How would one eliminate fundamentalism?

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2002-11-20 08:21pm

Don't count on it, Data_link; my Sky Pixie has just informed me that Jon will be unable to answer your points, and is wrong by default.

Of course, if Jon would rather debate the Total Objectivity of the Sky Pixie, he's free to do so, but considering she's a being who has more power than God (by default), and can make him not exist, if she so chooses, he is going to loose by default.

She is Totally Pure Objectivity, and God is not! I have seen the sky Pixie; she defines right and wrong with a single thought! I KNOW the Sky Pixie, and you do not know God, because she says so! REFUTE THAT, ALTAR BOY!!!

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-20 08:32pm

Darth Utsanomiko wrote:Don't count on it, Data_link; my Sky Pixie has just informed me that Jon will be unable to answer your points, and is wrong by default.

Of course, if Jon would rather debate the Total Objectivity of the Sky Pixie, he's free to do so, but considering she's a being who has more power than God (by default), and can make him not exist, if she so chooses, he is going to loose by default.

She is Totally Pure Objectivity, and God is not! I have seen the sky Pixie; she defines right and wrong with a single thought! I KNOW the Sky Pixie, and you do not know God, because she says so! REFUTE THAT, ALTAR BOY!!!

What are you talking about? Know ye not that nothing exists without the blessing of the Blue Pegasus? Your sky pixie holds not the blessing of the Blue Pegasus, and so you are wrong, by default.

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2002-11-20 08:45pm

Don't think so. Sky Pixie's power is to make everything that goes against her wrong, by default. Blue Pegasus does not exist. Unless you want to start a Jihad over it, you lose, hatfucker.

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-20 08:52pm

Darth Utsanomiko wrote:Don't think so. Sky Pixie's power is to make everything that goes against her wrong, by default. Blue Pegasus does not exist. Unless you want to start a Jihad over it, you lose, hatfucker.

Blue Pegaus exists, for it was by her that everything that was made was made. Blue Pegasus sees no need for a Jihad, because she has not blessed your Sky Pixie, and so you lose by default.

P.S. - I do not fuck hats. I fuck women.

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2002-11-20 09:02pm

data_link wrote:Blue Pegaus exists, for it was by her that everything that was made was made. Blue Pegasus sees no need for a Jihad, because she has not blessed your Sky Pixie, and so you lose by default.

P.S. - I do not fuck hats. I fuck women.

Sky Pixie has made your Blue Pegasus non-existant from sinse the beginning of time. Stop referring to non-existant entities. The Sky Pixie created everything, as she is the only being powerful enough to do it (and the most powerful, by default). You have failed to address her ominpotence, you lose. You might be able to deal with fundementalists, but you cannot argue against the truth of Pure Objectivity. You're a pathetic debator.

P.S. - No, no you don't fuck women. Don't lie to The Sky Pixie; you have only fucked hats. Hats and socks.

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-20 09:09pm

Sky Pixie has made your Blue Pegasus non-existant from sinse the beginning of time. Stop referring to non-existant entities. The Sky Pixie created everything, as she is the only being powerful enough to do it (and the most powerful, by default). You have failed to address her ominpotence, you lose. You might be able to deal with fundementalists, but you cannot argue against the truth of Pure Objectivity. You're a pathetic debator.

Blue Pegasus has been around since well before the beginning of time, and she makes your sky pixie non-existant by default. You have failed to adress Blue Pegasus's omnipotence, you lose. You might be able to deal with fundies, but you cannot deal with the truth of objectivity. You're a pathetic debater, and your spelling is even worse.

P.S. - No, no you don't fuck women. Don't lie to The Sky Pixie; you have only fucked hats. Hats and socks.

Stop talking about yourself.

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-11-20 11:49pm

His lame invocation of the 'free will defense' was especially enteraining. According to him, God allowed Herod to slaughter the children of Bethlehem, because he gives us free will- but ignores that God warned the not-so-wise men not to RETURN to Herod (thus initiating the slaughter- Herod was quite insulted), but didn't stop them from going there IN THE FIRST PLACE. There's an omniscient being for you- I take it the lives of the Three Stupid Men were worth more to God than the male toddlers of Bethlehem.

Smart. Good thing the whole thing is a made up dangerous child myth.

Of course, he didn't respond to this. Or anything else for that matter.

PS- The Inivisible Pink Unicorn OWNZZZZZZZ all your deities!!!

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-21 12:18am

The "Free Will" defense fails on a number of levels.

If God is omniscient, then he is 100% certain if someone is going to do something evil. That means that he possesses advanced knowledge of every single evil-doing that will ever occur, and he sits on his ass and allows it to happen. Would you find it acceptable if the FBI and CIA were given exact dates, times and names with irrefutable evidence regarding the events of September 11th, but just sat by and said, "Well, it's their free will..."?

In other words, God has the power to destroy evil, but he doesn't. That makes him malevolent and passively supportive of evil.

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-11-21 07:42am

*watches with glee as fundie heads explode from durandal's withering array of common sense*

Actually, a few months ago I posted a link to a very extensive criticism of the "free will defense" .... great stuff.

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2002-11-21 11:52am

data_link basically wrote:

Yeah, well you, too! I wanted to think of it first, waaaaahhh!!!

Cute, real cute. Maybe some day, once you actually can pull off devil's advocate decently, you'll come up with some of your own arguments.

Have a fucking nice day, Snookums.

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2002-11-21 12:02pm

Durandal wrote:The "Free Will" defense fails on a number of levels.

If God is omniscient, then he is 100% certain if someone is going to do something evil. That means that he possesses advanced knowledge of every single evil-doing that will ever occur, and he sits on his ass and allows it to happen. Would you find it acceptable if the FBI and CIA were given exact dates, times and names with irrefutable evidence regarding the events of September 11th, but just sat by and said, "Well, it's their free will..."?

In other words, God has the power to destroy evil, but he doesn't. That makes him malevolent and passively supportive of evil.

Not to mention that God is supposedly the one who put everything into existence. He could've created the world to be any other way, but he choose it to be filled with evil and people who betray him. Hell, an all-knowing, omnipoent being has no purpose of creation, as it technically should serve some central purpose, which isn't necessary for a supposedly perfect being. I tried to argue this point to my Philosophy teacher, but he's pretty set on having a distinction between 'creating freewill and knowing the results' and freewill being significant in that kind of perspective.

Damn, and I need to write an 8-10 page paper about God's non-existence by the 4th for that class. If only I knew beforehand that philosophy was a bunch of unscientific circumstantial 'what if' arguments, with no basis on observation whatsoever...

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-21 12:11pm

Not to mention that God is supposedly the one who put everything into existence. He could've created the world to be any other way, but he choose it to be filled with evil and people who betray him. Hell, an all-knowing, omnipoent being has no purpose of creation, as it technically should serve some central purpose, which isn't necessary for a supposedly perfect being. I tried to argue this point to my Philosophy teacher, but he's pretty set on having a distinction between 'creating freewill and knowing the results' and freewill being significant in that kind of perspective.

Then your philosophy teacher's an idiot. If you have the means and knowledge to prevent evil but don't, you're evil. End of story. Your philosophy teacher is probably drawing a false analogy between an Orwellian state which arrests people before they commit crimes and a god who disallows for evil. The difference is that there is always going to be uncertainty in any kind of human implementation of an Orwellian state because there are simply too many variables to predict human behavior with a degree of accuracy that could be applied as a morally acceptable policing method. God, on the other hand, knows with absolute certainty what is going to happen.

Damn, and I need to write an 8-10 page paper about God's non-existence by the 4th for that class. If only I knew beforehand that philosophy was a bunch of unscientific circumstantial 'what if' arguments, with no basis on observation whatsoever...

What, you thought philosophy had observational basis? Philosophy is simply mental masturbation without climaxing. Didn't your philosophy teacher tell you that?

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2002-11-21 12:28pm

Yeah, he at least said that 90% of philosophy goes nowhere.

The thing was, I used a simple analogy to make my point about freewill, but I think he wanted to see it differently: Theoretically, if I built a simple robot that would roll foward and bump into a wall, and I programmed it to have a 50/50 chance of turinging left or right, it would pick one direction, and continue from there. But if I were omnisentient (sp?), I would already know which way it would turn before I even built it. He tried to say that while I knew it's result, I still didn't have direct control over which one it chose by 50/50 chance. I tried to point out the fact that God's supposed to be all-powerful, and if he saw the results beforehand, he could create it differently. He mentioned something about 'time before creation' not existing, so God first of all couldn't see the result untill 'after' he created it. I'm not sure I formed my rebuttals properly, as he was still certain that the 50/50 cance of 'freewill' still counted.

I think I make the most arguments in my class (only 5-7 people out of approx. 25 talk more than once a week), especically if you don't count nit-picks like "but what if the robot had a 40/60 chance of turning?" as points (Yes, some of them are this anal. Alot of them seem to think that the specifics of an analogy are more important than the premises or the conclusion).

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-21 12:36pm

The thing was, I used a simple analogy to make my point about freewill, but I think he wanted to see it differently: Theoretically, if I built a simple robot that would roll foward and bump into a wall, and I programmed it to have a 50/50 chance of turinging left or right, it would pick one direction, and continue from there. But if I were omnisentient (sp?), I would already know which way it would turn before I even built it. He tried to say that while I knew it's result, I still didn't have direct control over which one it chose by 50/50 chance.

Of course you don't have control, but the robot is predestined to turn one way or the other according to you. Since you're omniscient, you're the measuring bar for destiny. If there's no being in the universe that is omniscient, then no one is predestined to do anything.

I tried to point out the fact that God's supposed to be all-powerful, and if he saw the results beforehand, he could create it differently. He mentioned something about 'time before creation' not existing, so God first of all couldn't see the result untill 'after' he created it. I'm not sure I formed my rebuttals properly, as he was still certain that the 50/50 cance of 'freewill' still counted.

Time did not exist until directly after the big bang occurred. However, assuming omniscience on God's part negates that. He's assuming that God needs to conform to our dimensional perceptions. When you're talking about the existence of fictional, all-knowing entities, such an assumption is worthless. God himself is predestined to do whatever it is he does, since he knows what he is going to do.

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » 2002-11-21 12:39pm

data_link wrote:Wow. Jonathan has now ignored THREE outstanding posts of mine. I guess I must be better at refuting fundies than even Lord Wong. BTW Jonathan, this is an ultimatum: ANSWER MY POSTS OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!

As I have repeatedly said, I'm very busy and don't have time to answer every post. Please bear in mind that there are a dozen of you and one of me. Quite frankly, I don't care about your ultimatums. If I find the time, I'll reply; if I don't, I won't.

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2002-11-21 01:15pm

Didn't Jon say he was going to post 10 pages of circumstantial evidence that supports a literal biblical interpretation? I've got a bad feeling about this, and it reminds me of a big pile that festers for days and takes too long to shovel up to want to bother with it, and it smells like a cross between manure and red fish.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2002-11-21 04:09pm

Jonathan wrote:
data_link wrote:Wow. Jonathan has now ignored THREE outstanding posts of mine. I guess I must be better at refuting fundies than even Lord Wong. BTW Jonathan, this is an ultimatum: ANSWER MY POSTS OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!
As I have repeatedly said, I'm very busy and don't have time to answer every post. Please bear in mind that there are a dozen of you and one of me. Quite frankly, I don't care about your ultimatums. If I find the time, I'll reply; if I don't, I won't.

Yet he clearly has time to check this forum. He clearly has time to read all sorts of creationist nonsense.

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-21 09:24pm

Darth Utsanomiko basically wrote:Um... I couldn't think of a rebuttal to Data_link's argument, so I'll post a really ugly picture here instead.

So you ADMIT the existance of Blue Pegasus, and she wins, by default.

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-21 09:29pm

Jonathan wrote:
data_link wrote:Wow. Jonathan has now ignored THREE outstanding posts of mine. I guess I must be better at refuting fundies than even Lord Wong. BTW Jonathan, this is an ultimatum: ANSWER MY POSTS OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!
As I have repeatedly said, I'm very busy and don't have time to answer every post. Please bear in mind that there are a dozen of you and one of me. Quite frankly, I don't care about your ultimatums. If I find the time, I'll reply; if I don't, I won't.

Yet amazingly, you found time to both check this form regularly and respond to everyone else's points. You aren't fooling anyone Jonathan, the only reason you've failed to respond is because you KNOW you can't win. Now either concede defeat or STFU.

P.S. Vympel - The IPU and Blue Pegasus are actually the same person. I thought you knew that.

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-11-21 09:52pm

data_link wrote:
P.S. Vympel - The IPU and Blue Pegasus are actually the same person. I thought you knew that.

HERETIC!!! How can a pink unicorn be the same as a blue flying horse!!!

Post by **Coyote** » 2002-11-24 01:37am

I hope no one minds, I want to keep the thread active 'cause I want to see Jonathan come back and continue the joust.

'Course, while I realize he's busy (hey, my life sucks too sometimes) there also has to be a reasonable amount of delay unless we chalk it up to...

...concession by "abandonment of the field to superior forces".

C'mon, dude. It's your Dunkirk.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2002-11-24 02:41am

I think we all know he's not going to respond to any points. Hell, even if he actually posts something, he'll simply ignore all the key points and repeat his bizarre claim that his religious beliefs are objective.

I have noticed that this is an increasingly popular creationist/fundie moron tactic: to claim that their beliefs are objective. The sheer audacity of it almost beggars the imagination. I already had one idiot E-mailing me to say that Christian morality is "objective" while all other forms are not, and Jonathan was basically saying the same thing.

It would appear that the Creationist Collective has latched onto a new way to abuse terminology, and all of its drones are mindlessly lurching forth onto the Internet in search of victims upon which to use this new assimilation technique.

Post by **Coyote** » 2002-11-24 03:30am

Ever since the "Great Watchmaker/Intelligent Design" craze took off like a rocket, the Creationists have fallen all over themselves with congratulatory remarks about how "mature" and "scientific" they've become. They would be easy to rip if we could get under the Wall O' Ignorance armor.

This is a disturbance in the Force, to borrow a phrase; the masking of Creationism with 'science' will lead to an easy acceptance of voodoo science for the fence-sitters.

We need some good, immediately challenging questions to hit them with; gauntlets to drop that they cannot ignore and will allow us to reel them into a debate. I'll try to get ahold of that Intelligent Design book my friend Erin got from those Jehova's Witnesses and see what might be a good spot to exploit that they can't ignore...

Some website scouts would be good, too....laters....

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-24 04:13am

We need some good, immediately challenging questions to hit them with; gauntlets to drop that they cannot ignore and will allow us to reel them into a debate. I'll try to get ahold of that Intelligent Design book my friend Erin got from those Jehova's Witnesses and see what might be a good spot to exploit that they can't ignore...

They'll ignore anything. I tried convincing an entire board of education that intelligent design "theory" was complete, utter and total bullshit, and they decided on the political compromise instead.

The whole intelligent design stance is based on appeals to ignorance and irreduceable complexity, two very well-defined logical fallacies. Why do you think no scientist has ever published a paper in a journal detailing intelligent design? They can't! It makes no predictions, adds unnecessary terms, and it completely useless from a scientific standpoint.

Yes, the universe is very aesthetically pleasing to look at and ponder, but the kind of "wonder and awe" shit intelligent design proponents subscribe to is not anything even resembling critical reason. It's just making excuses for clearly irrational beliefs.

Newtonian Fury · Post by **Newtonian Fury** » 2002-11-24 02:44pm

Last night I engaged in debate with a friend of mine. While he is normally rational and liberal, his arguments last night took a turn into the irrational fundamentalism. Note that the arguments are paraphrased

Me : The Biblical God is evil. His actions prove his evil.
Him : You can't judge God.

Me : Why not? Morality compels me to judge.
Him : Man's morality. Morality doesn't not apply to God.

Me : Thus, God is amoral. Without morality, he is nothing more than a corrupt maniac.
Him : It's his will. He defines morality. Man does not truly comprehend his benevolence.

Me : Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Without morality, God's corruption is more absolute and vile than the corruption of any human.
Him : Abosolute power corrupts Man absolutely. God doesn't not fall into this category.

Etc... Etc...

On God's actions:

Me : The Biblical God commands Israelis(not the current ones) to invade and kill.
Him : But it was the will of God. Therefore they should do it.
Me : So kicking out the people who were already there is ok?
Him : Yeah. The people who were already there were wicked.

Me : And this means death and destruction is ok for non-believers.
Him : It was the will of God.

Etc... Etc...

On why it's ok for God to favor one people than the other. Here's a very bad analogy:

Him: Say you have two pet mice. One of them is good while the other one spits on you. So you reward the good one with a treat. But then you find out that the bad mouse is helping itself to the treat. What do you do?
Me : This only shows that God is all for obedience, not for good. He is too insecure to rule.

Etc... Etc...
The debate lasted for hours over IM. He actually said, among other things, that Hitler was not a Christian; that if the Israelis had done what God told them to(kill all Muslims in the ancient times), then there would be no Crusades or 9/11 attack; that God defines morality; and the afterlife is a battle between the forces of Good and Evil. Man, I never knew this side of him!

Fundamentalism is a blight on society. But people need to know that the fundamentalist attitude is inherent in almost all reglious people. Some may choose to be more tolerant than others(normally), but a sliver of this evil still plagues their minds, just waiting for a time to come out.