Jump to content

Jedah

Regular Member
  • Content Count

    1,897
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by Jedah

  1. One piece of wisdom I have come across is that the fastest way to tell someone really is smarter than the average Joe is by their ability to recognize when they might be wrong. Anyone can make themselves appear to be an intellectual by ensuring the subject of conversation remains revolved around their personal expertise, but when it comes to recognizing a good argument from a bad one ...well that's another story. An intelligent person examines information from a logical perspective. If it's something that they have never seen before and the evidence checks out, they may re-evaluate their previous position. They may at least admit they need to look into the matter further. There is a certain attempt to actually use that noggin they have. The fool does not do this. When faced with evidence contrary to belief, they simply engage in mental gymnastics. Resorting to circular reasoning, strawman arguments, false dichotomies, and otherwise irrelevant nonsense to avoid the topic entirely. Then finally, ending the discussion with personal attacks which in these days often includes accusing those who brought forth the evidence of sexism or racism despite the subject matter having absolutely nothing to do with sex or race. The only good that comes of it is how fun it can be to watch two idiots argue. Like a couple of monkeys flinging shit at each other until they are both just covered in it. I am a terrible person.
  2. The saddest part about this whole ordeal is that it has revealed just how many people don't understand the point of the presumption of evidence. People seem to think it's some kind of dichotomy, where we are forced to assume that either all accusers are liars or all the accused are guilty before any trial takes place. Because the neutral stance of "We don't know until evidence is examined." apparently doesn't exist. Because, you know, it's not like investigation before conclusion is the basis of all post-enlightenment era scientific inquiry or anything oh wait it fucking is. And then the media is fully complacent in this idiocracy. With supposedly respectable journal outlets such as Washington Post publishing articles that can be summarized as "Zomg!!11oneone!!! Kavanaugh refused to give a straight answer to a loaded gatcha question!!! He guilty!!!oneone111!!" and then some right wing forums posting nonsense such as "ZOMG DR FORD WAS HYPNOTIZED!!!!!". It's like the entire collective of humanity has lost all sense of reason. The saddest part is, we fucking know better. When it comes to legit any other crime, such as burglary or whatever, people are fully capable of understanding that we don't raise our pitchforks until we know who stole the cookie from the cookie jar. It's just with sex-related crimes in the brink of self-destructive gender identity politics ( I refuse to call it feminism. Feminism is a dead movement that no longer exists. ) we seem to think that it's either #BelieveAllWomen or #AllWomenAreLying. What the hell happened to #BelieveEvidence?
  3. I don't know if Kavanaugh is guilty of being a perv in the 80's or not. Neither does anyone else except himself and those potentially involved. The evidence is shakey and overwhelmingly unverifiable in nature, meaning any FBI investigation would likely find no reason for any indictment as the feds generally cannot manifest evidence out of thin air for a he-said she-said case decades old that doesn't even have a specific location. So instead of any real discussion on the evidence against him ( Which again, the evidence is completely non-verifiable so no real discussion COULD take place ) I am seeing people on the left screaming that he must be guilty because blah blah blah #MeToo #BelieveAllWomen #SocJus #HealthyAtEverySize #LiterallyKillAllMen. Likewise we can go to /r/The_Donald and see photoshopped memes of Ford with the caption "Lying Whore" Plastered on her picture. Ahhh, the far right and their memes. What would they be without them? Not much. But there is one thing I can say for sure, which is that the timing and motivations of these accusations is very obviously politicized -regardless of whether he did the dirty deed or not. And for that reason I find myself leaning to the right on this one. If she wanted a fair investigation she would have come out months before when Kavanaugh was first being slated as a Supreme court nominee. Not wait till the 11th hour. This is a timed and calculated political character assassination. Only a total fool cannot see this. </2cents>
  4. For public speaking, answers like Penn Jillete are probably you best bet for explaining to the average layman why the whole "Morality without god" is a silly apologetic question. But if you want to dig deeper at the crux of the argument, the issue is that humans have a subjective perspective of reality. Because of this, we cannot correctly judge whether or not a source is objective . For proof of this, observe the following logical dilemma: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat Scenario A: 1. You are a brain in a Vat 2. You have a vision from God and God tells you that you are not a brain in a Vat Scenario B: 1. You are not a brain in a Vat 2. You have a vision from God and God tells you that you are a brain in a Vat The question both of these bring up is whether or not you can tell if you are a brain in a vat in contradiction to what "God" told you. If you answer yes then this contradicts previous knowledge, if you answer no then this contradicts the claim of God granting objectivity. In both cases your answer to one must directly contradict your answer to the opposite scenario...but if I were to then ask "Which of these scenarios is more likely to happen to you?" you would have no way of knowing. The issue here is that it is impossible in both scenarios to tell whether or not the "vision from god" was just another illusion created by the computer sending signals to your brain.This means any answer other than "I don't know" is unfalsifiable. You cannot claim objectivity through an unfalsifiable claim, as objective statements by definition must be verifiable. Thus the claim that religion ( which is notoriously unfalsifiable ) grants "objective" morality fails on the grounds that it is a self contradictory claim. This is more or less the general problem with all Kant / Pressupositional apologetics. The only reason these kinds of arguments continue to exist is purely because their counter arguments require some level of knowledge of objective/subjective paradoxes such as "Last Thursdayism" which the average dude just can't be bothered with and is honestly probably better off not trying.
  5. haven't posted in a while but I'll toss in to make sense of this, because it's not as infuriating when you understand it. The fact is demonizing those who are outsiders is common among those who are susceptible to being brainwashed. "Everyone who isn't with me is conspiring against me." Everything that goes against the narrative is "negative" and negative people must be cut out from your life as they are up to no good. Everything that goes with the narrative is "positive" and you should surround yourself with positivity aka stay inside the echo chamber. Political extremist groups use this. Fundamentalist Religions use this. Multilevel marketing ( MLM ) scams use this. It's a universal method of mind control that works by confusing a person into a perpetual confirmation bias loop of circular reasoning where they see everything that disagrees with the group as "neg". All evidence to the contrary is therefore wrong because it is bad and bad because it is wrong. It is very difficult to deprogram someone who has allowed themselves into this stage of consistent self-bullshitting. So when you see stuff like this, it actually says more about the Pastor than it says about you. This kind of conclusion the Pastor has reached is of course very silly sounding to those of us outside of his echo chamber bubble, and may make you want to fight against it. But the truth is...he's just a sad willfully ignorant little man, and you are probably better off ignoring him.
  6. Their tendency to believe that because they can't understand morality without skydaddy then nobody else can and therefore all atheists must be evil hedonists. It's annoying not just because it's false, but because it's obviously false. If I lived in a world where some people could fly and I couldn't, would I deny the existence of flight just because of my own inability? Of course not, that would be completely stupid and contrary to the reality in front of me. And yet, this reality denial is exactly what Christians are doing. Despite the existence of plenty of atheists who are living ethical lives right out in the open, fundies continue their asinine claim that they have a monopoly on being "good". They don't want to admit that they simply can't wrap their heads around the concept of post conventional morality, so instead they deny that post conventional morality exists. Ridiculous.
  7. A person who dumped one form of woo for another said something insane? This has totally never happened before.
  8. The most dangerous of all is the idea that those who believe differently than you deserve mortal punishment simply for the non-crime of wrongthink.
  9. Jedah

    Moral law

    This is a repost of what I have stated earlier: before you even begin delving into absolutism as it applies to theology there is one very critical issue that MUST be understood before progressing further: Which is that belief in god doesn't actually provide you with any absolute sense of right or wrong that you didn't already have before. As a human being, your comprehension of reality is subjective to your own understanding. Therefore any experience of a "God" is subjective to your own understanding. Therefore any sense of right or wrong gained from that "God" is STILL subjective to your own understanding. Similar to the reasons why you cannot disprove last Thursdayism, you also cannot prove that any experience of an "Objective source" is not also a part of last Thursdayism. Whenever I see arguments like this, it becomes very clear very quickly that religious people seem to believe that believing in god somehow magically breaks them out of subjectivity prison. It does not. And understanding why it does not is mission critical to understanding any sort of objective/subjective argument from the perspective of theology and philosophy, otherwise you are arguing in circles from a faulty premise. Simply believing that you're religion makes you morally superior does not magically grant you objective understanding of the universe, for much the same reasons why believing that you can fly will not suddenly cause you to sprout wings out of your ass. Feels are not reals. Beliefs are not facts.
  10. I know this may be besides the point, but computer software changes are technically physical too.
  11. This is very true. Religion is considered false by the intellectuals, "the truth™" by the plebs, and useful by the the ruling elite. I suspected Obama was agnostic, and even more strongly suspect Trump an atheist. I can't even blame either of them. In the US a politician would be throwing away millions of free votes if they were to come out as non-christian for any reason.
  12. Another way to put it: If Christians can understand why Muslims killing people for not converting to Islam is evil, then they can understand why their doctrine of hell is evil.
  13. I love the flat earth map distortion of landmass and distance. To explain why travel time and distance doesn't match up with their comically distorted width of Australia and the United States, FETs are forced to make absolutely batshit insane allegations. Such as, the government beams mind control rays into people on flights from Sydney to Perth in order to make them and everyone involved believe that the flight took less time than it actually took. Or that every single person on earth that works in any kind of navigation industry is actually a hyperdimensional demon who is "in" on "the conspiracy". There's stupid and then there is comic stupid.
  14. I find reading into FET fascinating because it really shows how people can use the method of "pushing all facts into unverifiability" to delude themselves into believing anything. When people are willing to accept the non-disprovable as serious data, any madness can ensue. Reasonable person "If the earth is flat how is it we can measure the height of buildings and boats as they increase over the horizon?" FET "It's an illusion caused by fish eye lens effects!" Reasonable person "And how exactly would a fish eye lens effect cause that specific illusion? Have you reproduced this in a lab?" FET "That's your job! You have to disprove this illusion by doing an infinite number of experiments to show that all the infinite possible setups of lens refraction and atmospheric effects do not match up to my claim. Muh lenses! MUHHHHH LENZEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSS HURRRRRrrrRRR!!!!!" I've said it before on this site many times and I will say it again: The strongest of all bullshit detection methods is that the believers of *insert woo here* back their claims up with unverifiable claims. Every time you see this it's an almost 100% guarantee that they are completely and irredeemably full of shit. FET is a perfect example of this kind of thinking. Seriously FET should be included in a "introduction to reason" textbook and used as an example when teaching logic classes in universities. It's a great way to expose this particular flaw in human reasoning to the average person.
  15. When I was younger I used to make huge in depth explanations as to why omni-benevolence cannot exist with eternal damnation for finite sins. But now I have a much simpler and to the point line I give out to believers: If I were to create living beings with limited consciousness and limited information, I would never give an eternal punishment for them simply not believing in the correct version of me. You Christians claim your god to be all merciful. And yet despite being a totally conceited asshole, I am still more merciful than your god. Your god doesn't exist.
  16. I saw the case for Christ and was unimpressed. The entire thing is mostly an emotional argument disguised as a logical one, which largely uses the bible to prove the bible and then closes the deal by showing how it's beneficial to believe. Problem is, just because something "would be nice" doesn't mean it's true. So nothing but yawns from me.
  17. I've pointed this out before, but before you even begin delving into absolutism as it applies to theology there is one very critical issue that MUST be understood before progressing further: Which is that belief in god doesn't actually provide you with any absolute sense of right or wrong that you didn't already have before. As a human being, your comprehension of reality is subjective to your own understanding. Therefore any experience of a "God" is subjective to your own understanding. Therefore any sense of right or wrong gained from that "God" is STILL subjective to your own understanding. Similar to the reasons why you cannot disprove last Thursdayism, you also cannot prove that any experience of an "Objective source" is not also a part of last Thursdayism. Whenever I see arguments like this, it becomes very clear very quickly that religious people seem to believe that believing in god somehow magically breaks them out of subjectivity prison. It does not. And understanding why it does not is mission critical to understanding any sort of objective/subjective argument from the perspective of theology and philosophy, otherwise you are arguing in circles from a faulty premise.
  18. Works "Mostly fine" for me using Seamonkey ( Old mozilla suite fork ). Only problem I have is any site error messages don't display, and instead redirect to a blank page. Even the source code of the redirected page has nothing in it.
  19. Hey I know a cool magic trick: 1. Take a really bad idea. 2. Change the roots of the idea to be based on religion or culture, but don't change the basic philosophy. 3. Add a dash of Frankfurt school privilege theory. 4. Declare anyone who dissents to be a bigot. Congratulations! You have magically turned a bad idea into one that is widely respected by plebs all over the world without actually changing its core reasoning! Cool trick huh? This totally isn't exploitable for pushing cultural Marxist views that have already been proven in the past to not fucking work. Not exploitable at all!
  20. It's pretty easy to not have sex with women who aren't my girlfriend. I just don't have sex with them. Such difficult. Much wow. People who seriously lack that much self control are going to end up cheating anyways.
  21. Atheists could become a majority. The real question is will that make most people also critical thinkers? I often find that some people who are..."below a certain threshold"...can often be better off believing in spiritual nonsense. It's arrogant to say that, but it's true.
  22. Our modern blend of Christianity brainwashes men into becoming wusses. Women aren't attracted to wusses.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.