patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,248,466 comments by 14,886 users - Ceffer, The_Deplorable, Undoctored online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 599 - 638 of 878 Next » Last » Search these comments
In nature yes, but in humans monogamy is much more common homosexuality.
I'd contest that, maybe serial or perceived monogamy yes, but if you take the few ones that actually never stray (for both genders) the numbers become very small.
"Monogamy is the Western custom of one wife and hardly any mistresses."
-- H.H. Munro
My morality has nothing to do with me. It is entirely objective.
You can't possibly believe the second sentence. Can you see that the first sentence gives lie to to the second?
No. Please explain in great detail. Leave no steps out.
I reserve the right to show any flaws in your work.
1. You say your morality is entirely objective. This means it exists independently of your physical existence or of your physical or psycological state.
2. You say it's yours, so you should have a way to communicate to it at any given moment.
3. You say you are an atheist, so the way you communicate to your morality must be entirely material.
4. You decline the suggestion that your morality is all socially induced, I.e. created by a set of norms and acceptable reactions defined by your upbringing, education, and information you receive. Otherwise you would have to agree it is defined by those who control the discurse. You declined this posibility in prior conversations.
BTW, accepting such a morality is the large step from the universal morality to the corporative one. I.e. good is what's good for me, or "for my family", "for my company", "good for Jews", "good for my social class", "Deutchland ueber alles", etc. Out of the people I've met only some Zionists openly endorsed corporative morality, but obviously there are plenty of closet "corporative moralists".
So, in fact you say you have some mysterious ways to communicate to the universal morality, which exists independently. Maybe by itself it is not a contradiction, but for a hell of an atheist...
Interestingly enough, you also wrote you are not interested in Harris' attempts to find biological (neuro-biological) sources of morality, since it's all about science and you an "engineer".
Bap33
2012 Nov 30, 5:39am
Anyone who believes in god shouldn't be allowed to vote.
if everyone followed God's word there would be no such thing as voting.
Dan8267
2012 Nov 30, 5:58am
1. You say your morality is entirely objective. This means it exists independently of your physical existence or of your physical or psycological state.
No, objective means that the creator of the morality is irrelevant. For example, a pie is to be divided into two slices. One person divides the pie, the other person chooses his slice. The person constructing the division has no motive to divide it any way but even because the other person chooses the slice. Hence the divider will objectively evaluate the division of the pie and make it even.
There is nothing in my morality that applies more or less due to my own personal situation. And if my situation were randomized by an act of a fictitious god, I would be no more or less happy with my morality than I am now for I have divided the pie evenly. I can do this because I base my morality on rational thought, not feelings and prejudices.
2. You say it's yours, so you should have a way to communicate to it at any given moment.
WTF?
3. You say you are an atheist, so the way you communicate to your morality must be entirely material.
No, I can and do most certainly communicate in non-material ways. I'm a software developer. All the work I do every single way is completely non-material, abstract, informational. Mathematics is completely non-material. What I don't do as an atheist or as a rationalist, is bullshit and make up falsehoods and proclaim them to be unquestionable truths.
Furthermore, even when I was a Catholic, I never, ever had to rely on a god for moral authority. I could easily understand the difference between right and wrong without a god. For example, baby rape is wrong regardless of whether or not there is a god or that god wants you to rape babies. Would you consider baby rape to be good if you thought your god desired it? That would be fucked up.
4. You decline the suggestion that your morality is all socially induced, I.e. created by a set of norms and acceptable reactions defined by your upbringing, education, and information you receive. Otherwise you would have to agree it is defined by those who control the discurse. You declined this posibility in prior conversations
I have no idea WTF you are trying to say here either.
So, in fact you say you have some mysterious ways to communicate to the universal morality, which exists independently. Maybe by itself it is not a contradiction, but for a hell of an atheist...
Morality is no more universal or absolute than bridge design. You can design bridges in many ways with varying trade-offs. The underlying mathematics and physics are absolute, but the bridge design is creative and there is no single, universal bridge design. The same damn thing goes for morality. It's engineering, not arbitrary religious dogma.
Interestingly enough, you also wrote you are not interested in Harris' attempts to find biological (neuro-biological) sources of morality, since it's all about science and you an "engineer".
If you think that is what I wrote, then you clearly misread what I wrote. And it's not like my writings are that hard to follow. Any failure to communicate is a problem on your end.
Bap33
2012 Nov 30, 6:35am
hey Dan, check out your thread count!! lol. (this will not be very funny in a short while!)
Dan8267
2012 Nov 30, 6:57am
Sorry Bap, but 666 is an integer and we all have to go through it before reaching 667.
By the way, the only reason 666 is consider "the devil's number" is because there are three sixes and 6 was consider an evil number. Having three sixes is a reflection of the Holy Trinity. So 666 is evil and 777 is good luck.
So why is 6 considered evil and 7 considered good luck or godly? Pagan astrology, where Christianity got most of its myths.
Excluding the stars, there are seven astronomical bodies you can see from Earth (excluding Earth itself, of course) with the naked eye. They are the sun, the moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Notice that there are seven of them. Notice that we have seven days in a week including Sunday and Moonday (Monday) and Saturnday (Saturday). The ancients were fucking subtle.
Also notice that the Bible says god created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. The seven-day week preceded Christianity, but that wasn't going to stop them from claiming credit for it.
Well, since there were seven heavenly bodies visible to the naked eye and therefore were the only ones that existed in the minds of the ancients, then seven was a heavenly number. Six, being one less than seven, is falling short of heavenly and is why six represents evil.
Combine 7 with the Holy Trinity to get lucky number 777. Combine 6 with an unholy trinity to get 666. The mark of the beast is nothing more than this lame myth.
Ever wonder why the devil appeared to Eve as a snake instead of as a dove? The snake is the natural enemy of primates like humans. We have an instinctive fear of them. If the rabbit were the natural enemy of primates, the devil would have appeared to Eve as the Easter Bunny.
Ever wonder why there are 24 hours in a day? Also astrology. The ancients looked up in the night sky and imagined twelve constellations dividing that sky. They called these the 12 signs of the Zodiac. So they divided night into two equal parts.
You can't see stars in the day, but since on average days and nights are equally long, if you are going to divide the night into 12 parts, you should divide the day into 12 pars as well. Hence we have a 24 hour day.
Since an hour is a relatively long period of time, we divide the hour into 60 parts since base 60 was a popular numeric system as it makes arithmetic easy (60 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 20, 30). We call each minute part of an hour a "minute". Again, the ancients were so fucking subtle. Since the minute is still relatively long, we divide that into 60 parts, that is "second" order minute parts of an hour. Can you guess where the word second as a measurement of time came from? If the ancients wanted to divide the second up into smaller parts, we'd have thirds. Luckily, this did not become necessary until modern times when we moved over to base 10.
Always look to were beliefs and customs came from.
No, I can and do most certainly communicate in non-material ways. I'm a software developer. All the work I do every single way is completely non-material, abstract, informational. Mathematics is completely non-material. What I don't do as an atheist or as a rationalist, is bullshit and make up falsehoods and proclaim them to be unquestionable truths.
Enough. The paragraph above tells it all. As a software developer you use electromagnetic waves or quants, which are a form of matter. Your brainwaves or states of your neurons are as well. Your pretending you do not understand it is "bullshit". Your references to mathematics is another example of your "bullshit". As your post on your assumption about no contradiction in mathematics clearly illustrates you hardly know what you are talking about.
However, much worse of your "bullshit" is when you pretend you do not understand what I (or someone else) ask you.
Morality is no more universal or absolute than bridge design. You can design bridges in many ways with varying trade-offs.
Another example of a pure bullshit. Probably what you wanted to say is that there are various systems of social ethics based on common thing like engineering is based on mathematics. I have a news for you: this common thing is called morality.
The bullshit is in the fact that you think that by shifting your terminology you may be able to change the facts and avoid answering my questions. However, the only thing you do this way is saying: "I'm a faithful atheist and I do not care if my religion is consistent".
Just came by a joke in Russian:
"It looks like America will be the first country to outlaw sex as a discrimination against impotents"
The seven-day week preceded Christianity, but that wasn't going to stop them from claiming credit for it.
What a bullshit! Stop whom to take credit for what. With all your lecturing you loose a common sense.
The fact that you actually try to square those myths with reality illustrates exactly why religious beliefs are a mental disorder and homosexuality is not.
Bullshit! It illustrates nothing about homosexuality.
No, objective means that the creator of the morality is irrelevant.
Another example of your bullshit!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
"Objectivity is a central philosophical concept which has been variously defined by sources. A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"—that is, existing freely or independently from the thoughts of a conscious entity or subject."
Peter P
2012 Nov 30, 8:34am
I have much respect for Ayn Rand. But I confess to being a subjectivist.
Isn't it ironic that Ayn Rand got her early inspirations from Nietzsche?
I have much respect for Ayn Rand. But I confess to being a subjectivist.
Isn't it ironic that Ayn Rand got her early inspirations from Nietzsche?
I think you mixed objectivity and objectivism.
They are somewhat related.
Well, Ayn Rand objectivism is a different thing. I think it came from the word "objective" == goal. Basically, her "philosophy" was get your objectives no matter what.
And yes it was a primitive form of Nietscheanism.
Remember, Nietsche was a very unhappy man. we usually take his "God is dead." out of context. In fact it was like "God is dead. We've killed God. It's impossible to live in this new world of us. We need something instead right now." So he invented his Superman. He was very talented man, suffereing a lot from the state of his mind and anding in complete insanity.
Ayn Rand was a poor and vulgar writer, a cynical mediocre in any sense whose crede was: let's grab all we want as long as we enjoy it. She just found a way to sell cynicism to those who liked that form of it.
Ironically, they became very popular among extreme right wing atheists. Nietsche -- in Germany, Ayn Rand -- in America.
What about science and Scientism?
A good question to ask Dan.
Peter P
2012 Nov 30, 9:05am
Ayn Rand did believe in objective reality (metaphysics) and epistemology.
Yep. "God is dead" was more about the meaning of life.
Unfortunately, we now live in a society of Untermenschen.
Unfortunately, we now live in a society of Untermenschen.
Really, do you personally know any "Untermensch"?
If you do are you sure you know him well enough to decide?
"God is dead" was more about the meaning of life.
Well God as far as we may know Him is all about the meaning of life.
Peter P
2012 Nov 30, 9:20am
You are right. God, the human concept, is all about the meaning of life.
But if reality is objective, He exists beyond our conception. Hmm...
You are right. God, the human concept, is all about the meaning of life.
But if reality is objective, He exists beyond our conception. Hmm...
Very nice!
I would say for most of young people I happened to know who turn to believe in God, this is the path. They need the meaning of life and they need an objective one. (Including me many years ago. :)
Peter P
2012 Nov 30, 9:32am
I am the rare one who turned to Nietzsche. Yet I believe God exists in my subjective reality. :-)
Bap33
2012 Dec 1, 12:54pm
anyone notice that the sodomite model, that castrated and murdered his newscaster lover, is all over the news without the mention of the whole male/male sodomited designation. Weird.
Dan8267
2012 Dec 1, 11:00pm
As a software developer you use electromagnetic waves or quants, which are a form of matter.
Yes, that's how programming is done. The developer directly manipulates electromagnetic waves in the computer like Magneto.
You do realize that everyone has a physical brain that depends on the electro-magnetic force. That has nothing to do with atheism being more "materialistic" than monotheism. It's just that atheists don't use supernatural bullshit to explain morality, and doing so would add nothing to the discussion anyway.
Your pretending you do not understand it is "bullshit". Your references to mathematics is another example of your "bullshit". As your post on your assumption about no contradiction in mathematics clearly illustrates you hardly know what you are talking about.
However, much worse of your "bullshit" is when you pretend you do not understand what I (or someone else) ask you.
You can call my writings bullshit all you want. Most people understand what I say and don't misinterpret them as you do. And as for not understanding what you are asking, that's a failure to write clearly on your part.
Here's a helpful tip. If it isn't clear in your mind, it won't be clear coming out of your mouth.
Dan8267
2012 Dec 1, 11:18pm
The seven-day week preceded Christianity, but that wasn't going to stop them from claiming credit for it.
What a bullshit! Stop whom to take credit for what. With all your lecturing you loose a common sense.
The fact is that the seven-day week is a result of astrology, not the Judeo-Christian myth of god creating the Earth in 6 days and resting on the seventh. Feel free to argue against this, but present facts rather than assertions. As for who invented the Zodiac, Google that shit and don't waste my time.
The fact that you actually try to square those myths with reality illustrates exactly why religious beliefs are a mental disorder and homosexuality is not.
Bullshit! It illustrates nothing about homosexuality.
Boy are you grasping for straws. Let's first acknowledge that you did not refute the fact that Bap's delusion shows that religious beliefs are a mental disorder. Very interesting.
As to how this relates to the conversation regarding homosexuality, the only people asserting that homosexuality is a mental disorder are the ones clearly suffering from a mental disorder of their own. If only crazy people call you crazy and doctors don't, you're probably not crazy.
I guess I didn't dumb this down enough for you.
Dan8267 says
No, objective means that the creator of the morality is irrelevant.
Another example of your bullshit!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
Oh yes, because Wikipedia is the ultimate authority on all subject matter. That's why we know that Plato was an ancient Hawaiian weather man and surfer, writer of cosmo girls and founder of the punahou in Ancient Florida.
Only the intellectually lazy use Wikipedia. It is foolish and stupid. Get a real source. One that isn't dominated by dumb-ass kids, plagiarizers, and corporate and government agencies with political agendas.
Furthermore, I was explaining what makes my moral system objective. That has nothing to do with some philosophy named after the word "objective" anyway. Christ, your reading comprehension skills suck. So, I'll dumb this down as much as possible. An objective moral code is no more or less likely to be accepted by a person X before and after person X's status and situation (race, gender, nationality, wealth, social or political power, etc.) is randomized. A subjective moral code is more or less likely to be accepted by a person X depending on his status and situation. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand this concept.
At this point you are disagreeing for the sake of being disagreeable.
Dan8267
2012 Dec 1, 11:23pm
anyone notice that the sodomite model, that castrated and murdered his newscaster lover, is all over the news without the mention of the whole male/male sodomited designation. Weird.
Woman Cuts Off Husband's Penis, Tosses It Into Garbage Disposal
Scorned woman 'chops off cheating boyfriend's penis and flushes it down the toilet'
Woman Cuts Off Man’s Penis Before Stabbing Him To Death
I've got about ten thousand more of these stories. Why doesn't the press mention the whole male/female "sodimited designation" in these stories? Oh yeah, because it's irrelevant. But wait, what if Bap is right and such stories proves that heterosexuality is a mental disorder. We need to rehabilitate straights into becoming gays.
Bap, your cherry picking, which is the most heterosexual thing you've ever done.
Dan8267
2012 Dec 1, 11:24pm
But if reality is objective, He exists beyond our conception. Hmm..
Why he instead of them? That's a pretty damn big assumption.
Dan8267
2012 Dec 1, 11:26pm
Bap69, your unhealthy obsession
Like I said, that's a mighty gay avatar for an alleged heterosexual. And Bap certainly fits the profile of a self-hating closet homosexual republican. Hell, it seems like that's half the party.
Bap33
2012 Dec 2, 2:26am
As to how this relates to the conversation regarding homosexuality, the only people asserting that homosexuality is a mental disorder are the ones clearly suffering from a mental disorder of their own. If only crazy people call you crazy and doctors don't, you're probably not crazy.
http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html
next.
Bap33
2012 Dec 2, 2:33am
And Bap certainly fits the profile of a self-hating closet homosexual republican.
name calling?? really? I do have a question about the male/male sodomite thing: Do those that center their lives around deviant sex have different names for the masculine male and the feminine male?
Bap33
2012 Dec 2, 2:35am
But if reality is objective, He exists beyond our conception. Hmm..
Why he instead of them? That's a pretty damn big assumption.
Maybe, it's because the entire universe points to a singular point of generation, not points?
Dan8267
2012 Dec 2, 2:45am
Sounds like the opinion of one bigoted psychologist who is upset that homosexuality is no longer considered a mental disorder just like black people are no longer considered mentally inferior to white people. There used to be a lot of bigotry (racism, sexism, and homophobia) in the pseudo-science of the 19th and early 20th centuries. This was replaced by objective, rational science in which evidence, not personal opinion, was the basis for scientific consensus.
As I stated in in a previous post, countless reputable medical associations do not consider homosexuality to be a mental disorder. Your refutation of this is that one organization used to half a century ago during more bigoted times. If this is a reputable organization, then we'd have to go with its current statement that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.
But, I'll tell you what. I'll invite an expert from that organization to discuss whether or not homosexuality is a mental disorder. Hell, I'll invite your expert witness as well.
Dan8267
2012 Dec 2, 2:45am
Dan8267 invited American Psychiatric Association to fact-check this discussion.
Bap33
2012 Dec 2, 2:46am
If only bigoted people call you bigoted and doctors don't, you're probably not bigoted.
Dan8267
2012 Dec 2, 2:50am
If only bigoted people call you bigoted and doctors don't, you're probably not bigoted.
I just invited Dr. Whitehead to defend his position. If it turns out that he has convincing medical evidence that homosexuality is in fact a mental disorder, I'll retract my statement that it's probably prejudice, not science. Of course, if he has convincing medical evidence that homosexuality is a mental disorder, then why hasn't the medical community accepted that evidence? I look forward to the debate.
Bap33
2012 Dec 2, 2:54am
black people are no longer considered mentally inferior to white people.
what was used to judge anyone's mental dominance? Exploration? Invention? Engineering? Math? Writing? Poetry? Civility? Sanitation? Mastery over environment? Animal husbandry? What is the meter used for such considerations?
Bap33
2012 Dec 2, 2:57am
convincing medical evidence
he wrote a paper, and there are footnotes at the end for double checking. What more is normally required before something wrote by a doctor is called "medical evidence"?
Peter P
2012 Dec 2, 3:06am
Homosexuality is not a mental disorder. It is a lifestyle choice. And for that we should celebrate its existence.
Dan8267
2012 Dec 2, 3:42am
black people are no longer considered mentally inferior to white people.
what was used to judge anyone's mental dominance? Exploration? Invention? Engineering? Math? Writing? Poetry? Civility? Sanitation? Mastery over environment? Animal husbandry? What is the meter used for such considerations?
« First « Previous Comments 599 - 638 of 878 Next » Last » Search these comments
This question goes out to all the people who actually believe that gay sex is immoral. I am formally challenging that belief. If any of you honestly believe that gay sex is immoral, give your reasons here. I reserve the right to challenge the validity of those reasons.
Attendance by Bap33 is mandatory. By the way, that avatar is pretty gay for someone who's homophobic.
Just saying...