551. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146825 by Mitchell Gilks on March 19, 2008 at 1:15 pm

That is the naturalistic fallacy al-rawandi.
Something need not have an evolutionary advantage to be morally acceptable, and it need not be morally acceptable if it has an evolutionary advantage.

It also assumes that something that holds evolutionary advantage, doesn't start as an aberration

552. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146822 by Mitchell Gilks on March 19, 2008 at 1:10 pm

Thanks, I also love my avatar. I'm a huge fan of yuri/shoujo-ai anime and manga (which is anime and manga that either focuses on, or involves romantic relationships between women).

These two are a fanart depiction of Natsuki (blue hair) and Shizuru (brown hair) from Mai Hime, and the sequal My Otome, they also appear in the OVA My Otome Zwei.

Though the series isn't about them, they are just side characters, and their relationship is not hugely touched on, only a couple episodes in each series focuses on it.

If you were going to watch some, I would suggest more yuri focused anime like "Kannazuki No Miko" (preistises of the godless month) "Strawberry panic," "Simoun," and "Revolutionary Girl Utena". Those are my favorites anyway. There are also several that I really like that involve romantic relationships between women, but it isn't central to the story, like "Mai Hime".

This is the short answer one receives for mentioning my avatar...so avoid asking me about anything, lol.

553. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146814 by Mitchell Gilks on March 19, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Rachel, I for one applaud your needed, and important service to the world. Even if it doesn't seem to have a huge effect, I just think that these things need to be pounded away. Because you are right, and they are wrong, with time, and effort, I am confident that it will make a huge difference.

These issues need to be pushed and fought, until these lunatics are isolated in the fringe of society, where they can only yell from the outscurts of a civil society.

554. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146811 by Mitchell Gilks on March 19, 2008 at 12:46 pm

Thomas 114:
Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the domain of Heaven."

What!? No women in heaven either? Why does anyone want to go there? From what I understand there is absolutely nothing good about heaven, what is eternal life if there is nothing to do?

Incidentally, the "hate the sin, love the sinner" schtick is crap. For a start, homosexuality isn't about what you do, it's about who you are. Moreover, it goes to a pretty central part of being human - the desire to love and be loved, and to experience intimacy with another human being.

This is so very true. They don't seem to realize that sex serves more of a purpose than merely reproduction (which thanks to science can now be achieved for two women, if I understand it right. They can fabricate sythetic sperm from bone marrow) but serves as a bonding experience. It is about love and intimacy. Sex isn't enough the most intimate part of a relationship (at least not for me it isn't). Though it is arguably the most fun part.

For people that constantly talk about love, and romanticize "truth" to the point that it is a vacuous expression that means nothing, they seem to have no understanding of love and intimacy are.

Telling someone that their most deeply felt feeling, and emotions are wrong, and evil...how can that be anything but damaging to the person.

If there needs to be a charity focused toward homosexuals, it should be focused toward helping them coup is such a bigotted, religious world.

555. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146790 by Mitchell Gilks on March 19, 2008 at 12:07 pm

When I was watching "Strawberry Panic" (an anime about several lesbian relationships at three offiliated catholic girls schools) someone commented about how the church should be frowning on that, but no one seemed to be hiding it, or caring what anyone thought. I commented that the bible doesn't actual condem lesbianism, either because the guy that wrote that didn't think women could even have sex (which is a reoccuring sentiment that I hear by the uninformed...and frankly unimaginative) or that he wasn't a complete fool, and like most guys found lesbians to be super hot. Though it was likely the former.

This kind of thing blows me mind. I've said it before, and I will reiterate it until the day I die: I wouldn't want to live in a world without lesbians. This is just a selfish sentiment of course. Though I would fight for gay rights just as hard, though there isn't anything in it for me in that area...maybe less compatition?

They have absolutely no biblical standing when it comes to lesbians. Arguably it is worse to shave your face (if you're a guy) or wear pants (if you're a girl) than it is to enguage in lesbian sex.

Their argument is that it isn't normal? Big fucking deal, as 1 out of 10 is not normal, that is a deviation from the norm. Though what says normal equals right, or better? There are tons of majority opinions that I think are plan wrong (the whole god thing for instance) and I am happy to deviate on such issues. Maybe someone should point out to them that not having sex before marriage, or experimenting with drugs isn't normal. Not masturbating or looking at porn isn't normal.

In any case, their arguments are simply foolish. Even if it wasn't natural either (which it is) and no other species enguaged in same-sex encounters (which they do) that would still by no means be grounds to call it wrong.

Even if it were a conscious decision (which I am more than confident that it isn't. I don't remember choosing my sexual preferences.) that also wouldn't matter. Even if it were a choice, they have the right to do whatever they want with another consenting adult.

Religious people piss me off to no end, merely trying to either compensate for their own issues (hatred of themselves for being attracted to the same sex, thanks to child abuse by their bigotted communittees and religions) or merely trying to legislate their personal preferences. They think it's gross, therefore it should be illegal, and is wrong. Simply facist bullshit.

I hate onion, worse than any other food item. Don't seem me trying to make it illegal to eat onions.

Put it simply, these bigotted disgusting, deprived, facists, can go fuck off.

556. Jesus saves

Comment #146659 by Mitchell Gilks on March 19, 2008 at 9:04 am

I hope they come up with an answer, because I haven't a clue.

557. Atheists claim censorship by billboard company

Comment #146630 by Mitchell Gilks on March 19, 2008 at 8:32 am

I for one am definitely, and in no way ok with discrimination of any kind. That is a clear distorting of anything that has been said. There is a difference between what I think is ok, and what I think should be illegal.

Such fights can be waged without legal action. In such a situation it must be recognized that someone's rights have to take a back seat to another's. This makes such a situation sticky at best, and is not easily solved with "I'm right, and everyone who disagrees is stupid."

Such a bigotted individual is an ignorant prick, to say the least, but they have rights too.

I also would point out that such discrimination is not over in the US, the boyscouts still do not let in gays and atheists. Yet they receive goverment funding, and are allowed to meet for free at public places, like schools. Now that should be illegal, the government should be brought out of supporting discrimination.

If it were just a private organization, then I would still be pissed off, and hope that we don't relent in making a stink, but I would not call what they are doing criminal.

This is indeed, a tough issue, because someone's gets screwed no matter what. I think that the only way to solve such a problem without infringing on anyone's rights, is to coerse the bigot through civil, and social activitis, and outrage.

Sure is it easy to say "fuck them, they're pricks anyway." Though putting someone else's rights ahead of another, even when they are wrong, sets a precedent...a precedent that I don't want, and I think is dangerous to our individual rights and freedoms.

558. Atheists claim censorship by billboard company

Comment #146295 by Mitchell Gilks on March 18, 2008 at 10:22 pm

I am also not against companies discriminating arbitrarily. Refusing to do business for race, religion, age, weight, or even dress code. Unless they are receiving government support in some way, then they should be required to comply with government restrictions.

If some guy wants to refuse business, let them sabotage their success. I think that such a company can be destroyed without legal action, be boycots, as well as other companies willing to take your business.

I'm all for rights, and I think someone has the right to be a stupid bigotted prick if they want to be. As long as they aren't infinging on anyone else's rights.

This may not be the law, maybe such discrimination is illegal. Even so, I will say that I am against that, and still highly doubt that this instance could be construed as such an example of discrimination.

559. Religious groups want Russian cartoon channel shut down

Comment #146230 by Mitchell Gilks on March 18, 2008 at 7:49 pm

What? No "how to mind your own fucking business 101"?

560. Atheists claim censorship by billboard company

Comment #146225 by Mitchell Gilks on March 18, 2008 at 7:40 pm

I can't go back now. A while ago some fundies were putting up "pro-life" billboards in all the major cities in new brunswich, and fredericton billboard owners refused to rent them the billboards. So they made a pig stink, saying that it was taking away their free-speach. I said then what I'll say now. A private company has the right to rent to whoever they please, and refuse to rent to whomever they please. It is not a free-speach issue.

I stick to that opinion here.

561. First 'Rule' Of Evolution Suggests That Life Is Destined To Become More Complex

Comment #146218 by Mitchell Gilks on March 18, 2008 at 7:33 pm

It's become obvious to me now, in order to fend off extinction, we need to eliminate any species that is equal or greater complexity to ourselves.

We need to get them before they get us!

562. Religious groups want Russian cartoon channel shut down

Comment #146211 by Mitchell Gilks on March 18, 2008 at 7:05 pm

Since south park is brought up. I used to like the show when I was younger, and it was funny. Now they just do what they did with the "Atheist Wars" in almost every episode, either they simply slander someone they don't like for a half hour, or they caricature and straw-man a position. Argue a point no one opposed, and then act like they have figured something out.

Yes, wars would continue without religion, who exactly said that they wouldn't? It was about Dawkins, so presumably he did, only he didn't.

This is what I have come to expect from south park. I prefer their slander episodes, to their trying for make a point episodes.

563. Religious groups want Russian cartoon channel shut down

Comment #146206 by Mitchell Gilks on March 18, 2008 at 6:53 pm

This is rather strange, I either thought that the Muslims didn't care about cartoons (that don't depict their holy figures) or took a long time to take action.

"Onii-sama" (big brother "onii", with formal or most polite version of "san," "sama") aired on Arabic networks, and ran through the length of the episodes. While being pulled from the air in france only after 26 episodes, for it's extreme adult content, spaning accross just about any adult theme you can think of.

It must be them working with the christians, who are notorious for trying to get stuff pulled off of the air.

I would think south part is tame in comparison. Not to mention it's comedy, and it by no means promotes homosexuality. The gay character is about the most fuck up human being on earth.

564. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146069 by Mitchell Gilks on March 18, 2008 at 3:04 pm

What? Religious people don't care as much about their lifes, the world, and other people as non-religious people? What a shocker. I'm confident that a state of apathy is happier than a state of empathy.

Though I am confident that the empathetic is responsible for more happiness in the people around them, and the world as a whole than the apathetic.

Realizing there is a problem is the first step toward fixing it, being content with things because this life doesn't matter and is a weighting room for the next only helps oneself.

Personally I couldn't stop worrying about the problems in the world, being devistated when a relationship doesn't workout, or I lose a job. It in fact seems quite far off from being a virtue to not be effected by such things to me.

I am perfectly willing to accept that the religious are happier than I am...but just what is the cost of that happiness?

565. The Great Tantra Challenge

Comment #145658 by Mitchell Gilks on March 17, 2008 at 11:42 pm

I hope they argue that it only works if you believe in it. Then anyone with half a brain will think it prudent to become quite skeptical.

566. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145252 by Mitchell Gilks on March 17, 2008 at 12:12 pm

As for the funeral thing, because it has been mentioned. I've told my family I want the hundred dollar cremation in the twenty dollar cardboard box. I'm dead, wtf do I care? I don't want to take up space in the ground, and I definitely don't want them spending money on me. If they want to spend a few thousand on me, do it when I'm alive.

567. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145251 by Mitchell Gilks on March 17, 2008 at 12:04 pm

No one invents a reality they want to see like D'Douchebag.

He completely invents both what atheists are and believe, and are responsible for, can feel or understand. Also what christianity is, believes, are responsible for, and can understand.

The guy never makes a point, or say anything that need be responded to. He can box caricatures and straw-men all day for all I care.

I've never once seen him touch on, or criticize any positions that I hold by more than title alone, and I hold the titles loosely.

568. The Great Tantra Challenge

Comment #144828 by Mitchell Gilks on March 16, 2008 at 8:23 pm

As Dougles Adams remarked Plan 9, with his "Babble fish" (was it?). If something proves god, then it makes faith unnecessary, and thus god cannot exist, as he would not leave proof of himself because faith is so fundemental to belief!

So, if an amputee's limp to grow back, it would be proof that god doesn't exist! Then he would promptly disppear in a buff of logic.

569. The Great Tantra Challenge

Comment #144823 by Mitchell Gilks on March 16, 2008 at 8:16 pm

Heh, I remember when I was a kid I used to be extremely afraid of the dark. Up until I was about 6 I think.

My brother scared the crap out of me by getting me to believe in tree trolls (shut up, I was 6). If you look at in a tree at night from under it, one would jump down and ripp your face off. One day I tested it, and my face remained intact. After that, stories of monsters and things like that never fooled me.

Shortly after I gained a fear of dolls through Chucky, and clowns through Poltergeist (oddly enough, not ghosts though) which dominated my nightmares for the next couple years. At least they were real things.

I really think that nothing speaks to a person like seeing a claim falsified in front of their eyes. It is the most powerful counter-measure that can be taken against such claims.

I applaud this, as I think this truly is a seriously blow toward belief in such things for a number of the people that were watching, and believed it.

570. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144814 by Mitchell Gilks on March 16, 2008 at 7:43 pm

Afraid to teach evolution to muslims, yet pay for their education. Having to fight to teach was is evidentarily supported, and not what has been believed for a lot time, but has no evidence...Sometimes I question the whole point of public schools.

I've recently heard an idea, that parents are given the enrollment costs of private schools, and allowed to send their kids where they want to.

It apparently wouldn't cost anymore than they pay now. Weirdo creationist could come up with their own schools that's deplomas aren't worth the paper they are printed on, and they could be actual secular schools that don't have to put up with this crap.

It may cause of rush of ignorance in the general public, but how much worse could it get? Also, I think when you can't get a job with your faith-based educational deploma, that will say more than words ever could.

571. 'Anonymous' takes anti-Scientology to the streets

Comment #144674 by Mitchell Gilks on March 16, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Yeah, a couple months ago I decided to look into scientology...I forget why. I watched several shows about it, and a couple documentaries.

That whole "they're terrorists" thing is nothing new. Years ago when a women (I am really bad at remembering names, chances are if I knew you more than 5 years ago, even if we were really good friends, I don't remember your name. So remembering names of people I just heard once or twice is impossible for me) wrote a book about them, they broke into her home, stole her writing supplies and type-writer, and tried to frame her for writing them threatening letters.

They are off the wall insane. They are far worse than any cult I know about. The masks are needed, they will digg up your past, post all your personal information online, and/or plaster it all over your heighborhood.

They fallow through with that "Fair Game" thing to amazing extremes. It seems they aren't afraid to do anything short of attacking/killing you.

The worse thing I know about though, is that they don't believe in mental illness, and will force anyone on pyschiatric medication to go off of it, which has resulted in several deaths.

572. The business of natural selection

Comment #144155 by Mitchell Gilks on March 15, 2008 at 8:10 am

This seems like it could easily turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I'm skepticial, but then, I know diddly skwat about business.

573. Selling science to the masses

Comment #144151 by Mitchell Gilks on March 15, 2008 at 8:04 am

This saddens me, and I feel a tad insulted as a lay person as well. Though I fear they might be right...I will fight my reaction to be pissed off at them trying to dumb things down for me, and just pretend that I am excluded from the general public.

Whenever I see them attempting this, I will put my fingers in my ears, close my eyes, and yell "la-la-la-la-la, I'm not listening!" Until they're done.

574. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #144146 by Mitchell Gilks on March 15, 2008 at 7:51 am

You truly do have a vast resevoir of straw-men Ungodlytheist, I hope you were arguing purely against what Vaal had said, and not saying that Harris advocates anything that you have argued against so far.

You appear to have a knee-jerk reaction to the word "torture" and are afraid to even recognize any arguments or points.

I think that I gave an apt explanation of exactly what Harris argued.

Lastly.

For ME he is comfortable with torture"

Yeah...well...FOR ME, you are comfortable with child-molestation. (*rollseyes*)

575. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #144027 by Mitchell Gilks on March 14, 2008 at 10:24 pm

Since there is so much Harris hate, I thought that I would way that I think I agreed with Harris the most out of the three. I liked Dawkins views second, though he didn't really touch on the same issues Harris did.

Harris argued "faith is bad" (more or less) while Dawkins argued "religion is wrong, or at least completely unjustified and often counter to hte facts". So I agreed with both of them on many things (although I don't know what to make of Harris' interesting in spiritual stuff.) and might even say I agree with them equally if I knew what Dawkins views were on the issues Harris raised, though I assume he largely agrees or he would have publicially said otherwise I would think.

I never would have thought that torture was defencible before I read his book, but I found myself agreeing with him. I think he forwarded some good arguments, I wouldn't call for torture, but for it not being as bad as many other things that we don't seem to think twice about. Like bombing a towm. Yes, I think torturing someone isn't nearly as bad as bombing a town. Isn't in the same league as bad. Incomparable.

I think, the heart of his argument there, was if you are willing to kill, you should be first willing to torture, as torture need not even be life threatening. I would agree (not that torture is ok, or just fine, or even ever moral) that torture is less immoral, or not as bad as killing. That is what I agree with.

I would also agree that if some place had a load of nukes ready to fly, and were about to shoot em off, and the only preventative measure available was a pre-emptive strike, that would without question result in far less death than not striking first. Then it would be far more immoral to let them do it when you can prevent it.

As one must take into account the consequences of inaction as well as action.

Now this is not to be misconstrued as saying that I take either lightly, or even see a realistic scenario for the latter. I was never in support, but was in complete opposition to the iraq war, and am to other conflicts as well. I do not take killing people lightly, however, if there were a situation, where I condoned, or supported a war, then I would also support the torture toward enemy combatants that we have strong reason to believe have information that could result in the saving of live.

I think only if one takes what Harris argued out of context, and attacks a caricature does it seem unreasonable. Unless you think causing someone pain and discomfort is worse than bombing a town... of course.

576. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #144008 by Mitchell Gilks on March 14, 2008 at 9:24 pm

I found this to be quite funny. I had to laugh how he kept criticizing Harris and Hitchens as basing their views and morality on personal experience, while at the same time constantly falling back on his experience in the middle east as justification for making him a judge of this. Which is it? Or are only they don't allowed to base their opinions on personal experience?

What is even more funny about this, is when Harris is quoting his statistics to him, he disagrees, because of his "personal experience" in the middle east. I don't remember what Harris said exactly, but it was something like "how many people did you talk to well there? A few hundred, at best? These polls cover thousands, over several countries."

So who is the one basing their views on personal experience, and who is basing it on the facts?

Also, he seems to be completely vague on what he is criticizing. "The new atheists" believe in progress, both cultural and moral. Yeah, but in what way? He doesn't explain, if you have goals, and ideas about what is better in these areas then it is not unreasonable at all to think things are progressing.

He seems to take his own (apparently 100% relativistic, completely uncalculatable) views on progree and morality, and assume everyone must share them.

Lastly "science isn't intrinsically good"? Of course it isn't... that makes no sense, I highly, extremely doubt that either Hitchens or Harris would argue that anything has intrinsic value...

All I see is a mishmash of vaguery, projection, and straw-man attacks.

Which is sad, because this guy is close to being there, he is just lost in his own sense of self-satisfaction and pride for being so nuanced, understanding, and accomodating to everyone and thing. Not fighting against people that murder, rape, and impose barbarish laws, because we're all capable of that, but instead attack those that criticize them for it.

This is the most foolish thing I've ever heard in my life. Yes, we are capable of such things in a possible world, but that is a far step from then saying "oh, it's ok to do that, because I might have done that to if I were a ignorant, and oppressed (by your own society)."

No, it is not ok. Yes, in some possible world I could be a child molester, or a serial rapist. That in no way makes me think such crimes are in any way excusable.

I will stop now, but I will say unlike every other critic I see, at least this guy make me want to response to everything he says indepthly. Because I think he's wrong in every single case, but at least he has made up his own nonsense, and isn't spouting other people's.

577. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143131 by Mitchell Gilks on March 13, 2008 at 1:57 pm

I did no such thing. You are reading far more into this than you should. I did not declare that such a thing wasn't only true for jews and not for any other group.

Be a stickler for facts, but don't assume things, and read between lines.

I gave an example of places. Do you think that people in those communittees that I mentioned would make that distinction? Or that it wouldn't be equally true for muslims? Did I suggest anything remotely like I was on the Israelites side about Gaza,? Or anything they do in the middle east? No, I did not. I am not either.

I've said nothing that was mistaken, you merely took far too much out of it.

I never ever remotely implied that Jews are aspecially persecuted. I merely used the example given by the article, and in fact argued against the view that the Jews are persecuted but homosexuals are not.

My saying that I wasn't comparing should not be taken as me saying that Jews are obviously more persecuted, but merely exactly as what I said, that such a thing is absurd to compare.

578. Deadly Sins 101

Comment #143128 by Mitchell Gilks on March 13, 2008 at 1:50 pm

I know what will happen to an adulter after death. Same thing that will happen to the rest of us. Nothing, we'll be dead.

579. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143123 by Mitchell Gilks on March 13, 2008 at 1:42 pm

So you are saying it would be perfectly fine for an Isreali to declare themselves as such in any one of the Muslim communitees surrounding Gaza or the border?

I highly doubt that. There are many places where it would get you killed. I would conceed that it would likely be more promoted by the conflicts between the areas, but it doesn't change the fact.

In either case it is not really important, as it wasn't major to any point I was making.

I was not even talking about Jewish persecuting.

580. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143119 by Mitchell Gilks on March 13, 2008 at 1:34 pm

I would suggest it would be a very bad idea to declare yourself a jew in many places in the world. I didn't mean to suggest it was illegal in those places, unless of course you will declaring yourself a jew after being a muslim.

I used the term "death setence" in a loose manner, merely meaning, "would get you killed"

581. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143115 by Mitchell Gilks on March 13, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Ha! It must be a conspircy to not do what catholics think one ought do by all non-catholics.

What a fruitcake. Gays gain persecuted status? Is he joking? Not that I have any experience in the matter, but I am willing to bet millions (if I had it) that if you asked the general population if they would rather declare themselves "Jewish" or "gay" in a public arena the overwhelming majority would pick jewish. I was even go so far as to say that all of the places in which it would be a death sentence to declare oneself Jewish, it would be equally deadly to declare oneself a homosexual.

Now, I am not comparing who is persecuted more...that is a fantastically absurd thing to compare, but the guy is completely off his rocker if he thinks gays aren't persecuted, I mean he says they should be in jail...wtf is that?

What is wrong with these people. I'm not gay, but I have a massive amount of respect for anyone that is true to themselves, and is publicially gay. They have far more courage than I have. The persecution, and problems they are opening themselves up for. I'd sooner stay hidden, but they are the ones fighting against the public stigma, so that someday it will be 100% publically acceptable, and no one will even think twice about it. I think they are clearly winning the battle again such oppression.

Besides, I wouldn't want to life in a world without lesbians.

In short, fuck this stupid dickhole. I am not normally the insulting type, but these priests today just piss me off.

582. Ban anti-Catholic books in schools, says bishop

Comment #143106 by Mitchell Gilks on March 13, 2008 at 1:06 pm

A Roman Catholic bishop has likened books which criticise the teachings of the Church to works that deny the Holocaust took place.

WTF!! I had to double take on that. Did he just compare the denial a documented genecide of 6 million individuals to criticism a belief about magic beings?

Does he think that holocaust was so trivial? That sick old fuck, I hope he dies a horrible death. Making light of genecide...

I think we need a fucktard of the year award. I nominate this asshole.

583. Two More Fleas

Comment #142969 by Mitchell Gilks on March 13, 2008 at 9:27 am

"Clearmind"? "ClearThinker"?

I should have called myself "sexiest man alive" or "super genius," maybe "captain hugeshlung"

Think any of it would come true?

I really get a kick out of that, "I know, I'll constantly assert that I'm logical, rational, intelligent, and a clear thinker. Then, they will have no choice but to believe me."

"Hey...that doesn't sound right..."

"It must be true though, his name is "clearThinker" what's yours? Fred or something?"

"I guess you're right, I can't compete with that."

(*rollseyes*) oh the sincerity, and humility of believers.

Lastly, I just can't let this go.

For RD to claim that those who have written against him are 'fleas', whilst ignoring the many atheist books which have clearly been written on the back of the success of TGD (and personally I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing) is quite frankly hypocrisy.

That is no hypocrisy, look up the word. you could claim that it is a double standard, or he is being inconsistent, or partisan; if it were true, which it isn't, but not hypocrisy.

584. Beauty ad banned after Christian outcry

Comment #142762 by Mitchell Gilks on March 13, 2008 at 4:53 am

I'm offended by insults to my intellect. Please remove all stupid ideas from the face of the earth.

I am also offended by the colour yellow, and the number 56. They must be vanquished!

You know what I'm oddly not offended by? Attractive, scantily clad women, making light of religious nonsense. Go figure.

585. The ethics of mixing science and religion

Comment #142754 by Mitchell Gilks on March 13, 2008 at 4:42 am

Would I accept the money? No, I'm not a scientist, and if I was, I would want to be researching something that I have a chance of getting good results with, and means something to the progress of humanity.

I would not accept money from many many people or organizations. If I wanted to be dishonest and ripp people off, that is what I'd do.

I'm not interested in money, it would be nice to have enough that I wouldn't need to worry about it, but I don't want more than excessively more than I need.

If I was rich, I know exactly what I would be doing (not that 1.6 million would be enough to do it for more than a couple years). I would be stoned and drunk out of my mind on a beach somewhere surrounded by beautiful women. What can I say? I'm a weak man.

586. Two More Fleas

Comment #142495 by Mitchell Gilks on March 12, 2008 at 3:00 pm

Well Diacanu, I honestly can't wrap my mind around being a theist. I don't understand what they're talking about even when they say God. That fact that they only ever hum and haw when you ask them, tells me that they don't know either.

So what do their direct their prayers at? What are they thinking of when they think it created the universe?

I need a referent before I can even think of something existing.

I am a life-long atheist, despite being raised in a fundementalist christian family, I've never been able to wrap my head around it.

587. Two More Fleas

Comment #142488 by Mitchell Gilks on March 12, 2008 at 2:48 pm

It is astonishing that someone who should be familiar with the rigour of mathematical proof should be so apparently ignorant of the scientific method of starting with simple axioms and working up.

I think the best explanation I heard from this was from the mathematician that gave a lecture at beyond belief 2007 (don't remember his name). He thought that the reason people in the formal sciences, were more likely to be believers than those in the natural sciences, is because in formal science you don't actually discover things about the world, or work to justify your premises, that is the job of natural science. It generates the data, and formal science uses it to construct abstraction. So they are far more likely to be fooled by valid arguments that are unsound, than people in the natural sciences.

I am not in either, so I wouldn't know. Though it sounded like the best explanation I've heard.

588. Two More Fleas

Comment #142479 by Mitchell Gilks on March 12, 2008 at 2:43 pm

I'm sick of people acting like atheists are science worshippers or something. I don't think science will answer all the questions, not even close. I would like to know how we would even know that we know everything? It doesn't seem possible to me.

I just accept the fact that I don't know, and almost certaintly never will. I don'r reject religion because I think I have all the answers from another source, and reject it because it is almost certaintly wrong. I just have to deal with the fact that I don't, and almost certaintly never will know the answer to many, many questions.

I don't think these people can't wrap their heads around just admitting that you don't know, and being content in your ignorance, instead of pretending that we know stuff that we clearly do not know.

Bahh!

589. Two More Fleas

Comment #142467 by Mitchell Gilks on March 12, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Well, this is all I need to know from this guy to know he is an idiot.

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?

Negative proof fallacy.

Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?

Argument from ignorance/god of the gaps/red harring. Take your pick.

Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?

As Sagan brilliantly argued in "Pale Blue Dot" the anthropic principle is crap, there is no more reason to believe that the universe is more fined turned for one thing that exists in the universe than any other. Unless perhaps if you wanted to add up how much of each exists, in which case the universe seems far more "fined tuned" for gases and rocks. Not people.

Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?

Huh? Incoherent dribble.

Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?

Incoherent question/category mistake/red harring. Those are value judgements. Like asking if math has prove what flavour ice cream is the best.

Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?

Red harring, but it unquestionably has. He must forget that medicine and science has secular. They don't involve religion belief. It is unquestionably so that secular endeavors have produced far more for humanity than religion and superstician ever has. This is however a non-issue. Supposing every secularist was a raging murdering child rapist, bent on world domination through ethnic cleansing, and country music (*shutters*) that holds absolutely no sway over where there is or isn't a sky daddy.

Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?

Clearly no, but again, this is a red harring.

Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?

This is perhaps the most absurd statement I've ever heard in my life. Faith precludes reason by definition, and is unchallengable by it. Religious believe is at the very least nonrational, and almost always irrational. As in about 95% of believers belief something that is demonstratably false, and believe it no matter what the evidence is against it. (i.e. creationism/young earth/angels and demons among us/miricles.) when you take away the irrationality from theism, all you have left is a wishy woshy deism at best.

Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?

Are you a stupid dick? Dead on!

Another foolish book, full of foolishness, and cookie cutter long refutted arguments (pffft, "arguments (*rollseyes*)).

Give it a rest, or come up with something new.

590. Chemical brain controls nanobots

Comment #142342 by Mitchell Gilks on March 12, 2008 at 11:00 am

Well I only have a high school equivolency, and it looks like I raised the important question. Damn I'm good.

591. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #142144 by Mitchell Gilks on March 12, 2008 at 4:21 am

I would suggest that you guys just stop feeding the trolls. Just like cancer, if you ignore it, it will go away...that works right?

592. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #142143 by Mitchell Gilks on March 12, 2008 at 4:17 am

I remember Dawkins making that exact point himself against pan spermia. Clearly he must have been making a point that they didn't let him finish. He likely made the exact point that they would then have to explain the aliens, and they cut him off and edited it as if he was too stupid to have thought of that.

I believe he uses this point to show how pan spermia is a sky hook, opposed to a crane.

Sorry though Tyler, I don't know the quote, or remember exactly where I've heard him say it, I think on more than one occation.

593. Chemical brain controls nanobots

Comment #142141 by Mitchell Gilks on March 12, 2008 at 4:09 am

Cool beans. The potential application for nannites is huge! I wonder how they trick the immune system into not attacking them.

I hope to hear more about this soon.

594. Discovery Challenges Finding of a Separate Human Species

Comment #142134 by Mitchell Gilks on March 12, 2008 at 3:50 am

Ican't help but wonder if people would be making this big of a stink over this, if it were just another kind of cat they found.

595. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141704 by Mitchell Gilks on March 11, 2008 at 5:37 am

I'm convinced that eventually God will just mean "that which we don't know" and then it will be finally safe from criticizm. They can worship, and get money, and preach about afterlives and universal justice behind closed doors, but in the public arena claim it to be nothing controversial. That is the way I see things heading now. Religion is building lines of defence.

596. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141700 by Mitchell Gilks on March 11, 2008 at 5:23 am

That just means I am predictable ;)

perhaps to someone that considers it an honour to be like-minded.

597. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141699 by Mitchell Gilks on March 11, 2008 at 5:21 am

they were just playing with me anyway. The obvious bullshit I was spotting, it was charity just to respond, it isn't as if there even was an argument to rebut in the first place really.

598. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141696 by Mitchell Gilks on March 11, 2008 at 5:18 am

I was able to predict most of the rebuttals I would receive, because they were similar to what I would have said. You on the other hand MPhil I only knew would rebut, I had no idea what you would say exactly. I thought you would just outlined exactly why I'm wrong, and leave no room for play. Which is basically what you did, but my knowledge of logic involves a year of discussion of a philosophy forum, and about a million trips to wikipedia to find out what they are talking about. I also went over a list of logic fallacies, and cognitive biases.

I had no doubt that I would have been taken down in no time, obvious, I was going up against several incredibly intelligent people, all of whom are better educated than I am, and I was just pulling stuff out of my ass.

Steve mostly impressed me on how almost exactly his responses were what I would have said. I will even give an example because I used an almost exact rebut to a similar point about a week ago to his dragon wings one.

What non-physical laws? I'm confused?

I don't understand the point in arguing about the mechanics, and workings of something proported to exist that was freshedly pulled out of someone's ass. Unless then can actually demonstrate these proported things, I don't see a difference between arguing how they work, and arguing what colour, shape, consistency, and numeration the spots are on fairy wings.

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/demonstration-of-why-god-doesnt-exist-28622-8.html

This was from me about a week ago

599. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141681 by Mitchell Gilks on March 11, 2008 at 4:52 am

I was having a lot of fun yesterday. I wish MPhil had have stayed content in just watching.

I was employing a trick I see the good theist debaters get away with constantly. I was able to offer nothing a keep an argument going by nitpicking any little thing I preceived to be a flaw, and even if it wasn't, by the time it was explained, and dropped, the original point was abscurred and forgotten.

It's just a game, and it was actually pretty fun from that side. I think this adds creedence to my theory that at the very least the so-called sophisticated theists know that their full of shit, and either don't believe what they are arguing for, or believe that ultimately they are right, and as long as they are scoring points for Jesus, they are justified in such underhanded tactics.

In any case, it wasn't fun anymore when I was forced into actually trying to formulate an argument. I guess I'm still too much of a noobie, if I ever try it again I will fight tooth and nail to not be drawn into explicating anything again. Just keep it vague and mysterious.

Maybe I should write a flea book to Dawkins, I bet I'd write the best one! I could call it "End of Dawkins' delusion, how god is great" Or perhaps "reinforcing the spell," maybe "God: the successful fact, how science proves god exists."

600. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141545 by Mitchell Gilks on March 10, 2008 at 3:26 pm

weird, so did i!! then again its not difficult to look at that picture and think 'gay jesus'

It shouldn't be, because the exact fraze I googled for an image search was "gay Jesus."