Jump to content


Regular Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Wertbag last won the day on April 25

Wertbag had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

990 Outstanding

1 Follower

About Wertbag

  • Rank
  • Birthday 02/21/1977

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Auckland, NZ
  • Interests
    MMA, gaming
  • More About Me
    Married father of 2 from New Zealand

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?

Recent Profile Visitors

2,657 profile views
  1. I think my concern with trying to remove the mental health label is that it can remove care and support from people who need it. If you say there is nothing mentally wrong, it is purely a biological issue, then all psychiatric facilities, psychitrists and support structures are removed, cos if it ain't broke don't fix it. I have a friend whose daughter was anorexic, they went through hell trying to get her support and it wasn't until she collasped that medically they were able to override her personal wishes and force help on her. After spending months in a facility she had her body dysmoph
  2. But whether the dysphoria is related to weight, sex, race or culture, shouldn't it all fall within the same mental illness? We can't look for logic in mental illness, it is by definition when something is against reality. For example when I was young I had doggo-phobia. I would get an adrenaline burst just seeing a dog, my heart would start racing and I'd break out in a sweat. It made no difference what size dog, I got the same response from a chihuahua that posed no physical threat to me. I could consciously say to myself there is nothing to be afraid of and yet my auto-brain woul
  3. I had thought the separation was made as to whether your mental image matches the real world. If you think you are Napoleon then clearly the delusion your mind is telling you does not match reality. By this definition eating disorders are a mental illness and trans-anything would be as well. Homosexuality wouldn't be, as there is no difference between your thoughts and reality, there is no mis-match there. However I have seen a lot of backlash about having that label applied to trans folk but I'm still not clear on why that is. Some say there is a stigma around the phrase, which is true,
  4. I have been reading up on Rachel Dolezal and unfortunately she is an untrustworthy source. She wrote on official documents that she was of mixed ancestry and that she had a black father, both of which were lies and resulted in her being found guilty of perjury and getting community service. She also claimed to have received hate mail, but it turned out to have no postage marks on it, so it never went through the system and the investigation believed she probably put them there herself. To this day she admits she has white parents but still claims to identify as black. With her past histo
  5. I can see the argument against the term choose, in that you can't choose your beliefs. Sure you have the choice on how you wish to present yourself and how you wish to talk about it but how you feel is outside of your control. You cannot chose the feeling of wrongness. Even if this was the argument that they wished to put forward, doing so by declaring the person a hateful bigot is not the right way to do so. And stripping awards is just ridiculous. He won the award fair and square for his many books, seminars and work with the foundation. A single tweet 30 years later doesn't inv
  6. Not sure if you've seen this news, but Richard Dawkins sent out a Tweet about discussing transgender and was instantly set upon by the Twitter mob. This lead to the American Humanist Association saying they will retroactively strip the humanist of the year award from 1996. I saw this link via Rationality Rules, where Hemant Mehta expresses his dislike of the Tweet and posts the supporting posts from many of the most influential atheists: Here’s How Well-Known Atheists Are Defending Richard Dawkins’ Anti-Trans Tweet | Hemant Mehta | Friendly Atheist | Patheos If you do
  7. The majority of supernatural claims I can think of, are claimed to have real world interactions. Whether it be reading minds, moving objects with your mind, prayer changing things in a positive way, speaking to the dead or ghosts appearing and moving objects. As soon as a claim starts interacting then we can test the validity of the claim. If the claim is impossible to know, then from where did the knowledge of the claim come from?
  8. I would think it is more than that. "Supernatural" shouldn't include things which are plausible but as of yet unproven. Supernatural are ideas which break our current understanding of how the universe works. For example dark matter/energy is unproven but I doubt many would categorise it as supernatural. Or cryptozoology, which would not be supernatural, as unusual creatures existing wouldn't change any natural laws. New natural claims look to expand on our existing knowledge, while supernatural say our understanding of reality is wrong.
  9. I saw a video of good ol' Frank Turek talking about what happens to those people who are ignorant of god. His answer was "if god knew they could be saved, He would have made it happen. If it didn't, then they were probably never going to accept the word of god anyway". So he goes with people will be punished for rejecting something they never knew existed because in the future they would have rejected it anyway. Considering the success of missionaries worldwide, it is hard to imagine cultures who couldn't have any members swayed at all.
  10. Prior to Jesus's sacrifice the belief was that God was the final judge. You died and went before the big guy, who would look over your life and see if you were worthy of heaven. This was a great incentive for people to be good as you were to be judged for your character, so you'd better be good for goodness sake. Once the belief changed so that salvation becomes about belief in Jesus and nothing to do with your character or actions, then that incentive to live a good life is removed. God's power as the final judge is removed, and He becomes bound by a single rule instead. This leads to th
  11. I've never really dove deeply into Islam, from my western view it always felt like an even more ridiculous religion than the more common Christianity. While browsing videos today I came across this short one (5 min cut from a Frank Turek Q&A) Is Islam false? Watch this! - YouTube I don't think I've agreed with anything Frank has said ever, so finding a subject that is common ground (disbelief in Islam) was interesting. His response is done in very brief form, so there's probably a lot left out, but generally he says: Islam is newer (Mohammed 570AD to 640AD) but the stories of m
  12. That only works if you accept the bible as a valid source of historical information. From what we know Paul didn't write most or possibly any of the works attributed to him (Romans 16:22 "I, Tertius, who wrote down this letter..."). The bible is untrustworthy in almost every way, so to find a section that openly admits to being at least second hand at the time of writing doesn't inspire great acceptance that the writings are believable. Looking at it from a historical, non-biblical view, all we know is a sect of Jews became enamored with a preacher character and due to a lot of luck managed
  13. Wild, baseless assertion... How do you know his bones are dry? Could be quite moist
  14. The majority of people, both Christian and atheist, think that Jesus probably did exist. The question is whether he was just a charismatic preacher or something supernatural. The mythicists position has to prove a negative, which is a hard thing to do in this case. There is enough of an argument to leave a degree of doubt, but not enough to be a clear cut case. Personally the charismatic preacher theory seems most likely, as this fits with how cults commonly grow (John Smith, Ron Hubbard, Muhammed, Jonestown etc).
  15. I'm sorry you feel that way, I haven't seen any rude or abusive posts, I've looked back over your introduction and everyone seemed very cheerful and welcoming. Certainly lots of questions were asked, but even those were done without personal insult. The moderators on here are usually very vigilant about personal attacks and that is not tolerated. If you can let us know what has upset you then perhaps we can help?
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.