The Bathroom Wall

With any tavern, one can expect that certain things that get said are out-of-place. But there is one place where almost any saying or scribble can find a home: the bathroom wall. This is where random thoughts and oddments that don’t follow the other entries at the Panda’s Thumb wind up. As with most bathroom walls, expect to sort through a lot of oyster guts before you locate any pearls of wisdom.

44718 Comments

There is a God!

And he is a plumber. The Bathroom has been flushed.

Thank you Reed.

Great!

Course, that still leaves what happens when the new plumbing acquires a big drip…

Wait, what am I saying?

Ingeborg Esbrandt said:

Hey, nice post :) - well, even though I came via Google searching for “justfaces spreadshirt” wondering why this post came up on top??? Greetings xoxo

Spammer alert!

To make one point about the previous thread. John Kwok wrote:

“Sorry Jim, but your invocation of the Ground Zero Mosque controversy is not helpful here. Incidentally there are many Muslims and Muslim Americans who oppose its construction, simply because they recognize that building it near Ground Zero is needlessly offensive to the families of the victims and the survivors of the 9/11 attack. Some of the most prominent critics - who are Muslim Americans - include Wall Street businessman Mansoor Ijaz (who tried to assist the Clinton administration in extraditing Osama bin Laden from the Sudan) and former United States Navy officer Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser.

[…]

If you are going to call Miss USA, a Muslim American, Rima Fakih, a bigot, then be my guest. Same is true for those two prominent Muslim Americans I had mentioned. Or other Muslim Americans who, like them, have spoken out against building the “Cordoba House” Islamic Center (Of course I am also against it, but am definitely not a bigot.).”

Unless YOU are a practicing Muslim your opposition to this cultural center is pure bigotry, so your saying that you’re “definitely not a bigot” is false. Your ruse of hiding behind the Muslim-Americans’ backs is the same as of the racists who think that using the n-word is OK because so many African-Americans use it. If you are a Muslim, well then, I find your views on the issue just silly, not bigoted.

Kris,

You can’t possibly know what I know.

mrg said:

DS said: Kris has certainly demonstrated that he doesn’t deserve anything more.

Actually, I was suggesting we all insult and abuse DH. If he wants to invite it, why not oblige?

We already tried that on Kris. You can only call someone an @$$hole, a bastard and crazy so many times before it gets tiresome. What’s the point of bashing me?

Kris has called me a liar for stating the obvious facts about him. We can all see what he has done, so why would he deny the stunts he has pulled? He is the one who invaded our space to attack the cause of the blog, yet he expects us to be tolerant and respectful of him no matter what he says? There is no law or principle I know that demands any such thing.

Kris said:

What you said about me is a complete lie. I didn’t start the insults and attacks. You and your asshole buddies here did. And trying to con FF with lies about me and that swill about respecting people you and they (“we”) don’t agree with is yet another one of your acts of deliberate dishonesty. You and most others here wouldn’t know what respect is if it hit you like a freight train going 60 miles per hour.

Since the statements you make about me are false, you’re a deliberate liar, according to your own standards for others. Of course your standards for yourself are completely different. How convenient for you.

The ONLY reason you and most others aren’t now viciously attacking FF is because she said she’s a woman. Even then, some of you have been pretty blunt to her, and especially rude before she said she’s a woman, even though she has been nice the whole time.

My questions to her are not an attack or a trap. They are sincere. You are grossly misrepresenting me and are just showing yourself to be the hypocritical, dishonest, delusional liar you are.

You are a seriously fucked up lunatic with delusions of godhood who needs a good ass kicking.

By the way, Mr. theological agnostic, unitarian, universalist, dis-honorable, bushido, liberal, un-scientific pseudo-skeptic, what are you going to add to or subtract from your self-created, self-serving, bogus religion tomorrow?

You just keep piling up your lies and hypocrisy Dale. You said “You do what you like, but I’m done with Kris for good.” yet you’re still bashing me and lying about me.

You also said you respect people with whom you disagree but then you say “I went after him anyway.” when you first saw me here. When I first came here I didn’t say anything that warranted you going after me.

Plus, you said you respect people with whom you disagree but then you say “I’d go after Ann Coulter if that bitch showed up here too.” So much for you respecting people you disagree with.

As usual the things you claim about yourself, and me, are false, which makes you a chronic LIAR, according to your standards for others.

You admit to slamming me a lot but of course you try to make it look like you’re a saint for doing so. Whether you or anyone else here ever accepts it or not, I’m just giving you and others shit back because you and/or they started it, either with me or someone else who didn’t or doesn’t deserve it.

I didn’t escalate the situation. You and your fellow, lying, arrogant hypocrites did.

It really cracks me up to see you guys acting exactly like some of the creationists you hate and condemn so much. You accuse and attack them for not listening and having closed minds, and for playing what you think are ridiculous games, but you do the same thing. Congratulations, you have become your enemy.

FODS

I haven’t lied about anything, you jackass! The simple fact is that you have invaded Panda’s Thumb and have been a disruptive force from the beginning and have played us like suckers. I’m not fooled by you and no one else is. Even if you were insulted by one or two people in the beginning, you could have ignored it and just responded to the ones who were being positive to you, like flowersfriend has been, but instead you started throwing shit at everyone who dared to reject your tactics. We insulted you because that seemed to be what you liked, but I get tired of that after a while. You don’t, appearantly.

If you seriously think you have made ANY positive contributions to this community here, you are even more delusional than most Creationists!

Dale Husband said: What’s the point of bashing me?

None whatsoever, but since any comments to a troll are going to produce nothing but bashing in response, that leads to what the point of the comments was.

John often fails to read for comprehension. A poor highschool education , no doubt.

Ghrom said:

To make one point about the previous thread. John Kwok wrote:

“Sorry Jim, but your invocation of the Ground Zero Mosque controversy is not helpful here. Incidentally there are many Muslims and Muslim Americans who oppose its construction, simply because they recognize that building it near Ground Zero is needlessly offensive to the families of the victims and the survivors of the 9/11 attack. Some of the most prominent critics - who are Muslim Americans - include Wall Street businessman Mansoor Ijaz (who tried to assist the Clinton administration in extraditing Osama bin Laden from the Sudan) and former United States Navy officer Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser.

[…]

If you are going to call Miss USA, a Muslim American, Rima Fakih, a bigot, then be my guest. Same is true for those two prominent Muslim Americans I had mentioned. Or other Muslim Americans who, like them, have spoken out against building the “Cordoba House” Islamic Center (Of course I am also against it, but am definitely not a bigot.).”

Unless YOU are a practicing Muslim your opposition to this cultural center is pure bigotry, so your saying that you’re “definitely not a bigot” is false. Your ruse of hiding behind the Muslim-Americans’ backs is the same as of the racists who think that using the n-word is OK because so many African-Americans use it. If you are a Muslim, well then, I find your views on the issue just silly, not bigoted.

Malchus said: A poor highschool education , no doubt.

Oh Bob, I can hear the howls now: “Set phasers to SLAUGHTER!”

Kris said:

Mike Elzinga said:

With a troll’s profile ready at hand, and with sufficient discipline on the part of the regulars, that could be cut to zero.

Profile ready at hand? What exactly does that mean Mike? Ready for what or whom? Do you have printed profiles of all the people you’ve labeled as trolls and hand them out to passersby on street corners? Or, do you create a profile file in your computer containing your intricate and exhaustive (LMAO!) calculations and determinations about each alleged troll and somehow send a copy of it to everyone on Earth to warn them of impending doom? Or, do you only dispense it to other regulars here who are able to contact you personally and who request a copy because they let you do their thinking for them?

Or, do you just think that your stupid ‘profiles’ actually matter, when in reality they actually don’t? Do you really believe that what happens on this website, or your asinine profiles, or what you do with them, matters one iota to the vast majority of the people on Earth? Get over yourself Mike.

Hey, if you have my profile handy, why don’t you post it here? I could use a good laugh.

Your “profile” is a person who needs attention and does not even try to get it by behaving in any consistent or coherent fashion. You are a manipulative jerk who takes ANY response from others and uses it as an excuse to attack. You bash us for not being tolerant enough of Creationists, while stating Creationist fallacies yourself. Then you turn around and deny being religious and question why certain others who are Creationist take their religion so seriously. Such strange behavior is pathological in the extreme.

Gee, this website seems VERY important to you, considering how much time you spend here.

You are either crazy or a fraud, Kris.

The fun thing about the BW is that the trolls either have to cave in and respond on the BW – which they don’t want to do – or pass up responding – which they REALLY don’t want to do.

Kris said:

Whatever you do, don’t even consider that when people come here and sincerely want to ask, discuss, debate, learn, and/or contribute in some way, that when they’re mercilessly insulted and attacked and erroneously lumped into your hated group of ID/creationists, they just might not like it and may fight back, and especially when they offer reasonable explanations of their words and the explanations (and the person) are ignored, misinterpreted, misrepresented, slammed, bashed, and ridiculed by you and the rest of the mindless haters here. Yeah, don’t even consider that for a second. You and the other haters and bashers here are way too perfect to have to consider such things. It’s never your fault.

Your track record is too well known here for us to consider that you are sincere about anything. You are even WORSE than the average Creationist troll because you keep going back and forth between acting non-religious and acting like a Creationist. You cannot be both, so you must be bullshitting us. Nobody here can take that seriously.

Expressed violent thoughts a number of times?? Yeah Mike, I would thoroughly enjoy kicking your ass and the asses of anyone else who has called me a liar, but I haven’t “expressed violent thoughts a number of times” in the way you’re implying. You’re the one who needs a psychiatrist, along with some others here. If you’re considered sane, I’d rather be considered crazy. And comparing me or anyone else you simply don’t agree with to a serial killer just helps show how paranoid and delusional you are.

If you don’t like being called a liar, stop being one. At least I have ALWAYS told the truth about YOU.

DH, a very minor issue here: the first part you cited above was addressed to me, and personally I find it amusing to watch such comments fall into a hole of resounding silence.

However, as far as the rest goes, carry on.

mrg said:

DH, a very minor issue here: the first part you cited above was addressed to me, and personally I find it amusing to watch such comments fall into a hole of resounding silence.

However, as far as the rest goes, carry on.

Oh, did you want to answer him here first? Be my guest. But I figured I’d just make a note of ANY inappropriate thing Kris says elsewhere and post it here, answer it here, and wait for Kris to take the hint and stop attacking us everywhere else and just slam people here.

Dale Husband said: Oh, did you want to answer him here first? Be my guest.

Why would I want to do that? But if my own rejoinder is indifference, I can at least politely ask that the effect not be spoiled.

Kris threatens: “I would thoroughly enjoy kicking your ass and the asses of anyone else who has called me a liar,…”

Lotsa bluster; everybody’s collective asses are exposed right here.

Mike Elzinga said: … everybody’s collective asses are exposed right here.

AARGH! I am so outa here!

Kris said:

Mike Elzinga said:

mrg said:

Serial killers are maybe a bit much of a comparison.

The point was the sociopathic needs of such an individual. This troll has expressed violent thoughts a number of times. But a psychiatrist would have a better handle on this that I.

I think people like attention; it’s just a question of what kind of attention. When I was the factory contact guy in my corporate life, a colleague in marketing told me that it was true I put up with a lot of abuse – I did – but added: “People thank you sometimes.”

And they did. I get thanks on occasion for my current efforts as well – not often, and maybe thanks aren’t the be-all and end-all of the effort … but on the other side of the coin, if nobody ever thanks me, what reason would I have to honestly believe what I was doing actually did anyone good?

Now take the negative mentalities that show up here … does anyone ever thank them for what they’re doing? It’s obvious it never happens, and just as obvious that they haven’t any expectation that it will.

They still want attention, and lacking any concept that they will ever be praised, they have no alternative but to be disruptive. If one cannot build, then they can only take satisfaction in destruction.

Yeah; you are pointing out common desires that nearly everyone has. But sociopaths also know this and manipulate these.

But I suspect most of us can simply walk away from these kinds of manipulations when we have other things to do that are satisfying; and I suspect most of the moderators here on PT do in fact have other things vying for their attention.

Hell, I’m retired and I can’t get through everything I want to get through in a week. The only reason I even show up here is that the PT topics are often very interesting, and I have a high speed connection that allows me to look in from time to time when I happen to be working on my computer. So most of the time I’m multitasking up a storm when I’m here.

Expressed violent thoughts a number of times?? Yeah Mike, I would thoroughly enjoy kicking your ass and the asses of anyone else who has called me a liar, but I haven’t “expressed violent thoughts a number of times” in the way you’re implying. You’re the one who needs a psychiatrist, along with some others here. If you’re considered sane, I’d rather be considered crazy. And comparing me or anyone else you simply don’t agree with to a serial killer just helps show how paranoid and delusional you are.

Whew! Glad I never called Kris a liar. I only called him a coward and a bully.

Mike Elzinga said: Lotsa bluster; everybody’s collective asses are exposed right here.

So it’s like “one of these days Alice, POW! To the mooning”?

Another collection of Kris’ delusional rants.

Kris said:

And of course your insulting comments, and the insulting comments by the other hypocrites here, don’t violate any of those rules you posted, eh?

Apparently, all that matters here is that any insults have to be aimed at creationists or anyone who doesn’t blindly and viciously attack them right along with you guys/gals.

Giving you back your own shit isn’t allowed. Questioning you isn’t allowed. Having a mind of my own isn’t allowed. Calling you on your bullshit isn’t allowed. Anything less than total devotion and obedience to you and your creationist hating ‘cause’ isn’t allowed. Hypocrisy, by you and your cohorts, is allowed, and encouraged.

Kris said:

And of course you and others going on and on about “trolls”, and repeatedly posting “DNFTT”, isn’t “SPAM”. Yeah, whatever.

Why do you think that a “dissenter” is automatically a “troll”? You’ve said you’re a Christian. Would your Christian God approve of your insulting, hypocritical, hateful behavior?

Kris said:

Maybe, just maybe the moderators are getting wise to the hypocrisy and other bullshit you and others are guilty of.

Now STFU spamming troll.

How do you like your own shit thrown back at you?

Panda’s Thumb is a blog made for defending evolution and promoting proper science education, and since Kris was the one who invaded the blog to spew both Creationist arguments that we were expected to “tolerate” (like we are supposed to tolerate falsehoods?) and then claim to be non-religious at other times, why shouldn’t we regard him as unwelcome, inconsistent and disruptive? Why shouldn’t we treat him like he is the enemy, when that’s all he has ever acted like since he arrived here?

An example of hypocrisy would be us invading and attacking ID promoters on Uncommon Descent. I’ve never done that, and never will. Maybe Kris can go over there and drive the ID people crazy for a while, to prove to us once and for all that he is an equal-opportunity critic, and not a bigoted Creationist concern troll.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/

Kris the creationist wrote:

“If, however, “descent with modification” is defined as showing that speciation (evolution) occurs and/or occurred, then that’s a different ballgame, and requires greater evidence. While a lot of evidence points to a persuasive probability that descent with modification, including divergence/speciation, occurred throughout(?) the history of life, there’s a lot more work to do to before it can reasonably be said that it has been established close to 100%, and I’m not sure it can be reasonably said that it can be established ‘empirically’. Many inferences have been and have to be made, and inferences are a matter of opinion.”

This is of course incorrect. I already posted a link to a web page entitled:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

If Kris wants to discuss the point, he can do so here. Maybe someone will want to discuss it with him. Unless of course he is just plain chicken shit.

DS said: Kris the creationist wrote:

You might just leave a short bland note on the original thread to invite him to come to the BW for discussion. He’ll ignore it, of course, but that works too.

Yawn.

(Bored.)

All the spamming at The Immune System Cross-examination Still Burns, and other forums, is very unChristlike, don’t you think?

Makes you wonder if these anti-science creation-supporters are Christians? (Never known a real creationist who wasn’t.)

It’s funny how trolls stubbornly resist being prodded to direct their comments to the BW. They know that once they do, they don’t have any real nuisance value any more: “What’s the point of trolling, then?”

Kris huffs and puffs and squeaks “What are you afraid of?” hiding behind his mommy’s apron. Afraid to mix it up on the big kid’s playground, he’ll sit in the sandbox and cry.

Poor widdle Kwis! Mean old scientists call you out on your stupid shit? Maybe if we ignore the little wanker he’ll go back into the closet and play with himself.

Geeze, I’m beginning to miss FL! I tell you, the neighborhood is going to hell.

I knew the asshole was chicken shit. All he haas to do is come here and provide a better explanation for the 29 different independent data sets that are all consistent with common descent. Until he does, I guess he will just be someone who believes in evolution but not in common descent. Yea right.

Everyone should remember, he had his chance to discuss science, he chose to quote mine and insult instead. He can cry all he wants to now, but everyone is wise to his crap.

Are soldiers who kill their country’s enemies in justifiable war, but who enjoy the killing, – i.e., who are psychopathic serial murderers, but acting strictly under the orders and within the sanction of their rules of engagement – acting morally?

IIRC, “American Sniper” Chris Kyle, in his book, expressed positive pleasure and enjoyment at killing his 255 victims. I can’t question whether there were any who didn’t “deserve” it, being enemy fighters who would have killed Americans, given the chance. But IBIG, if Kyle, or others like him, was merely using the cover of military justification to do what he really enjoyed –killing people– was he a moral person? Was he acting morally?

Why can’t you, speaking ex cathedra from “absolute morality”, answer specific questions like these, dealing with real world acts? Doesn’t your “absolute morality” provide a simple, obvious answer to all such questions?

jjm said:

Has the person who killed someone by accident committed a moral act?

More real life messiness. What if the accident was caused by negligence? Driving while texting or drunk – I’d call that negligent enough to be immoral. What would God say, IBIG?

OTOH, I’m driving down a neighborhood street where children can be seen playing in yards. I’m going a mile under the posted speed limit. A child darts out from between a couple of parked minivans a mere 10 feet in front of me. By the time I could possibly hit the brakes, I’ve already killed him. Any moral culpability? I could have chosen to drive 15 mph more slowly, just on the slight chance that something like that could happen. I could have chosen to turn off that street, seeing children at play. I could have chosen not to drive a car at all and walked to the grocery store, knowing I would thereby drastically lessen my chance of killing a child.

IOW, IBIG, armed with perfect, absolute, established-by-God morality, at what point does moral evil in the form of criminal negligence switch absolutely over to moral good, or at least neutrality? Is there moral neutrality? How foreseeable and preventable does an accident have to be before we are morally guilty, i.e. evil, for causing it, or not preventing it?

C’mon, give us an absolute ruling.

Just Bob said:

Are soldiers who kill their country’s enemies in justifiable war, but who enjoy the killing, – i.e., who are psychopathic serial murderers, but acting strictly under the orders and within the sanction of their rules of engagement – acting morally?

IIRC, “American Sniper” Chris Kyle, in his book, expressed positive pleasure and enjoyment at killing his 255 victims. I can’t question whether there were any who didn’t “deserve” it, being enemy fighters who would have killed Americans, given the chance. But IBIG, if Kyle, or others like him, was merely using the cover of military justification to do what he really enjoyed –killing people– was he a moral person? Was he acting morally?

Why can’t you, speaking ex cathedra from “absolute morality”, answer specific questions like these, dealing with real world acts? Doesn’t your “absolute morality” provide a simple, obvious answer to all such questions?

I doubt if killing and insect makes you a psychopathic serial murderer. It is the actual state of the mind. A “thing” was totally wacko and collected only “insects”! I think it finally killed a few before they got “it”!

For that mater really anything that has to do with humans, even Surgeons can “loose it”, and become “sick in the head”.

Absolutely if we want to be really be innocent and say I have luckily never killed anybody, even accidentally, then “killing is bad”.

IBelieveInGod said: Here is the problem of your argument: if morality is a convention of man, or if it has evolved within populations, then morality of a particular culture, society, or nation must be respected as their own moral standard, and can’t be questioned by our own moral standard. You see if there is no transcendent absolute moral standard, then one moral standard does not apply to all.

So, by what criteria do you know what is good or evil?

IBelieveInGod said:

eric said:

IBelieveInGod said: No the burden of proof rests on you. I don’t have to prove that the Bible exists.

So, the God of the Bible approves of evil and even compels His followers to commit evil, is that correct? I ask this, because it has been a re-occurring theme from many who post on this blog as to the existence of God over the years.

Of course the bible exists. We’re talking about a burden of proof for the entities it describes, not the presence of the physical document. The factual claim “The Koran exists” doesn’t lend credence to its theology, and likewise the factual claim “the Bible exists” doesn’t lend credence to its theology.

As for theodicy, sure, let’s run with your description. Lay your recycled unattributed quoted argument on me. Which will it be? Inscrutable god? Free will? Atheists can’t reference evil? I am breathfull in anticipation.

What is your criteria to judge some things to be evil and other things not to be evil? By what process do you recognize evil from good?”

IBelieveInGod said: The absolute moral code you speak, is that innate sense we each have of right an wrong. That inner voice that tells us that we are about to, or have done something wrong. Clearly we know it is not right to mistreat an innocent person. We know that it is evil for someone to torture an infant merely for pleasure.

So how big a hole are you in IBIG?

You argue that morals are absolute and universal, if not, how can we judge others.

You argue that morals can’t exist without god.

You even argued that love can’t exist without god.

You argue that the bible is a source of morals.

Then you argue that morals are the inner voice we have.

You’ve gone from morals are absolute and come from god and the bible to morals are internal to the individual, that little voice we hear inside our head.

Your arguments are contradictory. If morals are internal and different people seem to have different versions of internal morals (their internal voices say different things), how can you judge anyone else internal morals by your own argument? If they are internal and different between people, how can they be absolute and universal?

What process do you use for recognizing evil from good? is it internal? is it the bible? is it society? Is it absolute? You’ve used a few different versions.

You still can’t give us a single example of a universal absolute moral code.

In contrast to your ever changing argument, ours has remained the same. We haven’t had to change ours. Ours is logical, rational and fits the observations. Yours has had to change when it can’t be defended against a logical critique.

Just Bob said:

jjm said:

Has the person who killed someone by accident committed a moral act?

More real life messiness. What if the accident was caused by negligence? Driving while texting or drunk – I’d call that negligent enough to be immoral. What would God say, IBIG?

OTOH, I’m driving down a neighborhood street where children can be seen playing in yards. I’m going a mile under the posted speed limit. A child darts out from between a couple of parked minivans a mere 10 feet in front of me. By the time I could possibly hit the brakes, I’ve already killed him. Any moral culpability? I could have chosen to drive 15 mph more slowly, just on the slight chance that something like that could happen. I could have chosen to turn off that street, seeing children at play. I could have chosen not to drive a car at all and walked to the grocery store, knowing I would thereby drastically lessen my chance of killing a child.

Bob,

you clearly don’t understand absolutes. It’s all about your internal voice. sarcasm intended!

It can be argued, by IBIGs new definition, that Hitler wasn’t necessarily immoral. If he was acting in accordance with his internal voices. I certainly wouldn’t agree, but that’s what comes out of IBIGs new definition.

Just Bob said: IOW, IBIG, armed with perfect, absolute, established-by-God morality, at what point does moral evil in the form of criminal negligence switch absolutely over to moral good, or at least neutrality? Is there moral neutrality? How foreseeable and preventable does an accident have to be before we are morally guilty, i.e. evil, for causing it, or not preventing it?

C’mon, give us an absolute ruling.

He can’t even give us the rule! He’s arguing for something he can’t even give us one example of! What does that tell you?

I think Biggy thinks that “absolute” means that if a thought, word or deed can be completely described, then he can with certainty pronounce upon its morality by consulting his conscience. Which was, he thinks, installed by God.

“Absolute” doesn’t mean that. If “moral” means subject to stated principles, “absolute morality” means that there is a complete, invariable, pronounceable principle that covers all cases, no exceptions whatsoever.

There is no such principle. All principles whatsoever are subject to caveats, exceptions, amelioration, special cases, and so on. The judgement, if judgement there is to be, must be case-by-case. But Biggy actually knows that. He has already conceded it:

That inner voice that tells us that we are about to, or have done something wrong.

which is precisely to say that the judgement happens on a case-by-case basis. The only difference is that Biggy doesn’t have to think about it. He thinks. He’s wrong about that, too, of course. It’s just that his thought happens subconsciously. Like Matthew Harrison Brady, he doesn’t think about the things he doesn’t think about. Well, he doesn’t think he thinks about them, and he approves of that. It seems like not thinking about stuff is a Biggy thing.

But anyway, it follows from Biggy’s inability to cite this absolute moral principle, that he doesn’t actually know one. Probably - I’m not absolutely certain of this, but probably - that’s because there’s no such thing.

But Biggy actually knows that, too, in his heart of hearts. He tells us:

The Nazis were convicted of their evil acts in the War Trials, even though they were acting rightfully within their societal moral standard.

but, in the same post, paradoxically asks:

isn’t it the motive that determines the rightness or wrongness of that act?

which, if it were right, would necessarily exonerate the Nazis. Their motive, as they would be the first to say, was to save Germany and western Europe from destruction at the hands of lesser races, and to establish a pure and co-operative community under a wise and essentially benevolent leader. Who shall say that it wasn’t? Who should know what were their motives, but themselves?

But their motives were not even considered at the Nuremberg trials. They were irrelevant. It was their acts that were judged - on a case-by-case basis.

So Biggy has again blown the bottom out of his own canoe. He managed to do it in almost successive sentences in the same paragraph, too. The very moral rule he cited (“motive determines right”) was ignored at Nuremberg, to his approval. It isn’t absolute, then.

Probably nothing is.

jjm said:

IBelieveInGod said: Here is the problem of your argument: if morality is a convention of man, or if it has evolved within populations, then morality of a particular culture, society, or nation must be respected as their own moral standard, and can’t be questioned by our own moral standard. You see if there is no transcendent absolute moral standard, then one moral standard does not apply to all.

So, by what criteria do you know what is good or evil?

IBelieveInGod said:

eric said:

IBelieveInGod said: No the burden of proof rests on you. I don’t have to prove that the Bible exists.

So, the God of the Bible approves of evil and even compels His followers to commit evil, is that correct? I ask this, because it has been a re-occurring theme from many who post on this blog as to the existence of God over the years.

Of course the bible exists. We’re talking about a burden of proof for the entities it describes, not the presence of the physical document. The factual claim “The Koran exists” doesn’t lend credence to its theology, and likewise the factual claim “the Bible exists” doesn’t lend credence to its theology.

As for theodicy, sure, let’s run with your description. Lay your recycled unattributed quoted argument on me. Which will it be? Inscrutable god? Free will? Atheists can’t reference evil? I am breathfull in anticipation.

What is your criteria to judge some things to be evil and other things not to be evil? By what process do you recognize evil from good?”

IBelieveInGod said: The absolute moral code you speak, is that innate sense we each have of right an wrong. That inner voice that tells us that we are about to, or have done something wrong. Clearly we know it is not right to mistreat an innocent person. We know that it is evil for someone to torture an infant merely for pleasure.

So how big a hole are you in IBIG?

You argue that morals are absolute and universal, if not, how can we judge others.

You argue that morals can’t exist without god.

You even argued that love can’t exist without god.

You argue that the bible is a source of morals.

Then you argue that morals are the inner voice we have.

You’ve gone from morals are absolute and come from god and the bible to morals are internal to the individual, that little voice we hear inside our head.

Your arguments are contradictory. If morals are internal and different people seem to have different versions of internal morals (their internal voices say different things), how can you judge anyone else internal morals by your own argument? If they are internal and different between people, how can they be absolute and universal?

What process do you use for recognizing evil from good? is it internal? is it the bible? is it society? Is it absolute? You’ve used a few different versions.

You still can’t give us a single example of a universal absolute moral code.

In contrast to your ever changing argument, ours has remained the same. We haven’t had to change ours. Ours is logical, rational and fits the observations. Yours has had to change when it can’t be defended against a logical critique.

Romans 2:13-16

13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

IBelieveInGod said:

Romans 2:13-16…

Look, stupid, there are no gods. Until you can demonstrate the reality of your religious delusions, you have no refuge in your book of fairy tales, because without real gods, your fairy tales are nothing but that.

It isn’t murder (unlawful killing)and it isn’t morally wrong to kill someone in self defense.

As far as killing someone in an accident, it depends on what brought about the accident. If you are drunk while driving, then you obviously had a disregard for the life and safety of others, and it would be morally wrong. If the accident is solely the result of your car losing control on a rain slicked road, and you aren’t drunk, then there would be no moral wrong.

phhht said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Romans 2:13-16…

Look, stupid, there are no gods. Until you can demonstrate the reality of your religious delusions, you have no refuge in your book of fairy tales, because without real gods, your fairy tales are nothing but that.

For your claim “there is no God” to be true, wouldn’t it have to be an absolute universal truth?

IBelieveInGod said:

phhht said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Romans 2:13-16…

Look, stupid, there are no gods. Until you can demonstrate the reality of your religious delusions, you have no refuge in your book of fairy tales, because without real gods, your fairy tales are nothing but that.

For your claim “there is no God” to be true, wouldn’t it have to be an absolute universal truth?

No, stupid, we’ve been through this again and again. Remember?

Or was all that with one of your imposters?

IBelieveInGod said:

jjm said:

IBelieveInGod said: Here is the problem of your argument: if morality is a convention of man, or if it has evolved within populations, then morality of a particular culture, society, or nation must be respected as their own moral standard, and can’t be questioned by our own moral standard. You see if there is no transcendent absolute moral standard, then one moral standard does not apply to all.

So, by what criteria do you know what is good or evil?

IBelieveInGod said:

eric said:

IBelieveInGod said: No the burden of proof rests on you. I don’t have to prove that the Bible exists.

So, the God of the Bible approves of evil and even compels His followers to commit evil, is that correct? I ask this, because it has been a re-occurring theme from many who post on this blog as to the existence of God over the years.

Of course the bible exists. We’re talking about a burden of proof for the entities it describes, not the presence of the physical document. The factual claim “The Koran exists” doesn’t lend credence to its theology, and likewise the factual claim “the Bible exists” doesn’t lend credence to its theology.

As for theodicy, sure, let’s run with your description. Lay your recycled unattributed quoted argument on me. Which will it be? Inscrutable god? Free will? Atheists can’t reference evil? I am breathfull in anticipation.

What is your criteria to judge some things to be evil and other things not to be evil? By what process do you recognize evil from good?”

IBelieveInGod said: The absolute moral code you speak, is that innate sense we each have of right an wrong. That inner voice that tells us that we are about to, or have done something wrong. Clearly we know it is not right to mistreat an innocent person. We know that it is evil for someone to torture an infant merely for pleasure.

So how big a hole are you in IBIG?

You argue that morals are absolute and universal, if not, how can we judge others.

You argue that morals can’t exist without god.

You even argued that love can’t exist without god.

You argue that the bible is a source of morals.

Then you argue that morals are the inner voice we have.

You’ve gone from morals are absolute and come from god and the bible to morals are internal to the individual, that little voice we hear inside our head.

Your arguments are contradictory. If morals are internal and different people seem to have different versions of internal morals (their internal voices say different things), how can you judge anyone else internal morals by your own argument? If they are internal and different between people, how can they be absolute and universal?

What process do you use for recognizing evil from good? is it internal? is it the bible? is it society? Is it absolute? You’ve used a few different versions.

You still can’t give us a single example of a universal absolute moral code.

In contrast to your ever changing argument, ours has remained the same. We haven’t had to change ours. Ours is logical, rational and fits the observations. Yours has had to change when it can’t be defended against a logical critique.

Romans 2:13-16

13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

IBelieveInGod said:

It isn’t murder (unlawful killing)and it isn’t morally wrong to kill someone in self defense.

As far as killing someone in an accident, it depends on what brought about the accident. If you are drunk while driving, then you obviously had a disregard for the life and safety of others, and it would be morally wrong. If the accident is solely the result of your car losing control on a rain slicked road, and you aren’t drunk, then there would be no moral wrong.

So again, you can’t actually give us the rule. You cannot provide an example of an absolute moral code. As Dave says, you want to judge it case by case, but didn’t you argue against that?

Where do these morals come from? is it god and the bible or is it internal?

Why did you not address any of the contradictions raised about your argument?

Biggy arbitrates:

If the accident is solely the result of your car losing control on a rain slicked road, and you aren’t drunk, then there would be no moral wrong.

And if you were driving a mite too fast? What if you had a bald tyre? What if you didn’t know the tyre was bald?

Case-by-case, Biggy. There is no absolute law. “Circumstances alter cases” is the most ancient principle of the Common Law, and pretty much a sound one. Pretty much.

phhht said:

IBelieveInGod said:

phhht said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Romans 2:13-16…

Look, stupid, there are no gods. Until you can demonstrate the reality of your religious delusions, you have no refuge in your book of fairy tales, because without real gods, your fairy tales are nothing but that.

For your claim “there is no God” to be true, wouldn’t it have to be an absolute universal truth?

No, stupid, we’ve been through this again and again. Remember?

Or was all that with one of your imposters?

No, no, THIS one is an impostor. The only real one is the original, the very first one to use the handle IBelieveInGod. Anyone else who uses that name is violating the clearly stated TOS rules of this site.

IOW, he (she, they, whatever) is a lyin’ sack o’ shit. As my saintly grandma would have said.

Just Bob said:

The only real one is the original, the very first one to use the handle IBelieveInGod. Anyone else who uses that name is violating the clearly stated TOS rules of this site.

So, Poofster, is that you? Did you post those entries so long ago? Are you the same poster now?

Or are you just desperate because you have no evidence at all to show that gods are real? Is it that you can’t do anything but wave your book of fairy tales at us?

See, Poofster, I say you are mistaken in your faith. I say you are deluded. There are no gods.

And you have no answer at all. Nothing but desperate helpless silence.

IBelieveInGod said:

It isn’t murder (unlawful killing)and it isn’t morally wrong to kill someone in self defense.

As far as killing someone in an accident, it depends on what brought about the accident. If you are drunk while driving, then you obviously had a disregard for the life and safety of others, and it would be morally wrong. If the accident is solely the result of your car losing control on a rain slicked road, and you aren’t drunk, then there would be no moral wrong.

Biggies argument seems to be evolving.

First it was the act.

Then it was the intent.

Now he is arguing it’s culpability. A lot of variation for an absolute moral code. Still waiting for IBIG to give us an example of that moral code.

Dave Luckett said:

Biggy arbitrates:

If the accident is solely the result of your car losing control on a rain slicked road, and you aren’t drunk, then there would be no moral wrong.

And if you were driving a mite too fast? What if you had a bald tyre? What if you didn’t know the tyre was bald?

Case-by-case, Biggy. There is no absolute law. “Circumstances alter cases” is the most ancient principle of the Common Law, and pretty much a sound one. Pretty much.

So in the common law system, we have laws, but judges make judgement on those laws, partly because not all possible outcomes and exceptions can be foreseen. Those judgements become precedents that are used for future judgement. Allowing for the law to evolve and also to deal with exceptions and unanticipated possibilities, deliberately avoiding absolutes.

Biggies argument seems to be one also made, unsuccessfully, by a great Australian “it’s the vibe of the thing”

IBelieveInGod said:

It isn’t murder (unlawful killing)and it isn’t morally wrong to kill someone in self defense.

As far as killing someone in an accident, it depends on what brought about the accident. If you are drunk while driving, then you obviously had a disregard for the life and safety of others, and it would be morally wrong. If the accident is solely the result of your car losing control on a rain slicked road, and you aren’t drunk, then there would be no moral wrong.

More and more exceptions. Finer gradations of “killing by accident”. You have just admitted that one has to judge the morality of each act on a case-by-case basis.

As everyone else has been saying all along.

So, in all this exceptioning and special casing, when do the exceptions and special cases stop? At what point do you, personally, decide that you have reached that “absolute” moral limit? And why, if it is absolute, does that limit appear to be different for every single person? If it’s different for every person’s inner voice, and different in every case, then how can you claim that it’s “absolute”?

Or maybe your “absolute” morality is as full of holes and exceptions as the US tax code. Sure, it’s all written down in black and white, but with so many exceptions, and exceptions to those exceptions, it’s hardly “absolute”.

Leave a comment

About this Archive

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter