patrick.net

michaelsch says

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.

michaelsch says

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.

michaelsch says

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.

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.

michaelsch says

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.

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.

michaelsch says

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.

Bap33 says

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.

Peter P says

But if reality is objective, He exists beyond our conception. Hmm..

Why he instead of them? That's a pretty damn big assumption.

curious2 says

Bap69, your unhealthy obsession

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-w21eCrF86rA/T9eOmH9tvrI/AAAAAAAAA68/Lc4lI7Ro-fE/s1600/Sem+T%C3%ADtulo-1+c%C3%B3pia.jpg

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.

Dan8267 says

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.

Dan8267 says

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?

Dan8267 says

Peter P says

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?

Bap33 says

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html
next.

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 invited American Psychiatric Association to fact-check this discussion.

Invite another expert to fact-check this discussion.

If only bigoted people call you bigoted and doctors don't, you're probably not bigoted.

Dan8267 invited N.E. Whitehead to fact-check this discussion.

Invite another expert to fact-check this discussion.

Bap33 says

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.

Dan8267 says

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?

Dan8267 says

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"?

Homosexuality is not a mental disorder. It is a lifestyle choice. And for that we should celebrate its existence.

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

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?

http://tinyurl.com/cle5cuv

There is really no mental superiority. There is only one will over another.

Bap33 says

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?

In your case Bap, the former is called Fred Phelps. The latter is called Bap, as in you got screwed by Fred Phelps. He has made a fortune off your pain, and left you with only self-loathing. But, as in many abusive relationships, you continue to take his side. He's got you believing that you can't find a better man.

Peter P says

Homosexuality is not a mental disorder. It is a lifestyle choice. And for that we should celebrate its existence.

"Mental disorder" might not be the best description, in my opinion. I submit that the unnatural behavior of the masculine male/male sodomite indicates a birth defect on the same level as any other maniacal defect. I also submit that the behavior of the feminine male/male sodomite indicates a glandular birth defect. The former may only be a perverted mind expressing a dominance just short of forced rape. That may be tuff to treat. The latter is obviously suffering from a mis-firing hormone that can be treated. I suggest birth defect may be a better expression, and we should save these people from being abused, just as we save Downs people from being abused.

Dan,
that page didn't load. I figued you would have a short hand answer. I was not making any type of arugement about that issues. Just asking a question that I think helps shape the point.

Bap33 says

I submit....

Yes, or at least you keep trying to.

Bap33 says

we should save these people from being abused

Now you're asking for a government bailout? We keep telling you, just put some lube in first and make sure he wears a condom.

Peter P says

There is really no mental superiority. There is only one will over another.

correct you are. From whence, or upon what, is "will" normally hinged?

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

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"?

The only peer review of his work that I could find was http://publicaddress.net/hardnews/counting/

Dr Whitehead's claims about the potential impact of the Civil Unions Bill can, quite fairly and with due respect for the passion of his convictions, be rejected. His argument is flawed. His "research method" seems little more sophisticated than joining dots on a two-dimensional plane. He superficially connects observations from some published studies of genetic and environmental factors in human sexuality and mental health. The pattern that emerges is a distorted caricature of existing knowledge that lacks depth and complexity. It adds nothing to serious, informed debate about the nature of homosexuality or the ways in which a civil society should formulate law.

The essential problem is that Dr Whitehead's research is quasi-science. He has strayed far beyond his field of expertise. His training and professional experience, and his publications in academic journals, are almost entirely in geological and nuclear science. I conducted an exhaustive search of his research papers listed by Thompson ISI Web of Science (the international standard search tool for scientific information). Although Dr Whitehead claims he has researched the field of sexuality for 13 years, this effort has been entirely unproductive. My search revealed no empirical study of human sexuality and indeed no systematic review on the topic that has been accepted by internationally recognised, peer-reviewed journals. His three books are populist and are not published by mainstream academic publishers that require scientific review. Thus, they are not regarded as serious works in the field of human sexuality.

Bap33 says

I submit that the unnatural behavior of the masculine male/male sodomite indicates a birth defect on the same level as any other maniacal defect.

Examples of unnatural behavior common in human beings... You know, shit that other animals don't do and that our Stone Age ancestors didn't either.

- Skydiving
- Flying in giant metal machines
- Boating
- Shooting guns (there's fucking nothing less natural than a gun)
- holding court
- Congress (ok, bad example, that is deviant behavior)
- surgery
- marriage (including the heterosexual type)
- imprisonment (oh, wait, I already mentioned marriage)
- driving
- NASCAR
- writing
- maintaining a police force

So, how exactly is unnatural behavior evil?

Examples of natural behavior in human beings... You know, shit that other animals do and our Stone Age ancestors actually did.

- Shitting on the ground
- Rape
- War
- Flinging poo
- Murder
- Neglecting babies until they die of starvation
- Running around naked

So, how exactly is natural behavior good? Bap, weren't you the guy who complained about humans acting like animals? That's natural behavior. Law and order are unnatural.

Bap33 says

elliemae says

Maybe if I tattooed the info on my breasts & jumped up & down wearing a barely-there bra?

proof that I am not gay!

LOL - Elliemae's joke, in a thread about ObamaCare that Bap69 had not even commented in, doesn't prove anything about Bap, but his reply proves that he's desperately grabbing any shred of hope to deny what he refuses to accept he really is. Reasons why people want to believe in a god include the fact that they refuse to accept their own mortality, and in Bap's case his own sexuality. In both instances, obsessive fervor reflects desperation, not objective belief.

Dan8267 says

michaelsch says

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.

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.

OK, now it's Wikipedia's fault. A real source is Dan's invention, is it?

I can give you other links, like to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective, but it saems useless, you are not interested in objective definitions.

Let's concentrate on your private definition of your "objective" morality. After all you've used this word, therefore you should have a right to define it the way you want, correct?

Dan8267 says

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.

You speak about moral code, i.e. about a codified morality. What makes you thinking such an "objective" code even exists? Could you please come up with an example of such a code? AFAIK, all moral codes that existed in human history were "subjective".

Do you think a complete moral code may be even theoretically formulated?
BTW, do you understand that such an assumption contradicts Gödel's incompleteness theorems?

Or maybe you think there is an ideal "objective" moral code common to all, which can't be completely formulated? In this case how is it different from an objectively existing morality, to which Christians believe, a man may communicate by the Grace of the Holy Spirit?

Dan, you keep juggling terms and definitions, but it does not make your position consistent.

Dan8267 says

You can call my writings bullshit all you want. Most people understand what I say and don't misinterpret them as you do.

I called bullshit those of your writing, in which You do not understand what you say and misinterpret them afterwards.

Unfortunately in some cases I abused this word trying to parodize your style, for these I apologize.

I had hoped this thread would go away but a certain user with a hunky avatar kept bringing it back when it dropped off the front page. Now it's back due to the debate about moral systems, and if I may summarize both Dan and Michael make good points.

The Best Comparisons award goes to Dan for saying moral systems are like bridges, where many different designs all depend on the same principles of engineering. A badly designed bridge may collapse suddenly, while a well designed bridge has a much better chance of enduring. A sound moral system should, in fact, be fair to all participants, like cutting a pie into pieces where the person who cuts is the last to choose his own slice.

Yet as Michael pointed out, empirical observation shows moral codes tend to be subjective.

I like the combination of these two ideas because it provides a valid tool to compare different systems of morality. For example, we can observe that the Islamic/Islamist world has a system of morality that is inherently unfair to many or most of the people who live there, and it produces volatility, and they have paid a terrible price in productivity. The entire GDP of the entire Muslim world, more than 1 billion people, adds up to around the GDP of Spain. If we evaluate moral systems like bridge designs, we may see ways to optimize existing systems of morality in ways that might improve fairness and stability and productivity, resulting in a healthier system with more successful results.

BTW, Wikipedia is never a source in itself, by its own admission. Rather, it is a place to look for sources. The text of articles can be changed by anyone, and should be considered mainly as a loose narrative presenting the source links. Citing Wikipedia is like chasing the wind, but you can use Wikipedia to retrieve sources in the same way sailors use the wind to bring back fish.

michaelsch says

I can give you other links, like to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective, but it saems useless, you are not interested in objective definitions.

From that site,

3a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

Exactly what I meant. Not hard to understand.

michaelsch says

OK, now it's Wikipedia's fault

Only a fool believes what he reads on Wikipedia. I quote peer-reviewed journals and site real scientific experiments. I've discussed in many other threads why Wikipedia is full of misinformation and why it should not be trusted. Just because every idiot thinks he looks smart by quoting Wikipedia, doesn't make him smart.

Remember when you were in high school or even junior high and the teacher told you not to be lazy and use an encyclopedia for research but rather to get your ass to the library? Well, that applies a thousand more times to Wikipedia since it's so damn untrustworthy. And if you can't Goggle why Wikipedia is untrustworthy, than you are too dumb to accept that fact so there's no point in discussing the issue. I would not have to persuade anyone with even half a brain that Wikipedia is propaganda.

michaelsch says

You speak about moral code, i.e. about a codified morality. What makes you thinking such an "objective" code even exists?

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17150/17150-h/17150-h.htm

michaelsch says

Do you think a complete moral code may be even theoretically formulated?

Irrelevant. Moral systems like any software could be constructed and refined with continuous integration. This is how complex systems are typically developed today. Whether or not the software ever reaches a "final, complete" stage is irrelevant. Construction of the system is still done the exact same way, through iterative refinement.

michaelsch says

BTW, do you understand that such an assumption contradicts Gödel's incompleteness theorems?

No, it doesn't. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem relates to the provability of statements in Number Theory. Nor does generalizing this theorem imply that a system cannot be proven correct or consistent from an outside observer. Please note that I have actually studied this shit in depth and was tested on this subject matter in detail during both undergraduate and graduate studies. I have taken a course in Number Theory and another course in Computing Theory as well as other related courses. I guarantee you that I understand the works of Gödel's and Turing a hell of a lot more than a non-professional who skimmed over a Wikipedia page. Your rank amateur misunderstanding of Gödel's and Turing isn't going to impress me. Build a complete, working computer from the gate level up, as I have done, and then we can talk.

It's really sad when people outside of a field think they are more expert in it than a person who has spent tens of thousands of hours studying and working in that field. It takes an enormous amount of time and effort to become a true expert in any field.

michaelsch says

n this case how is it different from an objectively existing morality, to which Christians believe, a man may communicate by the Grace of the Holy Spirit?

Jesus Christ! First you want to limit statements regarding morality on Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem and now you want to invoke a supernatural basis for morality. Which is it? You can't have both.

The Christian god cannot even exist as I have formally proved in this thread. [Note: Seems like the comments were deleted or some bug in site.] Basing morality on superstition is stupid. If you don't understand why, then just try basing your morality on someone else's superstition like Islam's. When you understand why you don't accept their myths as a basis for morality, you'll understand why I don't accept your myths as a basis for morality.

curious2 says

Now it's back due to the debate about moral systems, and if I may summarize both Dan and Michael make good points.

Yes, and we should get the thread back on track. If michaelsch wants to debate the existence of god or the nature/origins of morality in general, then open a new thread. This thread deals specifically with whether or not gay sex is immoral. And so far, each of the few arguments for considering gay sex to be immoral have been proven logically flawed and contradictory.

curious2 says

BTW, Wikipedia is never a source in itself, by its own admission. Rather, it is a place to look for sources. The text of articles can be changed by anyone, and should be considered mainly as a loose narrative presenting the source links. Citing Wikipedia is like chasing the wind, but you can use Wikipedia to retrieve sources in the same way sailors use the wind to bring back fish.

Whenever I point out how god-awful Wikipedia is in distributing information -- it's worst than Fox News -- someone always tries to mitigate the awfulness by suggesting that Wikipedia could be a starting point for research. Unfortunately, the biases and manipulation of Wikipedia articles makes it counterproductive to use it even as a starting point for looking up references. This is because the people that hijack articles will always point you towards material that supports their agenda and away from material that contradicts their agenda.

You are far better off just using a Google search and skipping over the Wikipedia entries and anything that scraps Wikipedia. Sure, Google searches do have biases built into them, but at least those biases are based on what Google thinks you want rather than some nefarious secret agenda. For example, an article on a product may direct you to research that shows the product is safe and healthy and any attempts to add references to studies that show it is not safe will be removed as not NPOV. You can't trust Wikipedia on any subject that involves politics, history, products, companies, profits, religion, or social agendas, i.e, anything that someone might have a vested interest in. If Wikipedia had been around in the early 1940s, all references to the Holocaust would be reverted as not NPOV.

Dan8267 says

You are far better off just using a Google search and skipping over the Wikipedia entries and anything that scraps Wikipedia.

In research as in morality, objectivity can be elusive. Your valid criticisms of Wikipedia provide perspective but don't entirely endorse Google either. Companies including PR agencies make $$$ in fields like Search Engine Optimization (SEO), getting their clients' names and products and POV to the top of the search ranks including especially Google News. For example, PhRMA has become relentless and adroit in manipulating both commercial news coverage (including the sources aggregated by Google News) and Wikipedia, and even peer-reviewed scientific publications. Memeplexes have a physics all their own, and a Matrix of falsehoods can perpetuate itself if it is sufficiently lucrative.

Newsweek: "Why Almost Everything You Hear About Medicine Is Wrong"

Vanity Fair: "Deadly Medicine"

Nevertheless, back to the OP, I don't think there are any objective arguments to support the claim. Empirically, subjective morality memeplexes have tended to evolve and spread by the sword. We can look at a bridge design and see how it could be improved, in the same way that we can look at a turtle and say it would be a better design if it could move faster, but a turtle isn't a design at all, and it isn't capable of re-designing itself. There may be some faint hope that the Internet might help humans to achieve a level of self-awareness and cooperation that might ultimately lead to better designs of moral systems, but the ones we have now are mostly inherited with all the accidents of history and vestigial tails that entails.

curious2 says

Companies including PR agencies make $$$ in fields like Search Engine Optimization (SEO), getting their clients' names and products and POV to the top of the search ranks including especially Google

True, and there are other problems with Google Search. Since it tries to anticipate what the user wants based on location and other user profile information, a person in a red state will get different results from a person in a blue state on political issues.

However, this bias is not the result of nefarious human intent, but rather due to rating the popularity of clicks. Thus, it's much less harmful than a corporation or government agency secretively hijacking a Wikipedia article.

Dan8267 says

a person in a red state will get different results from a person in a blue state on political issues.

However, this bias is not the result of nefarious human intent, but rather due to rating the popularity of clicks. Thus, it's much less harmful than...

I agreed with your entire comment up to "less harmful." I think the deepening political silo effect may increase the risk of catastrophic political failure. Credible arguments have blamed Faux News for Republicans' failure to produce a viable candidate and platform in 2012: Faux News viewers live in a parallel world, and drive Republican primaries to nominate utterly unacceptable candidates with fundamentally unreal policies. Google's fairly recent decision to customize search results, supposedly for benign reasons, may prove at least as dangerous as the other hazards you mentioned.

curious2 says

Google's fairly recent decision to customize search results, supposedly for benign reasons, may prove at least as dangerous as the other hazards you mentioned.

Maybe, but I'll take chaos over structured evil any day. Organized, deliberate evil has a tendency to self-reinforce. Unintentional evil has a tendency to cancel itself out.

Ya'll still kicking this can?
Pun intended.

CaptainShuddup says

Ya'll still kicking this can?

Pun intended.

Still waiting for an answer to the question. The very few I've received have easily been shown to imply other things are immoral that neither the submitter nor anyone else would accept as being immoral.

Such as, no one has actually submitted a reason that gay sex is immoral that doesn't contract the submitter's own beliefs and the beliefs of 99+% of people.

You'd think this question would be easy to answer if gay sex were all that bad. It's not like it's hard to justify why rape, murder, robbery, or even name calling is immoral. If something's immoral, it should be easy to explain why. It's not rocket science.

No you want an answer to why does eating Lemons, make you make a sour face.

CaptainShuddup says

No you want an answer to why does eating Lemons, make you make a sour face.

And that statement makes sense in what universe?

CaptainShuddup says

why does eating Lemons, make you make a sour face.

I like lemons, but Captain Tonya Harding Shuddup seems to think they're immoral. I'm guessing that his daughters, whom he doesn't want to wear marriage equality T-shirts, are also banned from having a lemonade stand. It seems like he makes a sour face a lot.

Perhaps it has less to with moral issue, and more to do with no body likes a petty measly prick. I mean who doesn't root for them to lose?

Their spokes people seem to be Dicks. No pun intended.