Correspondence Between Pliny and the Emperor Trajan
excerpt on Christianity showing that Roman objection had to do the (perceived) willful disobedience to authority
XCVII
To the Emperor Trajan
It is my invariable rule, Sir, to refer to you in all matters where I feel doubtful; for who is more capable of removing my scruples, or informing my ignorance? Having never been present at any trials concerning those who profess Christianity, I am unacquainted not only with the nature of their crimes, or the measure of their punishment, but how far it is proper to enter into an examination concerning them. Whether, therefore, any difference is usually made with respect to ages, or no distinction is to be observed between the young and the adult; whether repentance entitles them to a pardon; or if a man has been once a Christian, it avails nothing to desist from his error; whether the very profession of Christianity, unattended with any criminal act, or only the crimes themselves inherent in the profession are punishable; on all these points I am in great doubt. In the meanwhile, the method I have observed towards those who have been brought before me as Christians is this: I asked them whether they were Christians; if they admitted it, I repeated the question twice, and threatened them with punishment; if they persisted, I ordered them to be at once punished: for I was persuaded, whatever the nature of their opinions might be, a contumacious and inflexible obstinacy certainly deserved correction. There were others also brought before me possessed with the same infatuation, but being Roman citizens, I directed them to be sent to Rome. But this crime spreading (as is usually the case) while it was actually under prosecution, several instances of the same nature occurred. An anonymous information was laid before me containing a charge against several persons, who upon examination denied they were Christians, or had ever been so. They repeated after me an invocation to the gods, and offered religious rites with wine and incense before your statue (which for that purpose I had ordered to be brought, together with those of the gods), and even reviled the name of Christ: whereas there is no forcing, it is said, those who are really Christians into any of these compliances: I thought it proper, therefore, to discharge them. Some among those who were accused by a witness in person at first confessed themselves Christians, but immediately after denied it; the rest owned indeed that they had been of that number formerly, but had now (some above three, others more, and a few above twenty years ago) renounced that error. They all worshipped your statue and the images of the gods, uttering imprecations at the same time against the name of Christ. They affirmed the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they met on a stated day before it was light, and addressed a form of prayer to Christ, as to a divinity, binding themselves by a solemn oath, not for the purposes of any wicked design, but never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble, to eat in common a harmless meal. From this custom, however, they desisted after the publication of my edict, by which, according to your commands, I forbade the meeting of any assemblies. After receiving this account, I judged it so much the more necessary to endeavor to extort the real truth, by putting two female slaves to the torture, who were said to officiate' in their religious rites: but all I could discover was evidence of an absurd and extravagant superstition. I deemed it expedient, therefore, to adjourn all further proceedings, in order to consult you. For it appears to be a matter highly deserving your consideration, more especially as great numbers must be involved in the danger of these prosecutions, which have already extended, and are still likely to extend, to persons of all ranks and ages, and even of both sexes. In fact, this contagious superstition is not confined to the cities only, but has spread its infection among the neighbouring villages and country. Nevertheless, it still seems possible to restrain its progress. The temples, at least, which were once almost deserted, begin now to be frequented; and the sacred rites, after a long intermission, are again revived; while there is a general demand for the victims, which till lately found very few purchasers. From all this it is easy to conjecture what numbers might be reclaimed if a general pardon were granted to those who shall repent of their error.
XCVIII
Trajan to Pliny
You have adopted the right course, my dearest Secundus, in investigating the charges against the Christians who were brought before you. It is not possible to lay down any general rule for all such cases. Do not go out of your way to look for them. If indeed they should be brought before you, and the crime is proved, they must be punished; with the restriction, however, that where the party denies he is a Christian, and shall make it evident that he is not, by invoking our gods, let him (notwithstanding any former suspicion) be pardoned upon his repentance. Anonymous informations ought not to he received in any sort of prosecution. It is introducing a very dangerous precedent, and is quite foreign to the spirit of our age.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
IF God is a perfect being...
Dembinho tweeted:
(P1) A God would necessarily be a Perfect being
(P2) A Perfect being is Complete (or he would be in need)
(P3) God, if existing, could be the only Perfect and Complete being
(P4) Nothing can be against the Will of God
(P5) The universe exists
From (P1) and (P2) A Complete being cannot desire to create something, as that would imply a state of incompleteness and thus imperfection
Therefore, if God created the Cosmos it would have necessarily been against his Will, but from (P4) this is a contradiction
The Cosmos exists (from P5), therefore God cannot exist as it would be a contradiction.
From (P3) there are no other possibilities.
If there is no flaw in the premises or the logic then the conclusion necessarily follows - so which premise or deduction is incorrect and why?
@Futiledemocracy Everything came into existence, but God did not. If He had come into existence He would be in need, and God is perfectLet's look at this and some related premises and see what conclusion logically follows...
(P1) A God would necessarily be a Perfect being
(P2) A Perfect being is Complete (or he would be in need)
(P3) God, if existing, could be the only Perfect and Complete being
(P4) Nothing can be against the Will of God
(P5) The universe exists
From (P1) and (P2) A Complete being cannot desire to create something, as that would imply a state of incompleteness and thus imperfection
Therefore, if God created the Cosmos it would have necessarily been against his Will, but from (P4) this is a contradiction
The Cosmos exists (from P5), therefore God cannot exist as it would be a contradiction.
From (P3) there are no other possibilities.
If there is no flaw in the premises or the logic then the conclusion necessarily follows - so which premise or deduction is incorrect and why?
Excerpts paraphrased from the Jainist philosophy of Acharya Jinasena, 9th century, Mahapurana (महापुराण) 4.16-31: If God is ever perfect and complete, how could the will to create have arisen in him? If, on the other hand, he is not perfect, he could no more create the universe than a potter could. How can an immaterial god create that which is material?
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
How to quote mine like a lying creationist
Just a quick look at how utterly ignorant and dishonest people quote mine to make false points:
This one is taken from this little gem of a post called "Darwin Was Wrong".
Let's take a look at one example:
Oh dear, it looks like that 'Theory' of Evolution is in deep do do. Until you go and read the original:
So we can see here the bits this lying lowlife clipped out of the quote (and note how I supplied a link to the source so you can verify it yourself and read it in the greater context of the article as well). The article in NO WAY supports this liars conclusions.
Further note this is an article from 1981 - much has changed in the fossil record since that time, many so-called "gaps" have been filled in with dozens of species, absolutely in conjunction with the predictions of evolutionary theory. But this still doesn't mean that the fossil record is the primary evidence in support of evolution. Out of the trillion trillion trillion organisms that have ever lived the fossil record is but a tiny fraction of them, it can never be completed because Nature didn't see fit to carefully preserve each and every organism (nor 2 of some and 7 of others). What scientists look for in the fossil record is information about the timescales (rate) of changes and that nothing in the fossil record contradicts the theory.
The article goes on to debunk many other creationist lies, including several others in that very webpage I'm commenting on -- you can call them 'myths' if you want but they simply lies. There is really no excuse for such ignorance in this day and age, if they are mistaken out of ignorance it is willful and deliberate.
This one is taken from this little gem of a post called "Darwin Was Wrong".
Let's take a look at one example:
Mark Ridley, another evolutionist from Oxford University said in The New Scientist magazine in June 1981 p 831, "a lot of people just do not know what evidence the theory of evolution stands upon. They think that the main evidence is the gradual descent of one species from another in the fossil record. ...In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationalist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."
Because the fossils simply do not support many small changes between kinds over a long period of time, many evolutionists have at least been honest enough to admit this and have come up with a new theory called, "punctuated equilibrium" or the "hopeful monster theory". From the fossil record, they know that change didn't take place in small gradual steps, so they assume that the change took place in quick "quantum leaps" over long periods of time. In Darwin's theory, the changes were so slow and gradual that science cannot observe the evolution. The new theory says the change takes place so quickly it that too cannot be observed. Unobservable science? What a contradiction!
Oh dear, it looks like that 'Theory' of Evolution is in deep do do. Until you go and read the original:
Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it is the creationists and the media. But why?
One reason that keeps on betraying itself is that a lot of people just do not know what evidence the theory of evolution stands upon. They think the MAIN [emphasis mine] evidence is the gradual descent of one species from another in the fossil record. Thus, on the Horizon programme "Did Darwin get it wrong?" in March, a creationist told us that the facts about the fossils are contrary to the predictions of the evolutionists-but agree with those of the creationists...However, the gradual change of fossil species has never been part of the evidence for evolution. [note: nor does the fossil record contradict the theory of evolution] In the chapters on the fossil record in the Origin of Species Dawrwin showed that the record was useless for testing between evolution and special creation because it has great gaps in it. The same argument still applies.
So we can see here the bits this lying lowlife clipped out of the quote (and note how I supplied a link to the source so you can verify it yourself and read it in the greater context of the article as well). The article in NO WAY supports this liars conclusions.
Further note this is an article from 1981 - much has changed in the fossil record since that time, many so-called "gaps" have been filled in with dozens of species, absolutely in conjunction with the predictions of evolutionary theory. But this still doesn't mean that the fossil record is the primary evidence in support of evolution. Out of the trillion trillion trillion organisms that have ever lived the fossil record is but a tiny fraction of them, it can never be completed because Nature didn't see fit to carefully preserve each and every organism (nor 2 of some and 7 of others). What scientists look for in the fossil record is information about the timescales (rate) of changes and that nothing in the fossil record contradicts the theory.
The article goes on to debunk many other creationist lies, including several others in that very webpage I'm commenting on -- you can call them 'myths' if you want but they simply lies. There is really no excuse for such ignorance in this day and age, if they are mistaken out of ignorance it is willful and deliberate.
Friday, February 1, 2013
If we evolved from monkeys...
"If we evolved from monkeys/apes why are there still monkeys/apes"
This is a study in how to clearly and boldly display that you are utterly ignorant about Evolution. No statement I'm aware of shows more blatant and willful ignorance than this one. You are like a peacock, showing off just how ignorant of the facts you are as if you are proud of being ignorant. Baffling. I mean, it's fine if you don't understand Evolution and don't take a position on it, it's when someone speaks publicly, as if one is an authority, that I take objection to it.
If you even remotely cared about the truth then you would do your due diligence and research such simple topics, but you clearly don't or you wouldn't have made such a statement.
Did it not even cross your seemingly vacuous mind that we DIDN'T evolve from modern monkeys, but rather from a distant common primate ancestor?
In fact, we have very good information about when each lineage split (but not perfect of course, exacting details are lost in the mists of time, but this doesn't mean that we cannot know anything about the subject).
For example, Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes (modern chimpanzee, NOT the same as the common ancestor) last shared a common ancestor some 4.1 million years ago.
And if we consider the Pongo pygmaeus (modern orangutan, again, NOT the same as the common ancestor), the divergence is even greater, indicative of MUCH older last shared common ancestor some 14 million years ago.
What was that common ancestor? We don't know precisely what it was because 14 million years is a LOT of time and intelligent animals aren't fossilized as often as those that die in favorable sediments for fossilization. But we do have fossils that date from around these times and we believe (based on the evidence) that they would be the close cousins of the suspected common ancestor.
It would be ridiculous to expect to find, out of the billions of animals dead over millions of years, one that was EXACTLY in our lineage. Nor is such a thing necessary. They would be almost indistinguishable from the ones we do find. Some random person from Europe isn't your direct ancestor but they are still a Homo Sapien and their DNA is extremely close to yours. Now imagine that you find a European from 5000 years ago -- that's still close enough. Even human beings 100,000 years ago are anatomically modern Homo Sapiens, you have to look back deeper in time before you start seeing genetic variants that are different enough to warrant being categorized as a different species, 250,000 years is on the edge, 1 million years, 4 million years, 14 million years, 3.6 BILLION years -- these are the massive timescales where evolutionary changes accumulate to significant levels.
But for an example, one such species is Ardipithecus kadabba. We can tell from the remains that this was neither modern ape, chimp, or human - but rather has a blend of features that fit into the geological timescale in which it was found. Then there is Ardipithecus ramidus, and Australopithecus afarensis, and Australopithecus africanus, and Australopithecus anamensis, and Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus sediba, and Homo erectus, and Homo floresiensis, and Homo habilis, and Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis, and Homo rudolfensis, and Homo rudolfensis -- all different species that show the evolutionary changes from earlier primates to Homo sapiens.
Consider that, aside from being a completely unique mix of alleles from your parents (DNA recombination during meiosis means that each chromosome you inherit aren't just a copy of one from one of the parents but a completely unique, sliced-and-diced random mix from both parents), you have about 150 mutational changes in your DNA as well. And that is multiplied by every organism in parallel over every generation (and the small animals had much shorter generation times, bacteria have generations measured in hours and there are an estimated five million trillion trillion bacteria on the earth - that is an unimaginable amount of mutational change every minute, not to mention over 3.6 billion years).
Most mutational changes are neutral, neither harmful nor helpful (or at least extremely subtle). Extremely harmful mutations result in either an nonviable gamete or zygote, by some estimates 40-50% of all fertilizations are unviable and produce natural miscarriages. The moderately harmful mutations that aren't fatal, are evident in our population as diseases. Slightly harmful mutations might be carried in populations for thousands of years, some of these (eg, sickle cell) even prove to have benefits that cause them to spread in populations despite their harmful "side-effects" (really there are only affects, side-effect is a misnomer based on a bias of what is 'beneficial' and what isn't). And occasionally, a mutation will prove beneficial such as Escherichia coli evolving the genes necessary to process Citrate (which actually depended on several independent mutational changes which were EXACTLY identified in the research). Some mutations are purely morphological, some affect protein expression, some affect only the timing of expression (especially evident in the HOX gene complex).
And in light of all of that you expect to be taken seriously when you say something utterly devoid of reflective thought like "If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys"?
Have some pride and educate yourself.
See Also: Evolution: As Simple As Possible, and the Rational Wiki response.
This is a study in how to clearly and boldly display that you are utterly ignorant about Evolution. No statement I'm aware of shows more blatant and willful ignorance than this one. You are like a peacock, showing off just how ignorant of the facts you are as if you are proud of being ignorant. Baffling. I mean, it's fine if you don't understand Evolution and don't take a position on it, it's when someone speaks publicly, as if one is an authority, that I take objection to it.
If you even remotely cared about the truth then you would do your due diligence and research such simple topics, but you clearly don't or you wouldn't have made such a statement.
Did it not even cross your seemingly vacuous mind that we DIDN'T evolve from modern monkeys, but rather from a distant common primate ancestor?
In fact, we have very good information about when each lineage split (but not perfect of course, exacting details are lost in the mists of time, but this doesn't mean that we cannot know anything about the subject).
For example, Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes (modern chimpanzee, NOT the same as the common ancestor) last shared a common ancestor some 4.1 million years ago.
And if we consider the Pongo pygmaeus (modern orangutan, again, NOT the same as the common ancestor), the divergence is even greater, indicative of MUCH older last shared common ancestor some 14 million years ago.
What was that common ancestor? We don't know precisely what it was because 14 million years is a LOT of time and intelligent animals aren't fossilized as often as those that die in favorable sediments for fossilization. But we do have fossils that date from around these times and we believe (based on the evidence) that they would be the close cousins of the suspected common ancestor.
It would be ridiculous to expect to find, out of the billions of animals dead over millions of years, one that was EXACTLY in our lineage. Nor is such a thing necessary. They would be almost indistinguishable from the ones we do find. Some random person from Europe isn't your direct ancestor but they are still a Homo Sapien and their DNA is extremely close to yours. Now imagine that you find a European from 5000 years ago -- that's still close enough. Even human beings 100,000 years ago are anatomically modern Homo Sapiens, you have to look back deeper in time before you start seeing genetic variants that are different enough to warrant being categorized as a different species, 250,000 years is on the edge, 1 million years, 4 million years, 14 million years, 3.6 BILLION years -- these are the massive timescales where evolutionary changes accumulate to significant levels.
But for an example, one such species is Ardipithecus kadabba. We can tell from the remains that this was neither modern ape, chimp, or human - but rather has a blend of features that fit into the geological timescale in which it was found. Then there is Ardipithecus ramidus, and Australopithecus afarensis, and Australopithecus africanus, and Australopithecus anamensis, and Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus sediba, and Homo erectus, and Homo floresiensis, and Homo habilis, and Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis, and Homo rudolfensis, and Homo rudolfensis -- all different species that show the evolutionary changes from earlier primates to Homo sapiens.
Consider that, aside from being a completely unique mix of alleles from your parents (DNA recombination during meiosis means that each chromosome you inherit aren't just a copy of one from one of the parents but a completely unique, sliced-and-diced random mix from both parents), you have about 150 mutational changes in your DNA as well. And that is multiplied by every organism in parallel over every generation (and the small animals had much shorter generation times, bacteria have generations measured in hours and there are an estimated five million trillion trillion bacteria on the earth - that is an unimaginable amount of mutational change every minute, not to mention over 3.6 billion years).
Most mutational changes are neutral, neither harmful nor helpful (or at least extremely subtle). Extremely harmful mutations result in either an nonviable gamete or zygote, by some estimates 40-50% of all fertilizations are unviable and produce natural miscarriages. The moderately harmful mutations that aren't fatal, are evident in our population as diseases. Slightly harmful mutations might be carried in populations for thousands of years, some of these (eg, sickle cell) even prove to have benefits that cause them to spread in populations despite their harmful "side-effects" (really there are only affects, side-effect is a misnomer based on a bias of what is 'beneficial' and what isn't). And occasionally, a mutation will prove beneficial such as Escherichia coli evolving the genes necessary to process Citrate (which actually depended on several independent mutational changes which were EXACTLY identified in the research). Some mutations are purely morphological, some affect protein expression, some affect only the timing of expression (especially evident in the HOX gene complex).
And in light of all of that you expect to be taken seriously when you say something utterly devoid of reflective thought like "If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys"?
Have some pride and educate yourself.
See Also: Evolution: As Simple As Possible, and the Rational Wiki response.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
This is apparently 'proof' to Islamists?
Response to: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/234974450-imam-sadiqas-debate-with-athiests/
Someone on twitter posted this link to be and said "You might enjoy reading this".
Actually, believe it or not, no... I don't enjoy long strings of ignorance, lies, misrepresentations and logical fallacies.
Let's take a quick look at these:
(1) "Juad Ibne Dirham, a leader of atheist sect had kept some mud and water in a glass bottle. After some days worms grew in it and he claimed to be their creator"
How completely ignorant is this strawman? First of all, any given atheist might be completely ignorant of science. If this was a real person they clearly are ignorant of science so this ENTIRE string is built on the logical fallacy of the strawman and is therefore completely invalid. Next.
Reason/Logic/Science 1, Pretending-To-Know-Shit-That-You-Know-NOTHING-About 0
(2) "There is a verse in Quran that is according to our belief and which goes against your faith...nd He it is Who is God in the heavens and God in the earth…( Surah Zukhruf 43:84)"
and they say "nuh huh". Ooooooookay. So what is this supposed to prove? Another strawman. It's really easy to setup completely weak strawmen and knock them down, this proves nothing. Next.
Reason/Logic/Science 2, Pretending-To-Know-Shit-That-You-Know-NOTHING-About 0
(3)"One day Abu Shakir came to the Imam and said, “Prove to me the existence of God.” Imam (a.s) told him to be seated..."
This should be good, haha.
"...inside which flow two seas of gold and silver. But neither can the yellow mix with the white nor the white can merge with the yellow"
Obviously they have never heard of a scrambled egg. What kind of stupid argument are we looking at here?
"...No one can even know whether the newborn would be a male or a female"
Utter and complete nonsense - we can insert very fine instruments into the egg, extract a tiny DNA sample and sex the chicken.
"...Can your reason agree that all this happened without a designer or a maker?”"
Ah, the absolute FAVORITE of religion, the Argument From Ignorance. If you don't know how something happens naturally then surely God must have done it. Nonsense. In fact, we have EXTREMELY detailed knowledge now of exactly how evolution works and why it gives the mere APPEARENCE of design but doesn't require an actual designer. The need for 'God' in the production of natural biology ceased to exist 150 years ago and the evidence supporting it now exists in volumes that fill hundreds of thousands of pages.
Reason/Logic/Science 3, Pretending-To-Know-Shit-That-You-Know-NOTHING-About 0
(4) "One day an atheist from Egypt came to Imam (a.s) who asked his name. “Abdul Malik,” replied...It is surprising that when you do not have any knowledge about the earth or the sky, the east or west, how can you deny the existence of God?"
Another Argument From Ignorance.
"Don’t you ever reflect on the earth and the sky that why the sky does not crash on the earth?"
The 'sky' crash on the earth, LOL. Are you #*$&ing kidding me? It's these Biblical 'firmament' idiots who used to think the sky was a great dome because they FAILED TO GRASP COSMOLOGY. Ignorance, Ignorance, Ignorance -- a 'divine' being would know better.
"Why the earth does not sink below itself?"
Displays an utter ignorance of cosmology and physics, it's not even a valid question.
Reason/Logic/Science 4, Pretending-To-Know-Shit-That-You-Know-NOTHING-About 0
One of the comments on that page: "Have you guys/gals noticed how amazing these debates are?"
No, but I noticed that they are shameful & dishonest.
One final example, from a comment (again with the egg analogy):
"Imam (to the man): Tell me something. Is it possible to keep two different colours of liquid in one container without any barrier and yet they don’t get mixed?
Man: Impossible."
First of all the egg contents CAN be mixed, secondly the egg contents ARE mixing slightly, even in the egg, and thirdly OF COURSE THIS IS POSSIBLE, IT IS TRIVIAL.
Reason/Logic/Science 5, Pretending-To-Know-Shit-That-You-Know-NOTHING-About 0
So once again, Ignorantly pretending to know shit on "faith" is an utter failure. OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER again it fails but each new moron thinks they have the magic words from the skydaddy.
All these thousands of pretend 'gods' are the SAME Bullshit, over and over again: http://krankypanz.blogspot.com/2012/06/list-of-gods.html
I'll tell ya what is 'Impossible', the laughable idea that YOU finally got it right.
Someone on twitter posted this link to be and said "You might enjoy reading this".
Actually, believe it or not, no... I don't enjoy long strings of ignorance, lies, misrepresentations and logical fallacies.
Let's take a quick look at these:
(1) "Juad Ibne Dirham, a leader of atheist sect had kept some mud and water in a glass bottle. After some days worms grew in it and he claimed to be their creator"
How completely ignorant is this strawman? First of all, any given atheist might be completely ignorant of science. If this was a real person they clearly are ignorant of science so this ENTIRE string is built on the logical fallacy of the strawman and is therefore completely invalid. Next.
Reason/Logic/Science 1, Pretending-To-Know-Shit-That-You-Know-NOTHING-About 0
(2) "There is a verse in Quran that is according to our belief and which goes against your faith...nd He it is Who is God in the heavens and God in the earth…( Surah Zukhruf 43:84)"
and they say "nuh huh". Ooooooookay. So what is this supposed to prove? Another strawman. It's really easy to setup completely weak strawmen and knock them down, this proves nothing. Next.
Reason/Logic/Science 2, Pretending-To-Know-Shit-That-You-Know-NOTHING-About 0
(3)"One day Abu Shakir came to the Imam and said, “Prove to me the existence of God.” Imam (a.s) told him to be seated..."
This should be good, haha.
"...inside which flow two seas of gold and silver. But neither can the yellow mix with the white nor the white can merge with the yellow"
Obviously they have never heard of a scrambled egg. What kind of stupid argument are we looking at here?
"...No one can even know whether the newborn would be a male or a female"
Utter and complete nonsense - we can insert very fine instruments into the egg, extract a tiny DNA sample and sex the chicken.
"...Can your reason agree that all this happened without a designer or a maker?”"
Ah, the absolute FAVORITE of religion, the Argument From Ignorance. If you don't know how something happens naturally then surely God must have done it. Nonsense. In fact, we have EXTREMELY detailed knowledge now of exactly how evolution works and why it gives the mere APPEARENCE of design but doesn't require an actual designer. The need for 'God' in the production of natural biology ceased to exist 150 years ago and the evidence supporting it now exists in volumes that fill hundreds of thousands of pages.
Reason/Logic/Science 3, Pretending-To-Know-Shit-That-You-Know-NOTHING-About 0
(4) "One day an atheist from Egypt came to Imam (a.s) who asked his name. “Abdul Malik,” replied...It is surprising that when you do not have any knowledge about the earth or the sky, the east or west, how can you deny the existence of God?"
Another Argument From Ignorance.
"Don’t you ever reflect on the earth and the sky that why the sky does not crash on the earth?"
The 'sky' crash on the earth, LOL. Are you #*$&ing kidding me? It's these Biblical 'firmament' idiots who used to think the sky was a great dome because they FAILED TO GRASP COSMOLOGY. Ignorance, Ignorance, Ignorance -- a 'divine' being would know better.
"Why the earth does not sink below itself?"
Displays an utter ignorance of cosmology and physics, it's not even a valid question.
Reason/Logic/Science 4, Pretending-To-Know-Shit-That-You-Know-NOTHING-About 0
One of the comments on that page: "Have you guys/gals noticed how amazing these debates are?"
No, but I noticed that they are shameful & dishonest.
One final example, from a comment (again with the egg analogy):
"Imam (to the man): Tell me something. Is it possible to keep two different colours of liquid in one container without any barrier and yet they don’t get mixed?
Man: Impossible."
First of all the egg contents CAN be mixed, secondly the egg contents ARE mixing slightly, even in the egg, and thirdly OF COURSE THIS IS POSSIBLE, IT IS TRIVIAL.
Reason/Logic/Science 5, Pretending-To-Know-Shit-That-You-Know-NOTHING-About 0
So once again, Ignorantly pretending to know shit on "faith" is an utter failure. OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER again it fails but each new moron thinks they have the magic words from the skydaddy.
All these thousands of pretend 'gods' are the SAME Bullshit, over and over again: http://krankypanz.blogspot.com/2012/06/list-of-gods.html
I'll tell ya what is 'Impossible', the laughable idea that YOU finally got it right.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
When Cells Divide: the argument from uniqueness
MYTH: A zygote, formed during conception, is when a unique set of human DNA is created
FACT: This is FALSE. Just about every cell copy (mitosis) produces a 'unique' DNA variant (due to mutations, copy variations, duplications, transpositions, mitotic crossover, etc) and this is especially present during the production of gametes (spermatozoa and ovum) when DNA recombination shuffles the alleles between the different pairs of chromosomes (segments of DNA are sliced and randomized between the pairs of a chromosome).
Even 'identical twins', which are produced when the morula splits after the zygote has begun to divide into multiple cells, do not have IDENTICAL DNA - there are already differences in the copies at those early stages (both genetic and epigenetic differences).
So every gamete, while being haploid (having only one full set of our human DNA chromosomes, unlike our diploid cells which have 2 full copies), is a completely unique set of human DNA, unlike either of the originals but a complex mixture of the two. The Zygote is just the combination of these two, already unique, sets of chromosomes.
References:
Genome-wide single-cell analysis of recombination activity and de novo mutation rates in human sperm
Cell Division
Genetic Recombination
Mitotic crossover
Chromosome
Allele
Gamete
Scientific American: Identical Twins Genes are not Identical
MYTH: Life begins at conception / first breath
FACT: Life began only once (so far as we have evidence for) approximately 3.6 billion years ago - it is ridiculous to argue that it 'begins' at conception.
Furthermore, we know now that every cell in your body could be potentiated to become a new and unique 'human being', should we decide to do so.
And there are even **single-celled** humans (see HeLa), does each of those unique cells get full voting rights?
A human being is simply NOT a cell -- it is what a very large collection of specifically differentiated cells working together in concert create, and specifically there has to be a working human brain involved. This also applies to end of life, when there is no more brain function we recognize that we need to allow the body to cease functioning as well. The mere POTENTIAL to form a working human brain isn't sufficient or we would try to save every cell before death and potentiate it to be a full human being because it HAS that potential, so this is disproved reductio ad absurdum.
Also consider carefully that human beings seem to all have the POTENTIAL to do harmful things to other human beings. If the potential for something is the same as that something then should we preemptively incarcerate all human beings for their potential to do harm? Again, that would be absurd - reductio ad absurdum. You'd have to show why your 'potential' argument deserves special treatment or you're committing the Special Pleading fallacy.
References:
Timeline of evolutionary history of life
HeLa
MYTH: Gametes aren't 'alive'.
FACT: Then please explain how there can be 'dead' spermatozoa (see necrospermia) and why they don't create babies?
See Also:
http://sperm.abc.hu/en/fenymikr.htm
FACT: This is FALSE. Just about every cell copy (mitosis) produces a 'unique' DNA variant (due to mutations, copy variations, duplications, transpositions, mitotic crossover, etc) and this is especially present during the production of gametes (spermatozoa and ovum) when DNA recombination shuffles the alleles between the different pairs of chromosomes (segments of DNA are sliced and randomized between the pairs of a chromosome).
Even 'identical twins', which are produced when the morula splits after the zygote has begun to divide into multiple cells, do not have IDENTICAL DNA - there are already differences in the copies at those early stages (both genetic and epigenetic differences).
So every gamete, while being haploid (having only one full set of our human DNA chromosomes, unlike our diploid cells which have 2 full copies), is a completely unique set of human DNA, unlike either of the originals but a complex mixture of the two. The Zygote is just the combination of these two, already unique, sets of chromosomes.
References:
Genome-wide single-cell analysis of recombination activity and de novo mutation rates in human sperm
Cell Division
Genetic Recombination
Mitotic crossover
Chromosome
Allele
Gamete
Scientific American: Identical Twins Genes are not Identical
MYTH: Life begins at conception / first breath
FACT: Life began only once (so far as we have evidence for) approximately 3.6 billion years ago - it is ridiculous to argue that it 'begins' at conception.
Furthermore, we know now that every cell in your body could be potentiated to become a new and unique 'human being', should we decide to do so.
And there are even **single-celled** humans (see HeLa), does each of those unique cells get full voting rights?
A human being is simply NOT a cell -- it is what a very large collection of specifically differentiated cells working together in concert create, and specifically there has to be a working human brain involved. This also applies to end of life, when there is no more brain function we recognize that we need to allow the body to cease functioning as well. The mere POTENTIAL to form a working human brain isn't sufficient or we would try to save every cell before death and potentiate it to be a full human being because it HAS that potential, so this is disproved reductio ad absurdum.
Also consider carefully that human beings seem to all have the POTENTIAL to do harmful things to other human beings. If the potential for something is the same as that something then should we preemptively incarcerate all human beings for their potential to do harm? Again, that would be absurd - reductio ad absurdum. You'd have to show why your 'potential' argument deserves special treatment or you're committing the Special Pleading fallacy.
References:
Timeline of evolutionary history of life
HeLa
MYTH: Gametes aren't 'alive'.
FACT: Then please explain how there can be 'dead' spermatozoa (see necrospermia) and why they don't create babies?
See Also:
http://sperm.abc.hu/en/fenymikr.htm
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
What I would do...
My comment over on Forbes: If The US Spends $550 Billion On Poverty How Can There Still Be Poverty In The US?
The ignorance of privilege and prejudice shown in this article (and some of the comments) is just appalling.
First of all, the measurement of poverty is not to say where people are after they have received assistance but to measure the underlying problem. The money spent doesn't magically make things better - we often actually refuse to spend funds on root cause. Instead, we've decided as a nation to only treat the symptoms at the absolute minimal level we can possibly get away and still let the 'rich' sleep at night.
Saying things like "many of your disadvantaged poor people are just lazy free-loaders", as elmer did, shows just how deep this ignorance runs. This is an inexcusable cheap shots at people whose lives elmer clearly knows nothing about. I've lived in those shoes personally, I managed to get out but I don't make the mistake of misattributing that success. I'm not better than anyone else -- I got lucky, period. And I'm thankful even for the woefully inadequate job the government did in assisting my family during our hardest times (I remember shopping with food stamps). When my mother was working multiple jobs, for substandard wages, to try to feed us. When we had to move because we couldn't afford the rent. When that forced us to move into an area with an inadequate school system. When that trashed my education and I had to work jobs during the day and finished High School through a program I attended at night). I went from a highly progressive, loving, caring school system into one that almost despised students.
You carp and moan about it while doing EVERYTHING in your power to continue and worsen this atrocious system.
The people I know even now are working 4 jobs and trying to get an online education (the only one they can afford, as insufficient as that is). But the institution of the United States has decided that women aren't worth paying fairly and they don't want to give people actual jobs -- they want to pay below poverty wages for back-breaking and mind-numbing labor.
I would take 1 of them over 100 elmers.
Disclaimer: I now (happily) pay more in TAXES than about half of those in the US make in total income. I welcome more taxes if they actually go to improving the situation. I want to HELP people and I can see with MY OWN EYES that they desperately need it. It's not easy to help others, most often issues run psychologically deep due to abuses of the past. But I refuse to turn a blind eye and let others suffer without doing what I can.
What we need to do is simple:
1) end the drug war, full stop -- and put every person in prison for ONLY possession (not including those pleading down from violent offenses) into a program where they are released once they get a degree. This will also end that source of funding to terrorist and organised criminal organizations. This will also put a stop to ripping apart families (that are, DISPROPORTIONATE TO ACTUAL DRUG USE, minorities). The ignorant drug war is a massive source of the problems in this country.
The entire drug war is founded on racism and lies.
There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others." - Harry J. Anslinger, Federal Bureau of Narcotics, testimony to US Congress supporting Marihuana Tax Act, 1937
and later used by Nixon as a political tool:
"You have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this all while not appearing to." - Richard M. Nixon, about the War on Drugs to Chief of Staff, H. R. Haldeman, according to Halderman's diaries
2) Anyone who wants to attend a brick&mortar community college for a 4-year degree should have every class and book paid for. They shouldn't have to jump through massive hoops that are practically designed to prevent people from getting aid. Just cover it.
3) We need a way to intervene earlier and more compassionately for those who are suffering mental and physical abuses. We need MORE intrusion and intervention into people's personal lives -- but, in exchange, we need to do so with an eye towards improving our future. You CANNOT simply throw everyone into prison -- that exacerbates the issues ten-fold. To borrow a recent metaphor, we need to OCCUPY the lives of people who, probably due to abuses in their own past, are abusing those in their current lives. If we do this with love and compassion and a desire to improve the lives of the next generation we can, step-by-step, crawl out of the current psychological deficit we have in the world.
This also means we need to stop yanking kids out of homes on the slightest pretext. The outcomes for such children are just as bleak as the abused (and they offer suffer worse abuses in foster care).
Except in the extreme cases, don't imprison, separate, & destroy -- OCCUPY, HEAL, SHOW COMPASSION.
Note that this is NOT saying that someone who harms a child gets off Scott Free. Violent acts against others should be tried. I'm talking about what do we DO when someone is found to be a threat to the family? Locking them up in prison punishes the family as much as the offender - this is STUPID.
I'm saying, take however many we can afford (let's say 10,000 for starters), and put someone on them 24x7. Watch them, educate them, make them do the things that must be done. Show them how to care for and treat children. And educate them on how to help the next generation in turn. Let those that are successful participate and lead the next generation.
Or you can take the only father figure those children have out of the home, leave the mother alone to care for 2 or 3 kids -- giving her jobs that don't cover child care. That's surely been a recipe for success for the past 50 years (NOT).
4) we need to ensure those in need have adequate shelter, clothing, food, education, and medical care. We do the bare minimum palliative care today and we do almost nothing to actually try to improve the situation. Cut 1% of the military budget every year for 10 years and move it into funding education -- not just more of the same but we need research programs to guide development of an improved educational system.
We have some of the best education in the world in some cases and we have a LOT of education that is bottom of the barrel.
We should produce a series of programs that teaches deep, key concepts and critical thinking skills. This should be developed by the best of the best and made available online to everyone along with a promulgation program to encourage people to participate (btw, things like iTunes U is already an incredible resource for free education programs -- more of that is good but I'm talking about programs more targeted at the currently disadvantaged). The majority of this is a one time cost! This is low-hanging fruit.
For example, memorizing a bunch of historical dates is PURPOSELESS and utterly worthless -- what needs to be taught (broadly) from history is why things are the way they are today -- how we got here and the mistakes we've made. And, if done properly, that makes history vibrant and interesting. Most of what passes for 'History' in schools today is actually harmful to an education.
And hey -- maybe I'm wrong about some things -- I wouldn't propose we do anything without setting metrics for success or failure and, when things are failing we need to try something else. Why don't ANY bills have clearly defined metrics for success? This is standard business practice: set goals, define metrics, measure results.
The ignorance of privilege and prejudice shown in this article (and some of the comments) is just appalling.
First of all, the measurement of poverty is not to say where people are after they have received assistance but to measure the underlying problem. The money spent doesn't magically make things better - we often actually refuse to spend funds on root cause. Instead, we've decided as a nation to only treat the symptoms at the absolute minimal level we can possibly get away and still let the 'rich' sleep at night.
Saying things like "many of your disadvantaged poor people are just lazy free-loaders", as elmer did, shows just how deep this ignorance runs. This is an inexcusable cheap shots at people whose lives elmer clearly knows nothing about. I've lived in those shoes personally, I managed to get out but I don't make the mistake of misattributing that success. I'm not better than anyone else -- I got lucky, period. And I'm thankful even for the woefully inadequate job the government did in assisting my family during our hardest times (I remember shopping with food stamps). When my mother was working multiple jobs, for substandard wages, to try to feed us. When we had to move because we couldn't afford the rent. When that forced us to move into an area with an inadequate school system. When that trashed my education and I had to work jobs during the day and finished High School through a program I attended at night). I went from a highly progressive, loving, caring school system into one that almost despised students.
You carp and moan about it while doing EVERYTHING in your power to continue and worsen this atrocious system.
The people I know even now are working 4 jobs and trying to get an online education (the only one they can afford, as insufficient as that is). But the institution of the United States has decided that women aren't worth paying fairly and they don't want to give people actual jobs -- they want to pay below poverty wages for back-breaking and mind-numbing labor.
I would take 1 of them over 100 elmers.
Disclaimer: I now (happily) pay more in TAXES than about half of those in the US make in total income. I welcome more taxes if they actually go to improving the situation. I want to HELP people and I can see with MY OWN EYES that they desperately need it. It's not easy to help others, most often issues run psychologically deep due to abuses of the past. But I refuse to turn a blind eye and let others suffer without doing what I can.
What we need to do is simple:
1) end the drug war, full stop -- and put every person in prison for ONLY possession (not including those pleading down from violent offenses) into a program where they are released once they get a degree. This will also end that source of funding to terrorist and organised criminal organizations. This will also put a stop to ripping apart families (that are, DISPROPORTIONATE TO ACTUAL DRUG USE, minorities). The ignorant drug war is a massive source of the problems in this country.
The entire drug war is founded on racism and lies.
There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others." - Harry J. Anslinger, Federal Bureau of Narcotics, testimony to US Congress supporting Marihuana Tax Act, 1937
and later used by Nixon as a political tool:
"You have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this all while not appearing to." - Richard M. Nixon, about the War on Drugs to Chief of Staff, H. R. Haldeman, according to Halderman's diaries
2) Anyone who wants to attend a brick&mortar community college for a 4-year degree should have every class and book paid for. They shouldn't have to jump through massive hoops that are practically designed to prevent people from getting aid. Just cover it.
3) We need a way to intervene earlier and more compassionately for those who are suffering mental and physical abuses. We need MORE intrusion and intervention into people's personal lives -- but, in exchange, we need to do so with an eye towards improving our future. You CANNOT simply throw everyone into prison -- that exacerbates the issues ten-fold. To borrow a recent metaphor, we need to OCCUPY the lives of people who, probably due to abuses in their own past, are abusing those in their current lives. If we do this with love and compassion and a desire to improve the lives of the next generation we can, step-by-step, crawl out of the current psychological deficit we have in the world.
This also means we need to stop yanking kids out of homes on the slightest pretext. The outcomes for such children are just as bleak as the abused (and they offer suffer worse abuses in foster care).
Except in the extreme cases, don't imprison, separate, & destroy -- OCCUPY, HEAL, SHOW COMPASSION.
Note that this is NOT saying that someone who harms a child gets off Scott Free. Violent acts against others should be tried. I'm talking about what do we DO when someone is found to be a threat to the family? Locking them up in prison punishes the family as much as the offender - this is STUPID.
I'm saying, take however many we can afford (let's say 10,000 for starters), and put someone on them 24x7. Watch them, educate them, make them do the things that must be done. Show them how to care for and treat children. And educate them on how to help the next generation in turn. Let those that are successful participate and lead the next generation.
Or you can take the only father figure those children have out of the home, leave the mother alone to care for 2 or 3 kids -- giving her jobs that don't cover child care. That's surely been a recipe for success for the past 50 years (NOT).
4) we need to ensure those in need have adequate shelter, clothing, food, education, and medical care. We do the bare minimum palliative care today and we do almost nothing to actually try to improve the situation. Cut 1% of the military budget every year for 10 years and move it into funding education -- not just more of the same but we need research programs to guide development of an improved educational system.
We have some of the best education in the world in some cases and we have a LOT of education that is bottom of the barrel.
We should produce a series of programs that teaches deep, key concepts and critical thinking skills. This should be developed by the best of the best and made available online to everyone along with a promulgation program to encourage people to participate (btw, things like iTunes U is already an incredible resource for free education programs -- more of that is good but I'm talking about programs more targeted at the currently disadvantaged). The majority of this is a one time cost! This is low-hanging fruit.
For example, memorizing a bunch of historical dates is PURPOSELESS and utterly worthless -- what needs to be taught (broadly) from history is why things are the way they are today -- how we got here and the mistakes we've made. And, if done properly, that makes history vibrant and interesting. Most of what passes for 'History' in schools today is actually harmful to an education.
And hey -- maybe I'm wrong about some things -- I wouldn't propose we do anything without setting metrics for success or failure and, when things are failing we need to try something else. Why don't ANY bills have clearly defined metrics for success? This is standard business practice: set goals, define metrics, measure results.
Friday, December 7, 2012
Meandering musing on Social Issues
I figured I would start a list of the issues of our day and see if History will some day support my view of the world.
Let's first look at a couple issues of the past:
#1 Slavery: the ownership and treatment of a fellow human being as chattel. This is well established as being categorically wrong now.
#2 Universal suffrage: giving all adults the right to vote. In the past both women and minorities have been denied this right.
#3 Worker's Rights: in the past workers had almost no rights, worked in dangerous and deplorable conditions for unreasonable number of hours, millions died from poisons, exhaustion, poor work conditions and other work-related deaths. Sadly we face a degradation of these rights today. The Constitution grants US citizens the right of free association and in some states like Wisconsin this right has been infringed by making it illegal for workers to form a Union.
Looking forward...
#4 Marriage Equality: rights in the US are individual rights and we're guaranteed EQUAL protection under the law. This means that if one adult has the right to marry another adult, that right must be applied equally. It is just inexcusable, on the basis of small-minded prejudice, to deny gay people the right to marry and enjoy the rights, benefits and responsibilities that come with such an endeavor. Watch this video for more information (from Republican Ted Olson).
#5 LGBTQ* Rights: A broad term covering marriage, but also legality of sexual activity, recognition of relationships, adoption rights, military service, anti-discrimination, and gender identity & expression. Eventually the mistreatment, bullying, harassment, physical assault and denial of rights to people who are merely different in whom they love will be anathema.
#6 Minimal Standard of Living: giving a level of dignity and recognition of the human condition over living standards including: a decent place to live, adequate food & water, education, necessary clothing, and medical care. I think this will also lead to a policy of full employment, where everyone who wants to work will be put to work. This will require some serious rethinking of how an economy should work because the disgusting truth is that, in our capitalistic system, full employment leads to a collapse of the system.
#7 Bodily Autonomy/Abortion: You simply cannot force someone to carry a child to term, the consequences of denying bodily autonomy are horrific, millions of women suffered through it in the past and many of them died. Advances in birth control will probably reduce it close to medically necessary abortions.
#8 Animal Rights: I think we will find that higher animals are sentient, feeling, beings and we will be required to extent to them certain Rights.
#9 Death Penalty: will be abolished, partly on the basis of neurological findings.
This isn't a complete list obviously, post some of your thoughts.
Let's first look at a couple issues of the past:
#1 Slavery: the ownership and treatment of a fellow human being as chattel. This is well established as being categorically wrong now.
#2 Universal suffrage: giving all adults the right to vote. In the past both women and minorities have been denied this right.
#3 Worker's Rights: in the past workers had almost no rights, worked in dangerous and deplorable conditions for unreasonable number of hours, millions died from poisons, exhaustion, poor work conditions and other work-related deaths. Sadly we face a degradation of these rights today. The Constitution grants US citizens the right of free association and in some states like Wisconsin this right has been infringed by making it illegal for workers to form a Union.
Looking forward...
#4 Marriage Equality: rights in the US are individual rights and we're guaranteed EQUAL protection under the law. This means that if one adult has the right to marry another adult, that right must be applied equally. It is just inexcusable, on the basis of small-minded prejudice, to deny gay people the right to marry and enjoy the rights, benefits and responsibilities that come with such an endeavor. Watch this video for more information (from Republican Ted Olson).
#5 LGBTQ* Rights: A broad term covering marriage, but also legality of sexual activity, recognition of relationships, adoption rights, military service, anti-discrimination, and gender identity & expression. Eventually the mistreatment, bullying, harassment, physical assault and denial of rights to people who are merely different in whom they love will be anathema.
#6 Minimal Standard of Living: giving a level of dignity and recognition of the human condition over living standards including: a decent place to live, adequate food & water, education, necessary clothing, and medical care. I think this will also lead to a policy of full employment, where everyone who wants to work will be put to work. This will require some serious rethinking of how an economy should work because the disgusting truth is that, in our capitalistic system, full employment leads to a collapse of the system.
#7 Bodily Autonomy/Abortion: You simply cannot force someone to carry a child to term, the consequences of denying bodily autonomy are horrific, millions of women suffered through it in the past and many of them died. Advances in birth control will probably reduce it close to medically necessary abortions.
#8 Animal Rights: I think we will find that higher animals are sentient, feeling, beings and we will be required to extent to them certain Rights.
#9 Death Penalty: will be abolished, partly on the basis of neurological findings.
This isn't a complete list obviously, post some of your thoughts.
Thursday, December 6, 2012
The Lies Have It
I couldn't let this one pass...
http://apapromotions.com/commonsense/2012/02/10/were-the-founders-wrong-obama-and-progressives-really-don%E2%80%99t-like-our-constitution/
Either this person has zero reading comprehension skills or they are maliciously trying to misinform the reader. You'll have to decide.
The actual quote of what Obama said is "What's frustrated people is that I have not been able to force Congress to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008." Which makes it clear that it isn't Obama manically wishing to have ultimate control but rather he's saying change takes time in our system of government and that this is what is frustrating those who wish he had done everything he wanted to do back in 2008.
As for the Ginsburg issue, MediaMatters covered it very well.
So, more bullshit. If you read what she said in detail this is clearly taken out of context.
And let's talk about the failings of said document.
Slavery - DISGUSTING
Denies Suffrage to women and African people - DISGUSTING
And unfortunately we're still fighting both those battles today, against people like 'Mr. Common Sense' I fear.
http://apapromotions.com/commonsense/2012/02/10/were-the-founders-wrong-obama-and-progressives-really-don%E2%80%99t-like-our-constitution/
Obama also stated that what is frustrating is that “I have not been able to force Congress to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008.” Let that sink in for a moment. What Obama is saying is that he believes the President of the United States should be allowed to force Congress to do his will.
Either this person has zero reading comprehension skills or they are maliciously trying to misinform the reader. You'll have to decide.
The actual quote of what Obama said is "What's frustrated people is that I have not been able to force Congress to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008." Which makes it clear that it isn't Obama manically wishing to have ultimate control but rather he's saying change takes time in our system of government and that this is what is frustrating those who wish he had done everything he wanted to do back in 2008.
As for the Ginsburg issue, MediaMatters covered it very well.
So, more bullshit. If you read what she said in detail this is clearly taken out of context.
And let's talk about the failings of said document.
Slavery - DISGUSTING
Denies Suffrage to women and African people - DISGUSTING
And unfortunately we're still fighting both those battles today, against people like 'Mr. Common Sense' I fear.
The Hate Blog
A collection of a few of the Hateful things I see Christians saying around the internet. If I had an easy way to add things to this it would be thousands of entries long.
Note to Christians: "you are going Hell" sounds a lot like "I'm gleefully hoping you will be tortured for all eternity, because I'm right and you are wrong". I condemn anyone wishing or thinking another human being is deserving of torture or death. And no, I do not believe in the death penalty either.
Most of this is just silly stupidity. When does insulting cross over into bullying? When someone in a position of power over someone else (either by virtue of physical strength or otherwise) uses that position to intimidate or harm the other person. At some point bullying would cross over into straight up harassment (which is a matter for the courts). But one adult merely insulting another adult, in the course of a discussion/argument, really isn't bullying and it undermines our concerns for real bullying when it is misportrayed as such.
But don't EVEN try to pull those "Why are atheists so angry" or "Why are atheists so rude" tropes. See also: What's The Harm
But even given all this, and all I have seen that isn't posted here, and how hateful I find Christian doctrine, I STILL DO NOT PAINT ALL CHRISTIANS WITH THE SAME BRUSH. To do so is the ugliest form of bigotry. I judge each person on their own merits.
Some might be, but this commits the fallacy of Hasty Generalization. He will probably get some nasty replies which will only confirm this position in his mind (Confirmation Bias at work).
Don't ya just love the smell of irony in the morning?
What a charmer.
Wielding Jesus like a sword.
What does Nativity scenes on public property have to do with the crass commercial enterprise that is American Christmas? People seem to be unaware of the Pagan origins of the holiday they co-opted. Maybe they missed these verses?
Or
Where does the Bible tell you cut down a tree and decorate it with silver and gold? Oh right, it tells you NOT to do that.
But this is just irony, the fundamental position has nothing to do with your Bible. It has to do with the US Constitution that enjoins the government from ESTABLISHING a religion. Any access to public places must be done fair and equitably -- if that is done then secularists would take no issue with it. But that isn't what happens, what happens is one specific sect in a town will be granted a favored position.
Yawn
Whoa, that's SO meta.
Most of the ones I know are atheists because they studied the Bible fairly deeply. It's easy to make such sweeping statements, and sometimes she is probably even right, but not even close to always.
If I have to endure 500 channels of religious programming, churches with pithy sayings on nearly every block, being told I'm going to hell, and all the rest of it you'll just have to deal with my being vocal.
The one thing I'm NOT going to do is "shut up".
Not sure I can bear this much irony all in one tweet.
And this one is a website which proclaims in all caps:
ATHEISTS STEP UP WAR ON RELIGION WITH HATEFUL CHARLOTTE BILLBOARD MESSAGES
Bigotry is a form of prejudice, for there to be prejudice there has to be some pre-judging going on. Non-believers have investigated the claims these various religions make and are just calling them out on their nonsense.
Not once in the article do they refute the claims posted on the billboards or show them to be false. They are simply factual representations of the religions, that they make the religions look ridiculous is not bigotry.
They also pull the "except of course Muslims ('cause that will get you killed)" bit. And you want to accuse others of Bigotry. REALLY?
One such message was:
"Mormonism: Magic Underwear, Baptizes Dead People, Big Money, Big Bigotry"
They do in fact have super-secret special underwear which is stated "when properly worn...provides protection against temptation and evil". This is why it's referred to as 'Magic' underwear. They do in fact Baptize dead people. They heavily funded a fight to prevent gay couples from getting married in California. THAT is Bigotry. How would you feel if a group was funding a fight to prevent Christians from being allowed to marry? Wouldn't that seem rather shitty to you?
So, please tell me where the untrue statement is on that billboard? Does it ridicule these things? You bet. That does not equal Bigotry -- again, Bigotry must be based on a prejudice and to be a prejudice it must be false or fallacious thinking. Finding your silly nonsense to be silly isn't bigotry. If you can demonstrate that your claims are factual then I'll change my position.
The article goes on to wish that "common human decency [...] demands that it should expressed without hate or disrespect towards others". Sorry, but respect is earned. I'll defer to one of our founding fathers...
One last bit on the article where it talks about being a Christian nation and ridiculing the idea that the US is not a Christian nation.
First of all, the Constitution itself says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". We are formed as a SECULAR nation that does not establish a religion, but allows the FREE exercise thereof. That goes for ANY religion except, of course, the ones that groups of Americans have constantly deemed unworthy of this protection like the religions of the NATIVE AMERICAN PEOPLE who have been shat upon repeatedly in every regard. And when there has been physical hostilities it has most often been at the hands of other Christians, such as the Philadelphia Nativist Riots of 1844.
Secondly, the Treaty of Tripoli clearly states ""As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen".
He's on to us! Is he going to go Biblical and start torturing us to death again?
Jesus couldn't have said it better.
Now, did you see how that nasty 'athIEst' [sic] instigated this? Must be one of Fox New's "Illterate".
Oh, this next Christian is a real treat, can you feel the "love of Jesus" coming out of his pores?
Some Islamic love:
Note to Christians: "you are going Hell" sounds a lot like "I'm gleefully hoping you will be tortured for all eternity, because I'm right and you are wrong". I condemn anyone wishing or thinking another human being is deserving of torture or death. And no, I do not believe in the death penalty either.
Most of this is just silly stupidity. When does insulting cross over into bullying? When someone in a position of power over someone else (either by virtue of physical strength or otherwise) uses that position to intimidate or harm the other person. At some point bullying would cross over into straight up harassment (which is a matter for the courts). But one adult merely insulting another adult, in the course of a discussion/argument, really isn't bullying and it undermines our concerns for real bullying when it is misportrayed as such.
But don't EVEN try to pull those "Why are atheists so angry" or "Why are atheists so rude" tropes. See also: What's The Harm
But even given all this, and all I have seen that isn't posted here, and how hateful I find Christian doctrine, I STILL DO NOT PAINT ALL CHRISTIANS WITH THE SAME BRUSH. To do so is the ugliest form of bigotry. I judge each person on their own merits.
Atheist Activists are hate filled jerks that have nothing better to do than get involved in other people's business #dps #tcot #tlot
— @BodiazRising (@BodiazRising) December 6, 2012
Some might be, but this commits the fallacy of Hasty Generalization. He will probably get some nasty replies which will only confirm this position in his mind (Confirmation Bias at work).
Oddly, a Liberal's small mind is never at a loss for insults.
— Janie Johnson (@jjauthor) November 27, 2012
Don't ya just love the smell of irony in the morning?
@ladyatheist @daboybanks i treat other women much different then how i treat u fuckin atheist
— Khalid Salad (@KhalidSalad_) April 9, 2011
What a charmer.
@ladyatheist you're not funny you ugly bisexual you're confused enough, you dont even believe in god but you will when you burn in hell
— Abdullah Omar(@AO30s) April 9, 2011
Wielding Jesus like a sword.
To all atheists who want public Nativity scenes banned: You better not accept or give out any Christmas presents
— Alex Hey (@A_R_Hey) December 6, 2012
What does Nativity scenes on public property have to do with the crass commercial enterprise that is American Christmas? People seem to be unaware of the Pagan origins of the holiday they co-opted. Maybe they missed these verses?
Jeremiah 10:1-25 Hear the word that the Lord speaks to you, O house of Israel. Thus says the Lord: “Learn not the way of the nations, nor be dismayed at the signs of the heavens because the nations are dismayed at them, for the customs of the peoples are vanity. A tree from the forest is cut down and worked with an axe by the hands of a craftsman. They decorate it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so that it cannot move. Their idols are like scarecrows in a cucumber field, and they cannot speak; they have to be carried, for they cannot walk. Do not be afraid of them, for they cannot do evil, neither is it in them to do good.”
Or
Deuteronomy 12:29-32 “When the Lord your God cuts off before you the nations whom you go in to dispossess, and you dispossess them and dwell in their land, take care that you be not ensnared to follow them, after they have been destroyed before you, and that you do not inquire about their gods, saying, ‘How did these nations serve their gods?—that I also may do the same.’ You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the Lord hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods. “Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it.
Where does the Bible tell you cut down a tree and decorate it with silver and gold? Oh right, it tells you NOT to do that.
But this is just irony, the fundamental position has nothing to do with your Bible. It has to do with the US Constitution that enjoins the government from ESTABLISHING a religion. Any access to public places must be done fair and equitably -- if that is done then secularists would take no issue with it. But that isn't what happens, what happens is one specific sect in a town will be granted a favored position.
The activist #atheists who go to war against #Christmas and to erase #God, the basis of morality, do great harm to society. - @dennisprager
— Mike Robbins (@MikeRobbinsUSA) December 6, 2012
Yawn
@adamizer1 Atheists are funny, screaming from rooftops ‘there is no God!’ Ur more of a zealot than most Bible-beaters. Irony is delicious.
— Shady (@snipershady) December 6, 2012
Whoa, that's SO meta.
@adamizer1 @blueskyhippie @toddkincannon I love how atheists think they understand what's written in the bible & twist scripture #clueless
— Cindy Sheets (@IscrewThingsUp) December 6, 2012
Most of the ones I know are atheists because they studied the Bible fairly deeply. It's easy to make such sweeping statements, and sometimes she is probably even right, but not even close to always.
@toddkincannon @adamizer1Give atheists credit for excelling at their own misery over NOTHING rather than simply disbelieve and SHUT UP!
— Robert Pennington (@Rbupp) December 6, 2012
If I have to endure 500 channels of religious programming, churches with pithy sayings on nearly every block, being told I'm going to hell, and all the rest of it you'll just have to deal with my being vocal.
The one thing I'm NOT going to do is "shut up".
Some of you are atheists because you think its in fashion, Its actually sad that you'd let the crowd dictate your beliefs.
— Somandla Forbes (@Sntuli_ySL) December 6, 2012
Not sure I can bear this much irony all in one tweet.
And this one is a website which proclaims in all caps:
ATHEISTS STEP UP WAR ON RELIGION WITH HATEFUL CHARLOTTE BILLBOARD MESSAGES
what I am unequivocally stating as a person of faith is that their message on these billboards is bigoted and hateful
Bigotry is a form of prejudice, for there to be prejudice there has to be some pre-judging going on. Non-believers have investigated the claims these various religions make and are just calling them out on their nonsense.
Not once in the article do they refute the claims posted on the billboards or show them to be false. They are simply factual representations of the religions, that they make the religions look ridiculous is not bigotry.
They also pull the "except of course Muslims ('cause that will get you killed)" bit. And you want to accuse others of Bigotry. REALLY?
One such message was:
"Mormonism: Magic Underwear, Baptizes Dead People, Big Money, Big Bigotry"
They do in fact have super-secret special underwear which is stated "when properly worn...provides protection against temptation and evil". This is why it's referred to as 'Magic' underwear. They do in fact Baptize dead people. They heavily funded a fight to prevent gay couples from getting married in California. THAT is Bigotry. How would you feel if a group was funding a fight to prevent Christians from being allowed to marry? Wouldn't that seem rather shitty to you?
So, please tell me where the untrue statement is on that billboard? Does it ridicule these things? You bet. That does not equal Bigotry -- again, Bigotry must be based on a prejudice and to be a prejudice it must be false or fallacious thinking. Finding your silly nonsense to be silly isn't bigotry. If you can demonstrate that your claims are factual then I'll change my position.
The article goes on to wish that "common human decency [...] demands that it should expressed without hate or disrespect towards others". Sorry, but respect is earned. I'll defer to one of our founding fathers...
Thomas Jefferson, on the concept of the Trinity, wrote in a letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. If it could be understood it would not answer their purpose. Their security is in their faculty of shedding darkness, like the scuttlefish, thro' the element in which they move, and making it impenetrable to the eye of a pursuing enemy, and there they will skulk.
One last bit on the article where it talks about being a Christian nation and ridiculing the idea that the US is not a Christian nation.
First of all, the Constitution itself says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". We are formed as a SECULAR nation that does not establish a religion, but allows the FREE exercise thereof. That goes for ANY religion except, of course, the ones that groups of Americans have constantly deemed unworthy of this protection like the religions of the NATIVE AMERICAN PEOPLE who have been shat upon repeatedly in every regard. And when there has been physical hostilities it has most often been at the hands of other Christians, such as the Philadelphia Nativist Riots of 1844.
Secondly, the Treaty of Tripoli clearly states ""As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen".
@rickygervais @UberFacts Fuck you Ricky and Fuck the liberal Jewish media pushing their atheist agenda. I am on to you. Praise the lord.
— Tim (@tdcm27) deleted
He's on to us! Is he going to go Biblical and start torturing us to death again?
@matt_simpson @cherokee_autumn @Brentrou Burn in hell Atheist heathen.
— Tim (@tdcm27) deleted
Jesus couldn't have said it better.
youtube.com/watch?v=4xhTw_…Did Jesus reveal the name of the anti christ Barack Obama.
— Debbie Hafer (@cwatergirl55) December 4, 2012
@alliancedefends I hope the courts do the moral thing in these cases. So tired of the gays and athiests tryin to morally destroy America.
— Debbie Hafer (@cwatergirl55) December 7, 2012
Now, did you see how that nasty 'athIEst' [sic] instigated this? Must be one of Fox New's "Illterate".
Oh, this next Christian is a real treat, can you feel the "love of Jesus" coming out of his pores?
AIDS was created by Satan and used to kill many homosexuals and straight sex addicts alike. #truth
— Jesus loves you (@JesusTalks2) March 8, 2013
Show a person with AIDS that didn't deserve it. #truth
— Jesus loves you (@JesusTalks2) March 8, 2013
@jesustalks2 what about babies born with aids?
— Shane Wilson (@Immoral_Compass) March 8, 2013
@immoral_compass The parents sin effects the child they conceive.This is a mind that is so very clearly poisoned with the religion-virus.
— Jesus loves you (@JesusTalks2) March 8, 2013
Some Islamic love:
@soloatheist @francosoup do this world a favor kill yourself
— Shahzad Zafar (@Sh3zzY) March 31, 2013
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)