patrick.net

michaelsch says

Also, I despise your method of trying to offend your opponents, even though I understand that you may be just a product of the internet culture and in real life you know better how to interact with people.

That's a bad assumption on your part. I never try to offend my opponents until they turn into trolls. Then the gloves come off. But before that, my counter-arguments always attack the argument, not the arguer. The messenger is irrelevant -- I've said that before, right?

Dan8267 says

But before that, my counter-arguments always attack the argument, not the arguer.

would you agree that there are times when the subject matter is such that it is difficult to seperate/differentiate the arguement from the arguer?

WHY IMMORAL?
TRY ANSWERING THESE 3 QUESTIONS BELOW...
(so far no one has even attempted the 3rd one)

If gay marriage is ok, why not make polygamy, incest, or pedophilia, OK?

And all of aforementioned in the name of 'LOVE' will justify them all?

Do the "ends" justify the "means" at any cost?

Are gays really being honest with themselves and others in "coming out of the closet"? Why the need for gay "pride" in the first place decades ago?

Perhaps someone can explain why they want to shame others for their hate or homophobia when they themselves needed to advertise and promote their own "pride" well before anyone knew about gay pride?

ONE LAST POINT/QUESTION.
Doesn't the medical community recommend that you, "Wash your hands after you go to the bathroom."?

Yet, now there are some in the medical community that now say it's OK to "Sleep with the waste that gets flushed down in the toilet?" and that it's possible to live a perfectly normal life.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IF I OPPOSE INCEST, DOES THAT MAKE ME A BIGOT?
To those who say that anti-gay marriage supporters are "bigots", would anyone opposing polygamy, incest or pedophilia also be bigots?

Ahc says

If gay marriage is ok, why not make polygamy, incest, or pedophilia, OK?

There is no reason why polygamy or incest should be illegal, pedophilia though is illegal because a child is deemed to be unable to give their consent while being fully aware of the consequences, so there has to be an age limit to draw the line between legal and illegal, in the case of the US it is 18 where a human being is deemed to have reached adulthood.

Ahc says

If gay marriage is ok, why not make polygamy, incest, or pedophilia, OK?

What mell said. Well, sort of...there is better reasoning (as opposed to gay marriage) as to why polygamy and incest should be illegal (i.e.- actual measurable negative consequences for society and the participants), but it should still probably be legal.

You may want to visit this thread:
http://patrick.net/?p=1218882

Ahc says

And all of aforementioned in the name of 'LOVE' will justify them all?

No.

Ahc says

Do the "ends" justify the "means" at any cost?

No.

Ahc says

Are gays really being honest with themselves and others in "coming out of the closet"?

Yes, well usually...I have heard of those coming out as gay actually turning out to be merely bisexual not full gay.

Ahc says

Why the need for gay "pride" in the first place decades ago?

Because of the treatment and attitude towards gays. It helps gays as a community accept their nature, and lets others know that they exist (more important decades ago).

Ahc says

Perhaps someone can explain why they want to shame others for their hate or homophobia...

Because hate and homophobia leads to an environment where gays are discriminated against, attacked, rejected by family, killed, etc.

Anyway, it is not so much about shaming others as it is about letting other know that gays are also humans who deserve to be treated as such.

Ahc says

...when they themselves needed to advertise and promote their own "pride" well before anyone knew about gay pride?

Answered above.

Ahc says

Doesn't the medical community recommend that you, "Wash your hands after you go to the bathroom."?

Yes.

Ahc says

Yet, now there are some in the medical community that now say it's OK to "Sleep with the waste that gets flushed down in the toilet?" and that it's possible to live a perfectly normal life.

I am not aware of anyone in the medical community who says this.

I am assuming that you are referring to santorum? A couple of points on that:
1. Not all gay couples engage in anal sex.
2. Straight couples also engage in anal sex.
3. Anal sex does not require one to sleep in santorum.

Ahc says

IF I OPPOSE INCEST, DOES THAT MAKE ME A BIGOT?

Perhaps, but then again incest actually has legitimate reasons for opposition. Also, there is a difference between being opposed to something and making it illegal for them to take part in the activities you oppose.

For example, I oppose a majority of christian organizations and though, but I am not trying to make (or should they be) them illegal.

Ahc says

To those who say that anti-gay marriage supporters are "bigots", would anyone opposing polygamy, incest or pedophilia also be bigots?

No (see answer above).

I hope my answers cleared up the issue for you.

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

But before that, my counter-arguments always attack the argument, not the arguer.

would you agree that there are times when the subject matter is such that it is difficult to seperate/differentiate the arguement from the arguer?

Not based on the subject matter, but rather when the debate degrades into a personal grudge match.

Dan8267 says

The only assumption I make is that there are no contradictions in mathematics, and that is exactly what makes the universe intelligible.

That's funny, you give such nice examples. Have you ever heard about the Gilbert program?
It was all about the idea to mathematically prove there are no contradiction in mathematics. You know, it failed, thanks to Goedel.
Since than all classical mathematicians agreed they will just believe mathematics is consistent. The consistency of classical mathematics is a matter of faith. It proved to be very beneficial faith.

There still are some attempts to prove it using several limitations to logic.
I know one (very old) guy who (as he claims) has a proof based on the assumption there are no very large numbers, and the whole world of mathematics is actually finite. I've never found enough time and persistence to read the whole proof, which was at the time I looked at it 600 pages long. I know very small number of math logic specialists who tried to read it and apparently did not find any faults in his proof, but I'm not sure they've read the whole thing either.

BTW, the guy is an atheist, one I honor a lot. I remember an argument he had with another mathematician and philosopher, who became an Orthodox priest. Let's call them A and I, their first name initials (both spent their young years in Soviet labor camps).

I: But you should agree, dear A, it would be horrible would there be nothing above all this (they both agree that the human race is in very bad state).
A: Dear I, it would be even more horrible would there be someone on top of all this. ( = it is so horrible, that assuming there is someone who controls all of it makes it even worse)

The argument goes on forever.

Ahc says

WHY IMMORAL?
TRY ANSWERING THESE 3 QUESTIONS BELOW...
(so far no one has even attempted the 3rd one)

If gay marriage is ok, why not make polygamy, incest, or pedophilia, OK?

And all of aforementioned in the name of 'LOVE' will justify them all?

Do the "ends" justify the "means" at any cost?

If gay marriage is ok, why not make polygamy, incest, or pedophilia, OK?

A bit off topic, since we're discussing the morality of homosexual sex, not the legality of same-sex marriages, but I'll indulge.

Same-sex marriage is analogous to interracial heterosexual marriage. It is not legally similar to polygamy, incest, or pedophilia. But I'll go over all three after explaining why same-sex marriage must be legal in our country.

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, passed on July 28, 1868, states in section 1,

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The highlighted portion of that amendment is called the Equal Protection Clause. This clause basically says that all citizens are equal under law and that the law cannot discriminate against any citizen. This is the single most important principle in our nation, and in fact, in western civilization. Because of the Equal Protection Clause, the 14th Amendment is actually more important than even the First Amendment. It is a more fundamental principle.

In Loving v. Virginia, decided June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the 14th Amendment prohibited any law from preventing an interracial marriage. This case was brought about when a white man, Richard Loving, married a black woman, Mildred Jeter, and the marriage was not recognized by the state of Virginia where interracial marriage, or miscegenation as it was called back then, was illegal and punishable with up to five years in prison.

The couple in question were sentenced to a year imprisonment by a Virginian judge who stated

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Aside from the obvious violation of religious freedom and separation of church and state guaranteed by the First Amendment, the laws prohibiting interracial marriage also violated the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses as stated by the Supreme Court

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

As any literate person can see, the Supreme Court's words apply to same-sex marriage just as much as they do to interracial marriages and for the exact same reasons. One only has to replace the words highlighted in red above as such: "racial" to "gender" and "another race" to "the same sex". The actual analysis is not changed at all. For this reason, the case of Loving vs. Virginia must also mean that discrimination against same-sex marriages are a violation of the 14th Amendment, and that is why same-sex marriage should be legal already.

Continuing from above...

So, what about make polygamy, incest, or pedophilia? First off, the fact that we made interracial marriage legal didn't have anything to do with making polygamy, incest, or pedophilia legal. In fact, the arguments you are making that these three things are equivalent to same-sex marriage or will happen if same-sex marriage is legalized is the exact same arguments that bigots made against interracial marriage. Those arguments were wrong fifty years ago, and they are wrong today for the exact same reasons.

But let's address them one by one anyway. First, polygamy.

Marriage is a contract as far as the state is concerned. Since more than two people can enter a contract, there is no legitimate reason why polygamy should be illegal. Whether or not your church recognizes the marriages is irrelevant. The state has no business outlawing polygamy.

Second, incest. Incest is disgusting to most people, but just because something is disgusting does not mean it should be illegal. Old people having sex is disgusting, but a couple married for 50 years shouldn't be arrested for making love. Put simply, incest and incestual marriages should be legal.

The only somewhat reasonable argument for outlawing incest is to prevent birth defects. However, by that logic, the state could prohibit any person with a genetic disorder from reproducing at all since the disorder could be passed on. Allowing the state to do this would not only violate the 14th Amendment, but would be outright evil.

In fact, one could argue that just about every person alive has some genetic disorder, if the state is allowed to interpret what constitutes a genetic disorder. Anything less than "perfect" genetic code could be considered a genetic disorder. Do you have the rare Apo A-I Milano gene that produces a mutant form of good cholesterol provides significantly better anti-plaque and anti-inflammation benefits than the more common gene? If not, then you have a genetic disorder and the state has the right to prevent you or your descendants from reproducing according to the argument in favor of outlawing incest.

Third, pedophilia. For this discussion, I'm going to define pedophilia as sex between someone over 18 and under 12. I'm not going to argue over 16-year-olds sending naked pictures of themselves to each other or the 16-year-old girl having sex with the 18-year-old guy.

The legal justification for outlawing pedophilia is that a child -- not an adolescent -- is not mentally developed enough to be able to consent to sex with an adult and that the adult would be coercing the child because the power asymmetry is so great, something that doesn't apply to say, two four year olds playing "doctor" and fondling each other.

Naturally, this should be illegal. It prevents adults from taking advantage of children. But this power asymmetry and lack of understanding of relationships clearly does not to consenting adults regardless of whether or not they are of the same gender. Therefore, the justification for laws against pedophilia do not, in any way, justify preventing interracial or same-sex marriages or sex.

And all of aforementioned in the name of 'LOVE' will justify them all?

As I have shown above, it is not "love" that justifies same-sex marriage, but the 14th Amendment and the 1st Amendment as the entire motivation for prohibiting same-sex marriages is religious just like it was for prohibiting interracial marriages.

Do the "ends" justify the "means" at any cost?

Obviously no, and no one has argued that.

Ahc says

Are gays really being honest with themselves and others in "coming out of the closet"? Why the need for gay "pride" in the first place decades ago?

Because of discriminatory laws and the murder of homosexual men.

Ahc says

ONE LAST POINT/QUESTION.
Doesn't the medical community recommend that you, "Wash your hands after you go to the bathroom."?

Yet, now there are some in the medical community that now say it's OK to "Sleep with the waste that gets flushed down in the toilet?" and that it's possible to live a perfectly normal life.

Hey, I find butt-sex icky, too, but that's not an argument to make it illegal. Furthermore, butt-sex and homosexual sex are not the same thing.

1. Homosexual can perform many sexual acts including oral sex.
2. Heterosexuals can just as easily have anal sex.

So even if your argument that butt-sex should be illegal for sanitation reasons were valid, it would be an argument against anal sex whether straight or gay, and not an argument against homosexual sex or marriage.

But it's not a valid argument anyway because of one word: condoms. That makes it sanitary.

Now I personally wouldn't have to have butt-sex even with Scarlett Johansson, but just because I find it appalling doesn't mean it's wrong.

Ahc says

IF I OPPOSE INCEST, DOES THAT MAKE ME A BIGOT?
To those who say that anti-gay marriage supporters are "bigots", would anyone opposing polygamy, incest or pedophilia also be bigots?

Being against polygamy, yes. Pedophilia, no. Incest, well, if you want it to be illegal because it violates your cultural preferences, yes. If the reason is preventing birth defects, no, but as I've shown that's still wrong.

But opposing gay marriage does make you a bigot because you are denying people equality under law and equal rights based solely on your own, arbitrary prejudices. It's no different than calling for an end to interracial marriages.

mell says

There is no reason why polygamy or incest should be illegal, pedophilia though is illegal because a child is deemed to be unable to give their consent while being fully aware of the consequences, so there has to be an age limit to draw the line between legal and illegal, in the case of the US it is 18 where a human being is deemed to have reached adulthood.

leo707 says

What mell said. Well, sort of...there is better reasoning (as opposed to gay marriage) as to why polygamy and incest should be illegal (i.e.- actual measurable negative consequences for society and the participants), but it should still probably be legal.

Glad to see that my line of reasoning isn't unique to me. Hopefully, Ahc will get it.

mell says

in the case of the US it is 18 where a human being is deemed to have reached adulthood.

or if they have a mental defect that hampers the ability of OTHERS to know they made up their minds free of any lack of basic reasoning. The person responsible for the wellbeing of someone lacking basic reasoning abilities makes the call. I submit that any male suffering from the mental condition that makes them desire to mount another male, or any male suffering from a glandular condition that makes them think/feel/act feminine, is also demonstrating a lack of basic reasoning ability, and their actions should be halted and their condition treated, as with any special needs person. We need to end the abuse of these special needs people.

Dan8267 says

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?

Being against Polygamy is extra-biblical. Polygamy abounds in the Old Testament, and is not mentioned in the New. The only thing the NT has to say about marriage is that if you need to abandon your family to follow Jesus, abandon your family; and in the Epistles, it is better not to marry at all, and only marry if there's no way you can keep the rocket in your pocket. In fact it's best to become a eunuch for the sake of Heaven with Marriage as second-best option. One of the weird things about the NT vs. OT is God's sexual attitude flip modes.

The NT has a lot of bizarre bits that are flat out ignored by Christians, not just modern Christians but way the hell back when it became the sole religion of the Roman Empire.

Like that everybody in Heaven is Single or Divorced, because apparently marriages don't last beyond the grave: Luke 20:27-20:40

When was the last time a Preacher or Priest told the congregation that they got divorced the moment they died?

And please, no painful apologetics. Few passages have a plainer meaning than this.

Talking about sex, here's some hard-(on) data:

http://io9.com/5963415/contrary-to-common-belief-female-porn-stars-have-great-self-esteem

is monogamy moral? or natural? or even desirable?

too often, people just seem to accept that because things are the way they are, that is how they should be. It seems to me that this is overtly dependent on the time factor ie. things change over time. As far as i know, there are plenty of laws in the states prohibiting all types of sexual behaviours,,,,,oral sex, anal sex etc.,,,,,good luck enforcing them! For those of you that support using the government as a weapon against your fellow (wo)man and their private actions that don't affect other people, do you ever bother to ask the question, at what cost?

thunderlips11 says

When was the last time a Preacher or Priest told the congregation that they got divorced the moment they died?

you are 100% correct. Marriage ends "at death we do part". One dies, both dies, no different. And this is another area where the Mormons and the Catholics are way way way out in left field with made up crap they pull from their arse.

The Spiritual "you" (or me) that will inhabit Heaven has no sexual componant ... kinda like a blog poster. There is no sex in a text media persona.

And the Angels had no sexual componant with each other, and could only pro-create with earth-bound life. Not saying just "female humans", because I have no reason to believe their sexual interaction was limited to only female humans. The myths of the half-man, half-animal beings could be partly based on the results on angels trying on beasts too. Maybe they have the magic DNA that mixed with everything, and the mix they created with apes is what we are? And the fallen angels that came to earth and had sexual ability could have done some really bizaarr things that may have resulted in some really odd behaviors from man copy-cat activity. Maybe the male/male coupling came directly from those demons activity with humans??

Bap33 says

I submit that any male suffering from the mental condition that makes them desire to mount another male, or any male suffering from a glandular condition that makes them think/feel/act feminine, is also demonstrating a lack of basic reasoning ability, and their actions should be halted and their condition treated, as with any special needs person.

Your submission has been rejected due to utter lack of evidence.

However, my counter-submission stands. Anyone who believes in god shouldn't be allowed to vote. You haven't countered that argument.

rdm says

Dan8267 says

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.

thunderlips11 says

Like that everybody in Heaven is Single or Divorced, because apparently marriages don't last beyond the grave: Luke 20:27-20:40

This is because the people who made up the bullshit about heaven simply couldn't answer an honest question. So, instead, they pussied out as they always do. The question shows one of the many reasons that heaven could not possibly exist.

Joe and Lisa fall deeply in love. They get married and live happily together. One day Lisa is about to be hit by a car and Joe runs and pushes her out of the way, saving her life at the cost of his own. Lisa grieves for many years. A decade later, Lisa and Bob fall in love and get married. They live a few more decades and die. So, what the fuck happens in heaven?

All three of these people are good and go to heaven. But how the hell can heaven be heaven to Joe when his wife is now with another man? The problem is that the conflicts of desire we have as mortals would still exist in a heaven if we were indeed the same person as we are now. The only way to get rid of these conflicts is to take away everything that makes us who we are including love. Yes, love prevents eternal bliss.

Even the ancients understood that eternal bliss was impossible even in theory. The religious leaders simply lied to cover up this fact.

errc says

is monogamy moral? or natural? or even desirable?

Monogamy does occur in nature, but it's a hell of a lot rarer than homosexuality.

Bap33 says

And the Angels had no sexual componant with each other, and could only pro-create with earth-bound life. Not saying just "female humans", because I have no reason to believe their sexual interaction was limited to only female humans. The myths of the half-man, half-animal beings could be partly based on the results on angels trying on beasts too. Maybe they have the magic DNA that mixed with everything, and the mix they created with apes is what we are?

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.

I can only image what religion nonsense you'd spew if a time traveler left a copy of the Twilight novels in ancient Sumeria. You'd probably discuss the history of vegan vampires or some such nonsense.

Look, mythology can be fun, but you have differentiate between it and reality. Otherwise, you'll end up at Comic-Con like these guys, and you don't want to be these guys.

Dan8267 says

errc says

is monogamy moral? or natural? or even desirable?

Monogamy does occur in nature, but it's a hell of a lot rarer than homosexuality.

Tru dat.

errc says

is monogamy moral? or natural? or even desirable?

too often, people just seem to accept that because things are the way they are, that is how they should be. It seems to me that this is overtly dependent on the time factor ie. things change over time. As far as i know, there are plenty of laws in the states prohibiting all types of sexual behaviours,,,,,oral sex, anal sex etc.,,,,,good luck enforcing them! For those of you that support using the government as a weapon against your fellow (wo)man and their private actions that don't affect other people, do you ever bother to ask the question, at what cost?

Fully agree here. I think it's not natural and not normal, but there is strong business pressure to keep up the basic premise of monogamy as desirable and then let people fail. So much money depends on this repeating circle. If people would stop treating each other as possessions and set each other free if necessary (this is true love) then we would not need divorce lawyer sharks, nasty custody trials and more. Throughout my life I have never felt any resentment for ex-gf's and never talked shit about them and have stayed friends with a lot, It just gets harder once you have a family and enter society's marriage circus - or better try to stay out of it. People think it's ok that we can declare anyone as enemy combatant in an instant and then send drones to kill them but if Petraeus sticks his dick into another chick there must be consequences! ;)

Dan8267 says

errc says

is monogamy moral? or natural? or even desirable?

Monogamy does occur in nature, but it's a hell of a lot rarer than homosexuality.

In nature yes, but in humans monogamy is much more common homosexuality.

I think that there is a problem with the thinking that monogamy or *er* non-monogamy is either moral/immoral, natural/unnatural, desirable, etc. Both seem to occur in just about equal parts in humanity, both are natural and both can be approached in either moral or immoral ways.

I feel that it is more important that relationships are consenting, equal (more-or-less) partnerships, where people are honest with each other about their sexuality.

leo707 says

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

Dan8267 says

rdm says

Dan8267 says

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".

Dan8267 says

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.

michaelsch says

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.

michaelsch says

2. You say it's yours, so you should have a way to communicate to it at any given moment.

WTF?

michaelsch says

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.

michaelsch says

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.

michaelsch says

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.

michaelsch says

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.

hey Dan, check out your thread count!! lol. (this will not be very funny in a short while!)

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.

Dan8267 says

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.

Dan8267 says

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"

Dan8267 says

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.

Dan8267 says

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.

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)

"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."

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?