rejected the idea that consciousness is just the chemistry and physics of our brains, so it cannot therefore be replicated by the chemistry and physics of a computer.

    3. The study of Semiotics (the science of symbols and meaning) has shown us very clearly that a computer is not capable of thought, it is only capable of obedience. In other words, the computer will never “think for itself”, it will only do what it was programmed to do. It would be like a novelist trying to write a book that contains characters who do something other than what the novelist writes. It boils down to the fact that any “electronic consciousness” would be a fictional character, one that you created, just like a character in a book. A good writer can make you believe the characters are real, but that is just imagination. It’s not possible to write a “real” character, because they’re fictional by nature. It’s also not possible to program a “real” consciousness in a computer, because it’s just a fancy version of a fictional character in a book.

    Responses (2) +
  • [46] August 27, 2014 at 11:04am

    Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
    For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

    There’s a reason people hate Tim Tebow. And it’s not because of his football skills.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-1] August 26, 2014 at 12:31pm

    If you can prove to me that marriage is a “right”, then I’ll agree with you. But just remember that if marriage is a “right”, then denying a marriage proposal is the same thing as denying somebody their rights. If marrying whoever you want is a human/civil/constitutional RIGHT, then not getting to marry whoever you want is oppression.

    If a teenage girl wants to marry Justin Bieber, and he says “no”, he’s denying that girl her basic fundamental rights.

    Do you see the logical incoherence of this yet?

  • [1] August 26, 2014 at 12:28pm

    Correct. Because marrying who you want is not a right at all, period. If marriage were a right, then nobody could deny a marriage proposal without being a tyrant or a fascist who oppresses others. If Betty White is the only woman for me, and she denies my marriage proposal, then she’s denying me my basic human and civil rights to marry the person I want.

    Don’t you see how absurd and logically incoherent that is? If marriage were a right, Justin Bieber would have a million teenage wives right now, because it would be illegal for him to deny any of the thousands of marriage proposals he’s received over the years.

  • [1] August 26, 2014 at 12:24pm

    Where do you get this idea that “as long as you don’t harm another” then you’re free to do what you want? That’s not in the Constitution, or any other founding document. And it’s certainly not part of America’s moral ideology.

    If people want to cliff dive or drink ice tea, that’s fine. Okay. Good. But if the government wants to institutionalize cliff diving and ice tea drinking as being equal with the family unit as the foundation of civilization, THEN there’s a problem with that. You see the difference, right? People are allowed to eat pork in America. It’s one of our country’s favorite meats. But the government has no right to institutionalize pork, because you’d be forcing a Jewish deli to serve it, which is against their religious beliefs.

    Also, marriage is a contract, not a freedom or a right. Contracts are by definition something that people and governments have a right to reject as being legitimate. If you have a contract for the sale of a sofa, it is recognized by the government. That’s so if there’s a dispute, the courts can intervene. But if the same people use the same contract for the sale of a human, the government rightly rejects to recognize it as binding or legal, because we believe humans are SPECIAL, and are not property.

    The same reasoning applies to marriage contracts. Marriage between men and women is SPECIAL, and should be treated as such. It’s not equal with other “marriage” contracts, nor should it be.

  • [2] August 26, 2014 at 12:14pm

    Grover Standpipe,

    You are correct. Marrying the person you want to marry isn’t a special right, because it’s not a RIGHT at all. If marrying who you wanted was a right, then it would be illegal and immoral to deny a marriage proposal. After all, if I want to marry you, but you don’t want to marry me, then you are denying me my rights and oppressing me. I mean, you’re the ONLY person in the world I want to marry. So if you don’t let me marry who I want to marry, then you’re just a tyrant and a fascist.

    The whole argument of “Marriage Rights” and “Marriage Equality” is insane. Marriage isn’t a right, it’s a contract. And the people (as well as their representatives in government) have a right to refuse to recognize certain contracts based purely on content.

    A contract between two people for the sale of a sofa is recognized by the government, because if there is a dispute, the contract would be binding in a court of law. But a contract between two people for the sale of a human is NOT recognized by the government. Even if the same people and the same contract is used for both sales, one is legal and legitimate, the other is not, because we think humans are SPECIAL, and aren’t property.

    If you think marriage is SPECIAL, then you should reject the idea of recognizing homosexual unions as being “marriage”.

    After all, the term “gay marriage” has been twisted and corrupted. It used to just mean “a happy marriage”.

    Responses (1) +
123 To page: Go