Gibberish of the day!

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:39 pm

Count_Arioch_the_28th wrote:Ah, I assumed it was more vulgar than that. That's fairly harmless.

And sort of lame.

violence in the media · Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:07 pm

The question is not about using Mormon documents in Roman Catholic apologetics, it's about accepting the veracity of the documents you're working with. Seriously, what's the rationale behind accepting scripture as the infallible word of god without considering the possibility of humans inserting their own viewpoints into the documents and attributing it to god? Ezekiel wasn't just a surly, sadistic, misanthrope? The dude who penned the bit about gays in Leviticus 18 22 wasn't just bitter because the Queer Eye guys wouldn't give him a makeover?

Hell, even if it isn't malicious misrepresentation AND scripture is the divine word of god, why do we assume that the original language documents are correct? If meaning can be lost translating from greek to english, why couldn't it have been lost translating from celestial to greek?

Tying back to my original comment about Joseph Smith, he has pretty much equal credibility to any of the authors in the New or Old Testament, but instead of embracing his teachings as the Newest Testament, christianity essentially called bullshit. Fuck! Scientology was founded on lunacy and pedophelia, and there are still millions of cultists that adhere to it. Does that make Zardoz and the space ghosts exist?

TL;DR: citing your own religious texts to justifiy your own religious teachings seems incredibly circular to me. How can you demonstrate that a particular edict wasn't simply an author/establishment insertion?

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:18 pm

tzor wrote: And sort of lame.

You sort of described the whole movie. It's a rental. I'd say it's well-worth renting, except the moral* shits me that much.

*"Be best friends with a girl long enough and you'll end up together!"

violence in the media · Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:27 pm

Koumei wrote: *"Be best friends with a girl long enough and you'll end up together!"

I thought that was the surest way to never get into her pants? Didn't the consult the ladder theory for this movie?

Count Arioch the 28th · Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:31 pm

I've had sex with several female friends in the past. Granted, I made it obvious that sex is something I enjoy, and possibly with them but didn't put any pressure on them at any point.

Then again, there are women I'm close friends with that I wouldn't have sex with under any circumstances, so perhaps I can understand the ladder theory.

But I think sex comedies in general are stupid. That's a personal preference.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:05 pm

violence in the media wrote:...

So in other words, you ran out of things to argue about and just wanted to trash religion in general using some vague mixture of reitivism and nhillism. (The logical demise of all true athiests.)

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:11 pm

New gibberish!

[url=http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/25/ensign-constitution/ wrote:Sen. John Ensign (R-NV)[/url]]We’ve allowed exceptions for religious and various other reasons. But some people hold the Constitution pretty high in their lives, and if they believe that this thing is unconstitutional, and they then say, “I choose not to have health insurance, I’m not going to buy it,” we could be subjecting those very people who conscientiously — because they believe in the U.S. Constitution — we could be subjecting them to fines or the interpretation of a judge, potentially, all the way up to imprisonment. That seems to me to be a problem.

His argument seems to be that judges might interpret the constitution differently than individuals, so we shouldn't hold that against the individuals. Because that's like a judge ruling on their religion or something. I think.

-Crissa

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:37 pm

Crissa wrote:New gibberish!

I read this and thought you were talking about Tzors wannabe philosophical commentary.

Crissa wrote:
[url=http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/25/ensign-constitution/ wrote:Sen. John Ensign (R-NV)[/url]]We’ve allowed exceptions for religious and various other reasons. But some people hold the Constitution pretty high in their lives, and if they believe that this thing is unconstitutional, and they then say, “I choose not to have health insurance, I’m not going to buy it,” we could be subjecting those very people who conscientiously — because they believe in the U.S. Constitution — we could be subjecting them to fines or the interpretation of a judge, potentially, all the way up to imprisonment. That seems to me to be a problem.
His argument seems to be that judges might interpret the constitution differently than individuals, so we shouldn't hold that against the individuals. Because that's like a judge ruling on their religion or something. I think.

I'm not keeping track of the specific bill people are arguing about right now, mostly because 90% of the time they aren't actually talking about any bill. But as I understand it, anyone and everyone can opt out for any reason last I checked.

So basically, he's being a whiny bitch, and insisting that they either don't have to pay taxes, or doctors don't have to treat people.

Or he's just pretending that the thing is being forced on people when it isn't.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 10:25 pm

Koumei wrote:
PhoneLobster wrote:
1451 Among the penitent's acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is "sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again."50
Note the bit where is says you cannot commit a sin again.

Oh wait. It doesn't say that.

You just say "I'll try harder, honest!". Then when you fail you just go and confess again.
I think the idea is you have to mean it when you say it, and feel really bad about fucking up. Or just feel really bad in general, all the time.

I think you're pretty much supposed to be completely miserable and guilty all the fucking time. Which ironically means I was actually a pretty good christian. Too bad Satanism is a hell of a lot more enjoyable.

Duh. Christianity teaches us that ALL sin originates with women and we're responsible for everything.

damn women, it's all your fault.

ah well, you're always welcome to lead us satanists into temptation, it's so much more fun than getting there on our own.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:
tzor wrote: Those wacky nuns at EWTN would say "NO NEVER EVER."
I like how oral sex is apparently wrong because it's unhealthy, and someone might have lied to you about how unhealthy it is. One can only assume that smoking, drinking, working as a biochemist, and riding the bus are also all 'implicitly wrong'.
All those who are stating that as long as there is marital intercourse that oral sex is O.K. should tell couples of the physical risks, and the spiritual risks to their marriage. The Church teaches respect for health and condoning this behaviour does not do that, because the other person's health is in jeopardy. The Church may not state explicitly that this behaviour is wrong, but the Church does so implicitly. The Church teaches that we have right to the truth, and this matter is no exception.

o.O How the fuck is oral sex "unhealthy"? Short of diseases (in which case any form of sex could be considered unhealthy, short of maybe jacking off into a biowaste bin...), there's nothing unhealthy about oral sex! Even the fucking bible will say there is nothing unclean about sperm/vaginal secretions (something about "nothing which exits the body is unclean")

Absentminded Wizard wrote:God "designed" the human body, so she apparently is unaware of John Paul II's pronouncement that human physical bodies actually evolved

god designing and evolution aren't, technically, mutually exclusive, some believe evolution was guided by god, whether this is still technically evolution or not is, I guess, somewhat semantic...

tzor wrote:Bad paraphraise PL. But the simple answer is, yes, you should not have sex outside of the proper relationship of marriage. A high standard, but that's the way it is.

So who's going to go around forests marrying the bears and wolves and what not? Or do they have to perpetually live in a state of sin?

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 11:00 pm

Kaelik:

All the universal coverage proposals currently have some sort of requirement that everyone pay for health care. If the proposals don't, they literally won't work; as it means people only buy health care when they're sick, while we pay for it to be provided. Which is like now, but worse.

His proposal is that people who don't believe in federal mandates can opt out. It's dumb. And legal gibberish.

-Crissa

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 7:22 am

Prak_Anima wrote: I think you're pretty much supposed to be completely miserable and guilty all the fucking time. Which ironically means I was actually a pretty good christian.

Oh, when I was a Christian I fulfilled those requirements perfectly.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 3:52 pm

Crissa wrote:New gibberish!

[url=http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/25/ensign-constitution/ wrote:Sen. John Ensign (R-NV)[/url]]We’ve allowed exceptions for religious and various other reasons. But some people hold the Constitution pretty high in their lives, and if they believe that this thing is unconstitutional, and they then say, “I choose not to have health insurance, I’m not going to buy it,” we could be subjecting those very people who conscientiously — because they believe in the U.S. Constitution — we could be subjecting them to fines or the interpretation of a judge, potentially, all the way up to imprisonment. That seems to me to be a problem.
His argument seems to be that judges might interpret the constitution differently than individuals, so we shouldn't hold that against the individuals. Because that's like a judge ruling on their religion or something. I think.

-Crissa

Ignoring Kaelik's swipe (with the exception that I'm going to mention that I'm going to ignore it just for spite) your header was very appropriate; it does sound like gibberish. I think the key is this, "if they believe that this thing is unconstitutional." The fact that "they" have nothing to do with it; that is the role of the Supreme Court. While we may think rulings of the court are against the Constitution, they are still the deciders of the law and only due process of law should be used to change their decisions. You can't decide which laws you think are constitutional or not and expect a "get out of jail free card."

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Sun Sep 27, 2009 12:47 am

tzor wrote:You can't decide which laws you think are constitutional or not and expect a "get out of jail free card."

Awwww.

That is some grade A gibberish. He could at least pretend to have a valid point.

Vnonymous · Post by **Vnonymous** » Sun Sep 27, 2009 2:22 am

tzor wrote: vague mixture of reitivism and nhillism. (The logical demise of all true athiests.)

Ok, I want to hear some more information about this.

The logical demise of all true atheists seems kind of important to me.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 1:54 pm

Vnonymous wrote:
tzor wrote: vague mixture of reitivism and nhillism. (The logical demise of all true athiests.)
Ok, I want to hear some more information about this.

The logical demise of all true atheists seems kind of important to me.

I’ll start off by stating I probably used a potentially misleading term there. (The term ‘true’ doesn’t give a solid definition to it.) The term I should have used was ‘strong.’ As we can see from the wiki definition, “Strong atheism is a term popularly used to describe atheists who claim the statement ‘There is at least one god’ is false. Weak atheism refers to any other type of non-theism, wherein a person does not believe any deities exist, but does not claim that same statement is false.”

Now I’ll probably get into hot water for saying this, but I believe that the logical “scientific approach” method to the universe yields not strong atheism but in fact weak explicit atheism. (Scientifically speaking, it is easier to reach an understanding that you don’t know than it is to reach an understanding that you know absolutely. One could even say, given the old saying that every answer opens up more questions, that the goal of science is not to increase our understanding of what we know in as much as it is to increase our understanding of how much we still do not know.)

If this is the case, moving from the weak explicit atheism position requires something other than science. Once one gets to the strong atheist argument, that something is ironically similar to that of religious fundamentalism. This leads to dividing the universe into “my stuff” (which is correct) and “their stuff” (which is false). Unfortunately, for the strong atheist there is no solid document of “my stuff” so it’s all about “their stuff.”

Ignoring for a moment that VitM’s bizarre ramble (the result of my statement that Catholic apologetics are often cross-referenced with prior catholic documents or Sacred Scripture) wasn’t really related to my point and the fact that his basic argument (the reason why the Catholic Church does not accept the “Book of Mormon” is that the early church declared that all “public revelation” ended with the death of the last Apostle; anything that follows is “private revelation” and private revelation cannot trump public revelation) the basic argument is to find the lowest common denominator and dismiss everyone off hand. It’s sort of the same way as dismissing everything President Obama says by citing Bush or Nixon. It’s negative relativism; everyone is wrong. The negative part leads to nihilism because once you start throwing everyone under your intellectual Madame Guillotine there is nothing left.

Bringing this back to the topic at hand, “Ezekiel wasn't just a surly, sadistic, misanthrope? The dude who penned the bit about gays in Leviticus 18 22 wasn't just bitter because the Queer Eye guys wouldn't give him a makeover? … Fuck! Scientology was founded on lunacy and pedophilia, and there are still millions of cultists that adhere to it.” This type of ignoring by insult is exactly equal to the wacky arguments of religious fundamentalists; only in their case at least once they dismiss everything they still have “something” to hold on to; the fundamentalist strong atheist has literally “nothing” to hold on to.

Murtak · Post by **Murtak** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 2:04 pm

tzor wrote:Now I’ll probably get into hot water for saying this, but I believe that the logical “scientific approach” method to the universe yields not strong atheism but in fact weak explicit atheism. (Scientifically speaking, it is easier to reach an understanding that you don’t know than it is to reach an understanding that you know absolutely. )

By that reasoning you can't ever know anything at all. Yet I am sure the earth exists. And unless you believe God, the earth and the flying spaghetti monster to be equally likely to exist you think in the same way.

Believing in something that is utterly unobservable (even worse, something by definition illogical unverifiable) runs counter to everything science stands for. Is it possible for God to exist? Sure. But I'd rather believe in Mickey Mouse or Spiderman myself. Those are orders of magnitude more likely to exist by any sane criterion.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 2:26 pm

Indeed. Your problems Tzor are:

1) You think that saying something is false is some sort of positive statement of absolute certainty.

It's not. I would say the statement "A God exists" is false. I would also say the statement "I am going to be run over by a car tomorrow" is false. Honestly, the second one is far more likely to be true than the first, but for some reason people want to make a big deal about the first one being absolute and requiring complete knowledge, but are able to understand what I am actually saying with the second.

2) Because you are a religious person who cares about god a lot, and can't understand the point of view of others, you think that not believing in any god at all magically equates to 'nothing left.'

There's plenty left. Lots of people that exist, lots of objects, and more than a little science. Which is why most Physicists and Biologists are atheists, and not all of the weak version.

The non existence of god leaves googles of things to care about. The chair I'm sitting on did not become a relative truth just because there is no evidence for god, nor did it cease to exist.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 2:31 pm

Murtak wrote:But I'd rather believe in Mickey Mouse or Spiderman myself.

I don't miss believing in god, but I sure miss believing in Father Christmas.

Count Arioch the 28th · Mon Sep 28, 2009 2:45 pm

I miss believing that love was something real instead of a biochemical brain effect to keep women from tossing away things that scream and squirt poo on them when they pick them up and to keep men from hunting women to extinction for the utter shit they put us through.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:01 pm

Kaelik wrote:It's not. I would say the statement "A God exists" is false. I would also say the statement "I am going to be run over by a car tomorrow" is false. Honestly, the second one is far more likely to be true than the first, but for some reason people want to make a big deal about the first one being absolute and requiring complete knowledge, but are able to understand what I am actually saying with the second.

And here is where I disagree with your terminology. The statement "I am going to be run over by a car tomorrow" is neither true nor false, you just might be run over by a car tomorrow. Since you cannot prove you will not be run over by a car tomorrow you cannot state that the statement is false. (Since you cannot prove that you will be run over by a car tomorrow you cannot state that the statement is true.)

Thus to state that “A god exists is false” is to state with absolute certainty that “A god exists is not true.” You need to prove that within the set of all things, not one of them is a god. That’s a pretty hefty proof, given the set of all things is generally larger than the set of all things you know of.

Thus the logical argument is that the statement “A god exists” is neither true nor false but unknown. (See Ternary logic) This brings me to my original point about “weak explicit atheism.”

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:19 pm

Which brings me back to you being an idiot because it serves your agenda.

There could be Cartesian Demons. I cannot prove that I am typing on a Computer right now. I cannot prove anything at all. Absolutely nothing in the universe is provable.

Things that have no evidence whatsoever for their existence, such as gods of all stripes, santa claus, Mr Ed, and the day Count stops talking about how women are always bitches, Saying that all these things don't exist is true. They don't exist. Even though you can't logically prove their lack of existence, it is still true.

There is a world out there that does exist. And the chance that I am sitting on a chair right now is 99.9999... as many nines as you want. But it cannot be proven.

There is a 99.9999... chance that no god of any kind absolutely 100% does not exist. There is a 0.00...01 chance that one does, and that is further subdivided amongst various gods.

And yet, the statement that "God does not exist." is more true than 90% of the things that people say every day that you would think are true, such as "Bill is sitting down."

Murtak · Post by **Murtak** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:37 pm

Tzor:
Scientific method:
Does the chair you are sitting on exist? If so, God doesn't. If it doesn't exist you are insane.

Logic
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:39 pm

Murtak wrote: Logic
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Ineffable Plan! Ineffable Plan!

Murtak · Post by **Murtak** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:48 pm

CatharzGodfoot wrote:
Murtak wrote: Logic
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Ineffable Plan! Ineffable Plan!

I hate it when someone actually believes that is some sort of counterargument. Just case Tzor or anyone else tries it:
If the goal is to have no evil and one is omnipotent, doing anything other than immediately eliminating all evil from the world amounts to causing humanity pain for the sake of causing pain. Clearly such behavior is evil. (or, as stated above, malevolent)

violence in the media · Mon Sep 28, 2009 4:42 pm

tzor wrote: Ignoring for a moment that VitM’s bizarre ramble (the result of my statement that Catholic apologetics are often cross-referenced with prior catholic documents or Sacred Scripture) wasn’t really related to my point and the fact that his basic argument (the reason why the Catholic Church does not accept the “Book of Mormon” is that the early church declared that all “public revelation” ended with the death of the last Apostle; anything that follows is “private revelation” and private revelation cannot trump public revelation) the basic argument is to find the lowest common denominator and dismiss everyone off hand. It’s sort of the same way as dismissing everything President Obama says by citing Bush or Nixon. It’s negative relativism; everyone is wrong. The negative part leads to nihilism because once you start throwing everyone under your intellectual Madame Guillotine there is nothing left.

Read the bolded part. Read it twice and then tell me you cannot see the idiocy inherent in that position. Presuming the existence of the christian god here, you're telling me that because the church has declared something to be so, that means that god can not or will not perform said action at any time in the future? If you're going to categorically deny the possibility of "public revelation" then how the hell is anyone supposed to know it's time when Jesus returns? How do we know it hasn't happened already and the christians are just carrying on a pointless pantomime for a god that's long since looked away?

Also, I don't see how you can put forth that argument with a straight face while implying earlier that god will reverse and/or deny the forgiveness given by ordained members of his church through sanctioned rituals. So is god abiding by what the church says and does or not?

Lastly, why are you so afraid of nothing?

edit: You're also saying here that Jesus himself could appear to Bill and Ted and tell them to form Wyld Stallions and preach the gospel 2.0 (the be excellent to one another version) and that cannot trump existing church teachings. 2000 years of precedent trumps a change of mind by the Main Man himself? Are you actually incapable of seeing that this could very likely be an attempt to stop others from going around and making shit up in the same way the original autors did?

edit x2: Regarding your attempt at a strong atheism dismissal, I would joyfully convert in an instant if god were to appear and tell the religious fundamentalists to fuck off.