The Objectively Dictionary Challenged

dictionaryI find myself walking away from more and more debates because the people involved are just damn stupid.  Nowhere is this better illustrated than a recent “debate” where a guy claimed that morality is objective.  This isn’t a new debate by any means and this guy isn’t playing the religious angle, in fact, I’d argue that he’s an atheist and making the same failed argument that I pointed out with Matt Dillahunty‘s secular morality claims.

There just isn’t any way to justify objective morality because objectivity, by it’s very definition, has to exist outside of the human mind and not be beholden to human whims, emotions, desires, dreams or anything of the sort.  Therefore, anyone who sets goals, observes standards, takes positions, etc. on the state of morality is, by definition, being subjective in their views.  This guy couldn’t wrap his head around that and, in fact, came off very dishonestly in his arguments.

He defined morality as supporting the goal of stopping suffering in humanity.  That’s exactly what Matt Dillahunty tries to argue and it fails for exactly the same reason.  The second you, as an individual, define a goal, you’re no longer being objective, but subjective.  I don’t care what the goal is, I don’t care how strongly you feel about the goal, that goal is still subjective because a human mind had a part in selecting it.  Words have meanings for a reason, to facilitate clear and concise communication.  So I produced a number of definitions for the word “objective” and he ignored them all entirely.  I guess words don’t mean much to him.  I told him to go out and find his own definition of “objective” from any reputable source that meets his claims about it.  He didn’t.  Instead, he went out and pulled a definition for the word “optimal”, claiming that he only cared about the optimal state of humanity and therefore, any morality that led to his self-defined optimal state was, by some bizarre definition, “objective”.

When I picked myself up off the floor, mouth agape, I just shook my head and walked away.  Now I don’t care if he wants to argue that his subjective position on morality is that it leads to some self-chosen optimal state, but come on, that’s not what the debate was about and he knows it.  This is becoming more and more common though, people thinking that they get to redefine words at their whim so they can win arguments.

Sorry, it just doesn’t work that way.

Color is objectively defined, not subjectively experienced.

Worse yet, the guys on the other side of the debate weren’t that bright either.  They chased me down to explain that morality was subjective in the same way that color was subjective.  Everyone experiences it differently!  That sent me reeling as well because it is absolutely, positively not true.  Color is objective.  Each color is defined as a particular range of light wavelengths.  For example, red is defined as light around 650 nanometers, you don’t have to see this in order to measure it objectively.  If someone has red/green color blindness though, that light doesn’t magically transform into gray for the individual, even though they are unable to see red.  It remains red, their optical sensory organs are simply wrong.  They are not functioning properly.  The light doesn’t change, the people are seeing the light improperly!  I’ve tried to explain this to these people and they just can’t get it through their head that color is an objective thing.

It’s enough to make me want to throttle people sometimes.  Seriously, what do you do when you’re surrounded by morons on every side of the debate?

667 thoughts on “The Objectively Dictionary Challenged”

  1. I'm wondering, if there is no objective moral standards, then please elaborate for me under what circumstances it would be morally acceptable and justified to rape a child. Is pedophilia ever morally excusable? What about infanticide? I know that there have been times in the past when cultures engaged in infanticide. I am not questioning that humans do this. But is it ever morally excusable?

    1. In the bible god loves infanticide:
      1 Samuel 15:3 God commands the death of helpless "suckling" infants. This literally means that the children god killed were still nursing.

      Psalms 135:8 & 136:10 Here god is praised for slaughtering little babies.

      Psalms 137:9 Here god commands that infants should be “dashed upon the rocks”.

      1. I realize you don't have a basic knowledge of the Bible or represent what you do know accurately.

        God stood against infanticide.
        For example 2 Chronicles 33:6 lays it out.
        He sacrificed his children in the fire in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, practiced divination and witchcraft, sought omens, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the LORD, arousing his anger.

        Leviticus 18:21 lays it out.
        New International Version
        "'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.

        When entire cultures were unwilling to stop that practice God eliminated them, even down to the last survivors or suckling children.

        1. So which of the scriptures posted, Roger, control in this situation? This is a large part of the problem with the Bible. There are conflicting, contradictory passages throughout the entire Bible. You can't logically explain away the passages that clearly condone infanticide by pointing out passages that reject infanticide.

          As for the Leviticus quote, this is just your God telling his followers not to sacrifice children to another God. It says nothing about sacrificing them to Yahweh. Clearly in the passages TheNewsMadd quoted, your fictional God had no problem with killing infants if it served his purposes or is done in his name rather than that of another God.

          As for the Chronicles passage, how do we know that the evil done, according to your God, was not because this person did these things, but because he did them without God's explicit permission and support. Afterall, the Bible makes it clear from the passages quoted by TheNewsMadd that your God has no problem ordering his followers to do these very things. So they must be evil only when not done on behalf of your God, or in your God's name.

          And your last sentence proves the entire point of TheNewsMadds posting of the scriptures he did. You are one very sick, twisted individual if you do not see the barbarity, the savagery, the evil of the belief that it is okay to kill whole populations so long as your God orders it or condones it. This is the very moral relativism that Christians so often object to. The very acts that we think immoral are not, according to your demented belief system, immoral so long as God orders them. This is Divine Command Theory, one of the most barbaric, horrific, loathsome philosophical justifications to be offered up by any brand of philosophical thinking, let alone theology. If you accept this bullshit then you disgust me as a person.

          1. It isn't a problem at all.
            If two text disagree then one isn't being used correctly. Dig deeper.
            One is God saying He wants an evil society stamped out completely.

            1 Samuel 15: 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

            Now that you read the entire text where does the original claim stand?

          2. Or, they are simply contradictory, something you're not willing to consider. You just assume that there must be some solution and are willing to twist and turn the passages, redefine what they mean, just so you can invent an explanation, whether it's actually true or not.

          3. I just provided evidence of what the text says. Can you show that it is contradictory?
            In this case simply reading it to see what it does say solved the accusation TNM made.

          4. What is contradictory is that the passage you quoted contradicts other passages in the same book. No one is arguing that the particular passage you quoted contradicts itself. The Bible is rife with such contradictions and internal inconsistencies. This alone is sufficient reason to dismiss the whole book as being useless as a guide for human behavior. All manner of evil has been justified by quoting this passage or that passage of the Bible. Christians quoted the Bible in the 1800s as justification for slavery in the southern states. But I am sure you will respond with some assinine revisionist piece of history and pretend it is a rebuttal to this.

          5. What a goddam moron you truly must be. The scripture you quote and the scripture quoted by TheNewsMadd are contradictory. If you don't see that then it is because you are so blinkered by your religious belief that you are incapable of examining evidence critically and objectively. But if you need more I recommend to you the book The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy. Go educate yourself, if that is even possible.

          6. The scripture was the same text, I just added the verses before it and actually quoted the text instead of paraphrasing it.

          7. The contradiction to which I am referring Roger is not within the text of the scripture from Samuel I you quoted. The contradiction is between what this scripture says and what Psalm 137:9 says. It is obvious from this passage in Psalm that your depraved God does condone the killing of children under at least some circumstances. This makes your God something at which to direct contempt and those such as yourselves who accept this shit the most loathsome among the loathsome.

          8. Yes that is correct that in certain circumstances God does find death acceptable when compared to the life that would have continued.

            The Bible is full of those examples. That would be the lesser of two evils.
            The Bible is also full of examples were there is a force that enjoys death, advocates for it and had a system set up to slaughter innocent lives for sacrifice to molock, and God stopped it.

            That makes God desperate to slow evil and dull it's effects.

            Do you see evil as a force in the world around us?

          9. Well I would imagine "Islamists" as you call them would not use that site because they worship the same prophets as jews and christians and as most people know are brothers of the jews. They're both descendants of Abraham.

          10. Actually someone working the profile you're assigned to now did.

            "If it's the law of the land then it is the law of the land and is right according to their laws. yes."

            And if nobody cared they wouldn't pay you to be here.

          11. Yes, you actually did.

            Of course if you as the new person working that profile want to repudiate the former paid hack's position, that's your prerogative.

          12. Don't blame me if they assigned you to a profile that had a real moron posting there already.

            It's on your profile so you're stuck with it.

          13. THat didn't stop the romans from throwing christians to the lions or having laws in America that you can beat your wife on a sunday

          14. The poor amalekites. They never did anything to anybody. they were tortured and destroyed by these hateful evil hebrew jews that have laid waste to entire Civilizations. Just ask the Japanese.

          15. But when the Hebrews rape and pillage and destroy, it's okay because God told them to and everyone else was a bunch of evil heathens.

          16. I am sure after the hrbrews slaughtered their families they went willingly as wives


          17. It would be their choice now, wouldn't it?
            And that's more than the innocent children offered to molek had.
            And the maidens would be the women who had never had children or offered them to the alters to be burned alive.

          18. So, you as an islamist have no problem with children suicide bombers and child brides but pretend I don't church the innocence of childhood? Interesting.

            Of course feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

          19. Just because some barbarians wrote a lie about a peaceful community does not make it true.

          20. Exactly, which is why so many travel to Israel and enjoy the stability the government struggles for in spite of people such as yourself.

          21. Just because barbarians said that the Amalekites were sacrificing children does not make it true.

          22. Apparently you have no problem with God commanding the rape of the innocent and the murder of entire cultures. See Judges 21:10-24, Numbers 31:7-18, Deuteronomy 20:10-14, Deuteronomy 22:28-29, Deuteronomy 22:23-24, 2 Samuel 12:11-14, Deuteronomy 21:10-14, Judges 5:30, Exodus 21:7-11 and Zechariah 14:1-2, among others.

            You're an obnoxious hypocrite.

          23. Nope, I just don't like human sacrifice.

            How many dead humans should have piled up on those alters before it needed to be stopped?

          24. Nope. Unlike you I can think without voices.

            When your handlers realize how lame you are, are you going to be another
            Mojtaba Ahmadi?

          25. And all because your handlers pay you to say so.

            It did happen. But take the money and try to hide a little bit of self respect where they can't take it from you.

          26. And even if you wanted to, you aren't up to it.

            Do you realize that this site doesn't deserve people such as yourself?

          27. HE also claims it would be the virgins choice to go as wives. So basically it was we will kill you or we can rape you and take you as wives.


          28. Did you need help with the big words to say that?

            And no, you're right up there with the other iranian centric troll keithisGreat only he had the distinction of going away when he was totally discredited.

          29. If you keep doing the same thing you're gonna get the same results. You have to do something to different to achieve different results.

          30. And yoru lame link is getting no results and you stick with it.

            You don't want results, you're here to drive folks out of the temple/site.

            I guess that hasn't changed.

          31. What happened to the last poor sap that was posting comments for you? Did he quit and leave it to you?

            You don't sound the same or have same syntax.

          32. surah 9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

          33. Israel doesn't abide by the geneva conventions. Are they "islamists"? Iran is islamic and they abide by the geneva conventions

          34. no islamist group abides by it.
            Israel abides by most of it, like not targeting civilian populations.

            The kassam rockets can't say that much.

          35. israel doesn't abide by it. islam says to treat prisoners with respect. god hates transgressors.

          36. Who is laying siege to an entire race of people? Who killed thousands in the gaza massacre? It's not Iran

          37. Again, you are not paying close attention. We are not saying that the scripture you quoted is self-contradictory. It is contradicted by other passages in the Bible. What we are saying is that the Bible as a whole contains many contradictions and internal inconsistencies. I suggest you read the book, The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy by C. Dennis McKinsey <a href="http://(” target=”_blank”>( Of course I say this knowing full well you won't. But then that is your problem not mine. It is you who is so blinded by your dogmatic attachment to your religion that you won't even take a look at the contrary evidence. But maybe you will prove me wrong and actually read the book. Maybe, oh dear I hope, you will exhibit a little intellectual integrity and examine this book. Afterall, I have read and studied with critical thinking faculties in full operating mode the Bible in its entirety. That is how I know it is a foul, vile tome of bigoted mythology.

            In the 553 pages of McKinsey's book he describes in great detail the contradictions, errors, fallacies, and inconsistencies that number in the hundreds in the Bible. In his book he quite successfully and persuasively explains that the Bible "… is a deceptively inaccurate conglomeration of mythology and folklore masquerading as a valid picture of historical reality. In this book McKinsey "…vividly proves the Bible to be its own worst enemy."

          38. If it's that obvious you shouldn't have a hard time giving examples.

            There have been scientists that point out the contradictions in evolution but you demand examples and proof, fair is fair.

          39. Okay Roger, here we go:

            God good to all, or just a few?

            PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

            JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

            War or Peace?

            EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

            ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

            Who is the father of Joseph?

            MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

            LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

            [Editor's note: This contradiction has to do only with the father of Joseph, not with the father of Jesus.]

            Which first–beasts or man?

            GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
            GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

            GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

            GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

            This is but a few. If you want to read more then examine the website from which each of the above came:

            You can also find contradictions at the following websites:

            This last one is rather interesting because the co-president of the organization that put together this list, Dan Barker, is a former evangelical minister. He can't accurately be accused of not knowing the Bible since he once spent countless hours studying it and preaching from it.

            Anyway, I've done what you asked. Now have you the intellectual integrity to deal with this truth or will you yet once again resort to all types of mental contortions and rationalizations. I'm betting on the latter.

            As for the evolution thing, while you are simply wrong, I am not going to take this bait and allow you to misdirect us from the topic at hand. No need to throw another topic into the mix for you to demonstrate the great depth of your ignorance nor the great degree to which you are incapable of thinking critically.

            No, Roger you don't get to misdirect us into a conversation of evolution. If I allow you to do this you will only more fully display how much of a simpleton you are. That

          40. Misdirected? I reminded you of the double standard on proof.

            First off, thanks for examples. Not generalities.

            No, I don't see these examples as contradictions. Paradox's perhaps.

            Jeremiah was speaking to a nation that had just murdered a series of prophets sent to warn them. God gave them warnings and chances. That is the God of mercy in the first half.

            The next paradoxes. That is actually a much more involved one. If God never stopped evil, it would lead to more suffering. For Him to battle evil is a good thing, at least to me. If God didn't care and allowed suffering without measures to counter it, then I would have no respect for that kind of God.

            On the father and grandfather of Jesus. Jacob is a very common Jewish name, that's why they had begets and often say "Joseph the son of" to clarify. The legal genealogy was for reasons important to the Jewish culture, the Virgin birth would never have been believed by the Romans. So, the authors covered their bases.

            Each of these takes a partial part of the story and then making every attempt to distort it claims it is a contradiction. I don't see them that way.

            Some at the face of it are conundrums. But only until examined without bias.

            If the Bible is something you don't take seriously, and you only study it enough to find issues why not actually study it to find out if the issues you bring up are real or not?

            Job is a story about the nature of good and evil, and you don't have to read much of the first chapter to see who enjoys suffering and pain. And it's not God.

          41. No, they weren't evil. They were a peaceful society who welcomed in the jews. Like many other nations since then

          42. Not according to the only accounts we have, including the mention in the text under discussion.

            Do you have other accounts you want to bring to the table?

          43. The accounts we have are abundant and the Canaanites and the many other people living in the levant at that time were peaceful. Their only fault was allowing jews to fester and spread their hateful religion.

          44. That's all well and good if you want to throw away the children.
            Their main fault was that they had a society that didn't mind throwing away the children.

          45. They didn't. They were a peaceful people. Just because the jews lied and said they were killing children doesn't make it true.

            This reminds me a lot of the babies being thrown out of incubators in Iraq that the jews used to justify killing all those Iraqis in the first Iraq war.

          46. And if they do, it's because they don't follow the teachings of Christ.

            Secular authorities need to treat them as the murderers that they are, regardless of what convenient label they want to hide behind.

          47. You still haven't proven that the supposed teachings of Christ are worth following or valid or true. When do you think you'll do that?

          48. I have examples, the most important commandments. The comment that quoted Jesus as saying those all others depended on those two.

            That is the key to how His teachings unfold. Why would I need to go farther? The problem isn't 'that that key teaching is bad, but that the people hiding behind religion don't actually follow it.

          49. "If two text disagree then one isn't being used correctly. Dig deeper."

            This is actually a large part of the problem. You are deciding which one of the passages is being used correctly and which is not. There is no objective independent source one can draw upon to decide this.

            Bullshit. The Amalekites were evil by your fictional God's standard only because they did not worship him, obey his rules and mistreated the Israelites. Ordering the slaughter of an entire people, including children, is not a moral act by any standard. If you believe your God was justified in doing this then you are a twisted, demented individual. If you accept this as morally acceptable then you deserve nothing but contempt and loathing in response.

            Now that I have read the entire text, my comments stand as they are. The Bible and your belief that the acts of your God were justified are worthy of nothing but scorn. Your Bible and the acts of your God and the commands issued by the same are dispicable.

          50. No, that's not the situation at all.

            Either show I did that or move on to your next talking point.
            All I did was read to see what the text actually said.

            Do you defend offering innocent children to the alter of Moleck?
            And after reading your entire comment I comment still stands. Either you think life should be defended or not. The text shows that God does.

          51. The Amalekites were evil by your fictional God's standard only because they did not worship him, obey his rules and mistreated the Israelites. Ordering the slaughter of an entire people, including children, is not a moral act by any standard. If you believe your God was justified in doing this then you are a twisted, demented individual. If you accept this as morally acceptable then you deserve nothing but contempt and loathing in response.

          52. Looking the other way while they slaughtered babies is not a moral act.

            At TNM was outraged at the discovery of remains of babies. You don't seem to care.

          53. Read 1 Samuel 15:1-3, if you want to use the Bible then actually read what it says. it wasn't a random command, but a deliberate thing to stop a nation that had a history.

          54. And thus, you find a way to rationalize around God commanding the Israelites to murder innocent babies. Sorry dude, a 2-3 month old baby isn't programmed with instructions to be a monster.

          55. Rationalize? I can see how it might look that way. Let me ask you a question. How many stories are there in history where a royal house is massacred and one child escapes to later reestablish a dynasty?

            God didn't want any re-establisment of the culture that offered human sacrifices.

          56. He is particular, and even His ardent followers say "He moves in mysterious ways". We don't understand it, and we often don't like it. Even in the Bible His prophets and followers were not happy with the unfolding of events.

          57. an entire people being slaughtered is ok to you as long as they are not hebrews. Interesting. Are you hebrew? If you lived in those days they would have smote you too !

          58. And do you think it's all right to erase Israel?
            I have an earlier quote from your profile, so you may want to find out what you said before, before you come up with something new now.

          59. Is that why you feel so sorry for them, another group couldn't stand up to the God of the Jews and it makes you Iranians nervous, doesn't it?

          60. They have something far worse than sharia and Islam is an off shoot of Judaism so attack the source not the symptoms.

          61. Sure, or write a novel, or experience love with a woman or spending time with friends and family

          62. I have, now I work on getting trolls that normally work for handlers such as yourself so angry that they quit and leave you post write your own stuff.

            You seem to work harder for less garbage now that you post it yourself.

            When does the next patsy come in?

          63. It's all lies anyway. There is no historical record of them being wiped out. It's just what jews wish upon the gentiles

          64. Of course they're still there. almost all the gentile nations are israels enemies. The palestinians, the lebanese, the Iranians, the Iraqis, the Egyptians etc.

          65. The child sacrifices never occurred just like the babies in incubators being thrown out never happened .

          66. You want to spell it wrong, don't blame me for your brand of stupid.

            And I just gave a link, how was that spelled?

            Your handlers must be just as lame as you are.

          67. You're not getting any younger. Time is precious and the time you spend trolling on the internet is time you could be using finding a woman or starting your own business.

          68. If I have chances or not, that isn't up to you.

            Iranians, they want to run the world and they can't even manage the water in their lakes.

          69. Would you please explain patriothere why you repeated word for word the comment I posted in this discussion one hour ago?

          70. "Do you defend offering innocent children to the alter of Moleck?"

            No I do not. While there is no independent evidence (by this I mean independent of the Bible) that there were ancient civilizations who worshipped a God called Moleck, I no more accept that this God was actually real than I do that your fictional God is real. But to rebut your argument I will reply as if the crap you believe were actually true. So, I also don't defend, as you are doing, the wholesale slaughter of a people at the command of your beastly God. This included the killing of those very same children you claim, without any credible evidence, were being sacrificed to Moleck. And don't come back the Bible provides the evidence that this was happening among these ancient peoples. You can't use the Bible as evidence for what it says. This is a form of illogic called circular reasoning. But I don't suppose you've heard of this, given what little you know about critical thinking and logic.

            No, that particular text does not show that God thinks life should be defended. At best it indicates that your loathsome God thinks life should be protected only if people follow his rules. The fact that he ordered all the Amalekites slaughtered, including the children, reveals that this abominable God of yours makes plenty of exceptions for the rule that life should be protected and defended. What, he couldn't think of any other way to stop these people from sacrificing children? He's God. He can do anything he wants, according to your ridiculous theology. So he could have easily chosen a method to achieve the objective of defending life without actually having to wipe out an entire culture. (P.S., don't take any of this conversation as me conceding that your God actually exists. I am simply countering you stupid argument.)

            Of course I think life should be defended. It is your God who does not. But then I don't expect you to actually get this since your religion has so corroded your critical thinking faculties that you are incapable of actually exercising them any longer.

            By the way, your statement "Either you think life should be defended or not" appears to me to be a logical fallacy. It looks to me like the one known as the false dilemma or fallacy of the excluded middle. You appear to be incorrectly presume that there are only two possible positions. Your unspoken premise in the statement you made appears to be that a person must always be for defending life must always be opposed to defending life. This implies that a person must always defend life and therefore be opposed to the taking of another's life. Now I suppose that one can hold this position, but only if you are opposed to war, the death penalty, self-defense, etc. Are you such a person? If not, then there are circumstances under which you abandon the position that one must always act in defense of life.

          71. I didn't say that Molech was not a god worshipped by and believed in by ancient peoples. I said that Molech is as fictional a god as is your christian god. So what I am saying is that the people who believed in Molech were just as deeply self-deluded as are Christians of today.

            The fact that there was a god named Baal in which people once believed in does not mean that this god actually ever existed. Same is true of your god. Belief in something does not establish that that something actually exists. This is a pretty simple rule of logic or rational thought. Is your brain up the task of understanding it? Thus far you have given no indication that it is.

            The wikipedia article to which you linked does not establish the truth of your claim that human sacrifices were offered to Baal. It only establishes that the city existed and that Baal (also, apparently known as Jupiter) was worshipped by the locals. Nothing is said about human sacrifice. So you are going to have to provide evidence for that part of your statement. Otherwise, what is offered without evidence ought to be and is dismissed without evidence.

          72. Which delusion is better, the one that whacked and fried their babies, or the one that teaches "Love for God and love for fellow man"?

            There were two links, the first was documentation on moleck. If you have evidence to show that link is wrong, I'd like to see it.

            So much of this site is outrage for horrible outrageous things that Christians have done. All of those things are outrageous. But Christianity isn't to blame, it's the power hungry monsters that abuse and ignore Christianity in their quest for what ever perversions they want to hide.

            That's the difference between the way you see these abuses and the way I see them.

            We both, along with the serious people here all know that the abuses are bad. We just see different causation.

          73. Oh, I'm sure he'll find a way around that one too. People like Roger are so utterly convinced that their reading of the Bible is true, they won't even bother to read what it actually says, they have to twist and contort it to fit into their preconceived notions and then they declare everyone else but themselves wrong.

          74. amalekites were peaceful loving people. Just because the hebrews lied and say they were evil does not make it fact

          75. They murdered their children on the idols and alters.

            Just because you're a rented mouth of sorts and are paid to say things doesn't make them true.

          76. No they didn't. They lied. Just like the lied about babies being thrown out of incubators.

          77. Come on, it is about driving people away from the site, isn't it? Why not admit it and brag about it some more?

            6 minutes ago @ – Protests to greet Ahma… · 1 reply · 0 points
            I'm like jesus, I'm gonna chase you money changers out of the temple and out of town and of course out of this forum. Me and ohsoquiet and a few other REAL AMERICANS who are being PAID to be here like you Israeli PR men. I'm here to chase you filth out.

          78. I bet you you sit in your moms basement and wonder where all the good times went don't you? I bet you you cry in your beer wondering about what could have been.

            It's not too late roger. You can turn your life around, get away from your computer and do something with your life.

          79. Nope, that sounds like 'crime' the new troll.

            It's not too late, you can flee the mosque and escape the clerics that have you earning a tiny bit of money with each approved comment.

          80. You can turn your life around, get away from your computer and do something with your life.

          81. I have, and you?

            What's wrong, did the last lame troll just realize he wasn't up to posting the spam you tossed at him? Is that why you're here instead of that schmuck?

          82. I mean who is he writing this stuff for? I can't tell. It's either christian zionists or some wacky pedophiles that live in their moms basement

          83. Which means someone that doesn't bow to your handlers values of sharia iranian style.

            Too bad Iran has it wrong, if they would only listen to the real muslims in Mecca, but they aren't that bright.

          84. So philosophical.

            Not at all the the idiot you had posting up until the last 24 hours.

            How many has that made it that worked this profile? I lost track around 7.

          85. Yes, anything to please your handlers.

            6 minutes ago @ – Protests to greet Ahma… · 1 reply · 0 points
            I'm like jesus, I'm gonna chase you money changers out of the temple and out of town and of course out of this forum. Me and ohsoquiet and a few other REAL AMERICANS who are being PAID to be here like you Israeli PR men. I'm here to chase you filth out.

          86. Some other troll using the profile you're assigned to now blew the whistle on that one.

            6 minutes ago @ – Protests to greet Ahma… · 1 reply · 0 points
            "I'm like jesus, I'm gonna chase you money changers out of the temple and out of town and of course out of this forum. Me and ohsoquiet and a few other REAL AMERICANS who are being PAID to be here like you Israeli PR men. I'm here to chase you filth out."

          87. 6 minutes ago @ – Protests to greet Ahma… · 1 reply · 0 points
            "I'm like jesus, I'm gonna chase you money changers out of the temple and out of town and of course out of this forum. Me and ohsoquiet and a few other REAL AMERICANS who aren't being PAID to be here like you Israeli PR men. I'm here to chase you filth out."

          88. I don't have handlers, and I don't brag about being here to drive anyone away.

            I understand it's not a site where I'll have supporters for my positions, but if I can't explain my beliefs then what good are they?

          89. Maybe if your positions had more support and not just wild claims and no evidence, people would support them more. Maybe you ought to think about that for a while.

          90. I don't need to.
            And I'm mainstream in the social circles I travel in.
            I just don't like the lack of challenge being around nothing but people who agree with me constantly.

            At least the serious folks here actually bring up issues and approach the debate with logic instead of insults.

          91. Exactly the point I was making. Roger is convinced that there cannot be any contradictions so when he finds one, he can't accept what he sees, he has to find some way to rationalize around the contradiction so he gets back to his preconceived notion. He's emotionally invested in his reading of the Bible, he doesn't really care if it's true or not, it just makes him feel good.

          92. Or that there is just a contradiction. You're the one asserting that the contradictions can't possibly exist. You're just wrong.

          93. Am I?
            If there is a being intelligent enough to design animals well enough to excrete chemicals toxic except for very controlled situations and then designs the world for them to thrive in, if the designer is that smart I don't expect I'll understand everything that designer does.

            I just don't jump to the conclusion that we should see contradictions instead of challenges to figure out the paradox.

      2. I know the Bible contains scriptures that condone infanticide, as well a whole range of other savage and barbaric acts. This is a large part of the reason I think the Bible to be, on the whole, a rather vile book worthy of mostly contempt and condemnation. But posting these passages from the Bible does not answer the question I posed. I am still awaiting an answer from someone, though I would very much like to read what Cephus has to say in reply.

          1. Count up and look at the examples. Do your handlers allow that?

            Now, I realize you need to support yourself, and this is just a job for you.

            But your clerics don't get to decide everything. And frankly there are adults here that want to talk, go back to your playpen and ask them to write new stuff for you.

          2. I'll repeat a million times if I have to. Where do they say child sacrifice is evil. Nowhere. you lose

          3. The Bible certainly doesn't say slavery is evil, in fact, it supports it throughout. I'm sure Roger will find a way to rationalize around that little gem though.

          4. If your mother would have known that her son would have turned out to be some 51 year old pathetic loser with no life and no prospects she would have given the man that raped her a blow job instead

          5. She would hope that what ever bride you bought has a chance to slip into the night like the last person who worked this profile for you.

          6. I lose? Because you're a moron that doesn't read the thread you're spamming?

            I pointed two examples out, I can get 10 but as a hack paid troll you would be paid to ignore those too.

            "For example 2 Chronicles 33:6 lays it out.
            He sacrificed his children in the fire in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, practiced divination and witchcraft, sought omens, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the LORD, arousing his anger.

            Leviticus 18:21 lays it out.
            New International Version
            "'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD."

          7. I know that I have already accomplished more in my life than you ever will. You're a failure.

          8. I agree there are adults here attempting to have a rational, logic, evidence-based conversation. But you are not one of those adults. Your arguments are juvenile at best.

          9. Why? You pretend nothing I say has any validity as evidence, even when you can't challenge the facts that I lay out.

          10. The scriptures TheNewsMadd quoted clearly establish that your savage, barbaric God does not think killing children is evil. The scripture you quoted from Samuel 1 clearly illustrates that your monstrous God does not think the killing of children is evil. We are not limiting our discussion to child sacrifice, as much as you would like to confine it to that so as to pathetically attempt to give your vile God a free pass for the obviously heinous acts so clearly ordered by or committed directly by him as described in your book of horrors.

          11. The text TNM quoted showed that one society was to be wiped out, not that murdering any child was acceptable. The text I quoted was the very same text and just had more of the text so that it could explain itself, not rely on a serious Biblical scholar like TNM.

            And if you have other examples of God being for things that He isn't, then list it.
            TNM was the one that started this on child death, not me.

          12. "The text TNM quoted showed that one society was to be wiped out, not that murdering any child was acceptable."

            The fact that your horrid and sickening God ordered that an entire society "be wiped out", which included the children, IS evidence, you abominable excuse for a human being, that your wickedly barbarous God did find it acceptable to murder children. The evidence for this is contained in the very scripture you quoted and keep defending. In addition, the scripture Psalm 137:9 to which TNM referred is a direct contradiction and refutation of the claim you keep making that your homicidal and bloodthirsty God does not condone the killing of children.

          13. I find it horrid and sickening that you show not a shred of compassion for the child victims of idol worship.

            And Psalm 137:9?

            Why do you advocate for survival of the fittest knowing how much death will happen along the way? Do you as an advocate for evolution pretend to have a moral high ground on life and death?

          14. You don't have a shred of compassion for the ENTIRE PLANET that your God wiped out in a worldwide flood and you find us horrid and sickening? Seriously?

          15. How much suffering did that God stop from happening by hitting the reset button?
            How many years of warnings did God give? 120 years. How long should Noah have preached warnings?

          16. Now you are just pulling shit out of your asshole. Where did I say that I have no compassion for child victims of idol worship? First of all you have not offered any evidence that the ancient civilizations to which you keep referring actually practiced child sacrifice. But if you could produce convincing evidence of it my response would be to say that it was as morally reprehensible as your savage God's slaughter of whole societies and civilizations. Of course child sacrifice is morally despicable and I never said anything that should have led you to think that I thought anything other than this. And if you think I did then point out the comment of mine that says, explicitly or implicitly, that I have no compassion for "child victims of idol worship."

            And once again you show you don't understand what the phrase "survival of the fittest" means. I've schooled you on this before in a different thread. I also mentioned that survival of the fittest is not a phrase scientists actually use to describe evolutionary mechanisms. Given that evolution is a natural process it is incorrect to describe it as either moral or immoral. It is amoral. There is no moral dimension to the process. Claiming that it does have moral implications is the equivalent of describing gravity as immoral because people die when they fall from great heights and impact the ground below. Or then again maybe you believe gravity is immoral. It wouldn't surprise me since you have shit for brains.

            Finally, I do not pretend to hold higher moral ground than you. I do hold the higher moral ground compared to you and the crap in the bible that you believe. Tell me, if your God ordered you to kill some person would you do it? If you had lived during the time of the Israelites and the Amalekites, would you have followed your God's command to slaughter every Amalekite and actually killed one or more Amalekite child or Amalekite woman or Amalekite man? And don't dodge either of these questions. Answer them directly, either Yes or No. My answer to both is No.

          17. Yes, I have. You conveniently mention the second link and missed the first one with a source for the idol worship.

            And once again by describing survival of the fittest you show no compassion for all the not-so=-fit that die along the way.

          18. Because you're looking at it from the cultural perspective that doesn't condone it. There are other cultural perspectives out there that differ from your own. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that your way is the right way or the only way for everyone.

          19. Life should matter. The culture in the times before Cleopatra were brutal, the Romans brought a lot of morality with them, as flawed as they were. There has not been a culture so barbaric since the Pax Romana where human sacrifice has been held in esteem like before the rule of law was imposed by the Romans.

          20. The Aztec society was everything God wiped out in Canaan, and probably more.

            But I hate to defend the Conquistadors. They were people I would not consider as good examples of much of anything.

          21. The aztecs were a peaceful people who had a great tradition. The Canaanites were a good peaceful society.

          22. The Aztecs and similar peoples usually relied on volunteers to be slaughtered, they had long lines of people who willingly went to their deaths because they believed that with their death, they would make the world a better place for their friends and families. Even among the conquered peoples, they didn't fight their sacrifice, it was for the good of all. That's not something you could say about the Christians of the day, who went into areas and murdered the unbelievers. The Aztecs never did that. The Christians, while ostensibly more advanced, certainly held the more primitive beliefs and practices.

          23. I expect people to recognize who was the aggressor, and how they treated the conquered. In the case of the Aztecs they were sacrificed.

          24. The European Enlightenment came from scholars reading Greek texts from ancient Greek philosophers, which they didn't have access to during the dark ages. All those Greek tests were destroyed by the Church.

            So how did they get access to them? They were translated from Arabic. The Islamists saved and recorded all the Greek texts because they value knowledge. Something the Church did not.

            But this is all news that you will dismiss because of your stupid.

          25. It was called the European enlightenment for a reason, and unless you can show the islamic world has an equal then my point stands.

          26. Yes, because Europe FINALLY became en-lighted to the Greek philosophy, something that was already widely known in Islam. . Before that all they knew was the Church, and it was called the Dark Ages,.

            It doesn't matter, you are dumb in any case.

          27. The greeks left sickly children to die in the elements, (the spartans did) so the Europeans were more enlightened even if they spring boarded off of the ancient greeks.

            And you haven't shown that any enlightenment has happened in the islamic circles so you still failed to back your original point.

          28. I am mentioning why the European Enlightenment happened. It is fact. Everything else you spew is designed to distract from those facts because you have nothing of value to post.

          29. It happened because the west encourages development and escape from the traps of the past.

            Some barbaric religions don't allow it.

            The Catholic church didn't allow it and the reformation forced change on them.

            I'm hoping some day the islamic culture has a similar awakening.

          30. No, it happened because they started studying Greek Philosophy. Fact.

            You are dumb as a rock. You have a hotel hospitality degree from a community college and it shows.

          31. Which was development from the dark ages.

            It turns out you back my conclusions even if you'r not bright enough to realize it.

            How does it feel to always be grasping and dodging and still not managing to keep up with any debate or discussion?

          32. No, the Dark Ages were developed into the Enlightenment era because of Greek philosophy, you complete idiot.

            How did you get this far in life being so fucking stupid about history?

          33. Can't you make up anything better than that?

            The Romans had the greek philosophies and didn't have an enlightenment, so what was the difference?

            The difference was people throwing off the unreasonable demands of their day, most of that was reflected in the reformation.

            Our founding fathers referred to the European Enlightenment in many documents like the Declaration of independence, The rights of the individual never existed in that extreme before, even under the Greeks.


          35. He's talking about your spelling, stupid. European, not "Eorpean", you shit for brains.

          36. I always considered that you were one of the real Americans that worked with him.

            You know like Ohsoquiet in his comment, thank you for confirming that by knowing what he was trying to say.

          37. I realize you're just a throw away alinsky internet troll.

            Just like all the others, only more stubborn perhaps. So, you try to marginalize and mock your opponents.

            But you can't actually debate very well, (like all the others). You made the mistake of thinking 'agreeing with' and 'understanding' were interchangeable.

            I may not have a lot of people here agreeing with me, but only the angry children here pretend not to understand to avoid admitting to themselves they've been left in the dust.

          38. You are babbling about someone named Ohsoquiet. WTF are you talking about> And what adult understands wtf you are talking about?

          39. Ask patriot he was the one that bright him up. In that quote about him being paid to drive people from the temple/(site) he says he's paid to work with him, and he had an active profile until the day patriot outed him.

            Are you one of the ones paid to work with patriot too?

          40. Sorry killing babies just to kill them and having pregnant women ripped open is something I will never condone and neither should anyone else. Murder is murder

          41. Sorry having pregnant women planning on having those babies burned on the alters of pagan gods is something God couldn't condone.

          42. Are there any alters to molek in current use? Are the Aztecs still ripping hearts out?

            Even if you don't agree with the mechanism, the results are there.

          43. Nope and hopefully one day soon, there will be no more Christianity. Things change, beliefs get discarded and the world moves on. Applauding barbarism because it achieved some result you happen to enjoy isn't something to be proud of.

          44. If Christians did all the evil things you point to because of their teachings then you might have a point.

            If it's the evil you want stopped then why not demand that if someone declares for Christianity that they live up to it?

            It seems you are just against Christianity and the rest is window dressing.

          45. But we find that they did. Southern slave owners widely used the Bible to justify their right to own other people. Hitler pointed directly at his Christian beliefs to justify his actions. If you think Christians haven't used their religious beliefs to justify all manner of evil, you're out of your mind.

          46. Cephus, a question.

            How many atheists helped in the underground railroad?

            And while many pointed to Chrsitian beliefs, what are those teachings of Christ that they pointed too?

            That's my point. They abuse the religion (the man made observance) but they don't follow the teachings themselves.

            And I will gladly wait for a list of atheists that helped work to free the slaves with the underground railroad since you think Slavery was a Christian thing.

          47. It's not too late for you. You can turn your life around. 50 is the new 20. Try out for everything you ever might have wanted

          48. Turn it around? And do what? Write book? I have. Have a life and enjoy things? I do.
            Defend the things I value? I do.

            And explain why the backwards sharia barbarians need to be countered?

            I do that too.

            Can you say you've done those things?

          49. Yes, actually I can. But why would I bother since you're just an wacky Iranian centric prfole that just changed people who post on it.

    2. Certainly, there have been plenty of cultures around the world where child marriage has been perfectly acceptable. You're viewing things from the cultural perspective where such things are unacceptable, had you grown up in a culture where it was acceptable, your views would be completely different. You need to understand that you're just asserting that your moral views are the only ones that are acceptable, while people who live in other countries and other cultures are likewise claiming that their moral views are the only ones that are acceptable and yours are wrong. How do you prove which one is objectively true? You can't. They're both subjective.

      1. I did not ask my question by referring to child marriage. I asked it in the context of rape and infanticide. So I ask again, is there no objective reason to object and condemn on moral grounds to rape or infanticide? If not, under what circumstances do you think it morally justified? I acknowledge that different cultures have have acted on he basis of different cultural values. But is there no argument to be made that any culture that condones rape or infanticide, even though they believe themselves to be motivated by some moral principal, is actually behaving immorally in regards to at least the two examples I have inquired about?

        1. It's not like God cares about screwing little girls, after all, Mary was supposedly between 10-13 when she was impregnated with Jesus. God, like Mohammed, is a pedophile.

          1. In the Jewish tradition young girls were betrothed between the age of 12 to 12 1/2 and were wed a year later – at 13 to 13 1/2 – leaving a potential birth 3 months shy of 14 or a birth at 14 1/2 if my math is correct

          2. I notice you always link to places that say things that may not be true but pretend since it's on the net it must be.

            But you haven't shown anything yourself. Why is that?
            And your site repeated the same things but still offered no proof.
            If you want to show evidence, show evidence. Cephus can explain it for you.

            But your site just repeated the same talking points without offering any proof.
            And even if true, earlier weddings were not unknown or uncommon to the Jews. muslims have child brides today, and I don't see you attacking them for it.

  2. What gets me about this is the stubbornness that people go through with this definition. For example when I got shown how agnostic is not a position between atheism and theism I changed my word usage and was thankful. It makes me wonder if the morality debate is more a stubbornness about being wrong about something people consider so important.
    My recent post Islam promotes options other than divorce

    1. A lot of people just don't want to admit that they're wrong and they cling tenaciously to a position that is demonstrably wrong, rather than admit that they were in error. It's really kind of sad that some people value saving face more than being correct.

  3. Colour is subjective. There are the colourblind, there are women who can see more colours than others due to a genetic mutation and apart from that each person has been shown to experience colours slighty differently. You can't get two people to agree on a colour between blue and green, each sees them slightly differently.

    1. Your perception of color is subjective, color itself is objective. It is defined to fall between specific wavelengths of light. Whether you can see it or not, that's up to your particular biological receptors.

  4. I would think that people who think color is subjective also think it's fine to sit down and tune a piano without knowing what 'c' is.

    It's possible to redefine words as long as you don't ever expect to talk and exchange ideas with anyone.
    Those that live in a larger mental sphere of influence? They know the things you point out in your article.

    1. Haha! "I would think….also think…" As if! As if you EVER think before spouting off your 148,118 snippets of bitter blather.

          1. Do you think any comments about a woman or her body is sexist?

            You really need to be around them without all the burkas and head scarves.

          2. When you attack someone based solely on their sex that is a sexist comment.

            Like when you asked if a womans boobs sag down to her navel. That is extremely sexist and if you said that in the company of men they would kick your ass for saying something like that.

          3. I didn't, I attacked her based on her poor manners and rude conduct.

            This is too much for you, isn't it?
            And who do you think taught me to talk like that?

            Real men defend a lady. They don't much care about some knee jerk witch with a foul mouth.

          4. No you didn't/ You can say that a billion times and it STILL won't be true.

            You're a sexist pig who has never seen a woman in his life other than your mom of course.

            You attacked her based solely on her sex with sexist comments. You asked if her boobs sagged to her navel. Clearly a sexist comment. You said you are not liker her ex husband. Clearly a sexist comment. I mean the list goes on and on.

          5. "What's wrong, are you bloated ankles keeping you indoors again? " – Roger

            That is a sexist comment

          6. Not really. Even men with CHF can have bloated ankles.

            You don't known much, which is bad enough. But your handlers don't know much other. That makes a bad combination.

          7. Yes it is a sexist comment. Asking if her boobs sag down to her navel is a sexist comment too

          8. You're a sexist pig. You made sexist comments about a woman. Where I come from you get pummeled to the ground for stuff like that.

          9. I'm upset because you are a sexist pig and have no respect for women. People like you get dealt with rather quickly.

          10. Still thinking that our women turn us into sexist beings?

            And how do they deal with that kind of guy in Iran? Stone the women he took advantage of?

            I don't take advantage of women so the question is academic. But you don't understand our culture. When women behave ill mannered they expect to be treated the same way any male jerk would be treated.

          11. Still pretending that because your culture accepts goat brides that ours settles for less than the real thing?

            The way you refuse to allow any comments about gender is so sharia, you don't get to decide when what sort of comments might stop.

            Why don't I ask you if you clerics have a clue about how lame you sound?

          12. When you attack someone based on their sex that is sexist. You would get your ass kicked where I come from

          13. When you return an insult to some ill mannered shrew it's based on their behavior.

            You would get your backside kicked where I come from.

          14. We get it now Roger. You took a fancy to that woman and you were trying to use reverse psychology to win her favor. Now you are heartbroken because she isn't paying any attention to you. You need a better plan to win over the girls because so far you are striking out.

          15. I'm not, but I am responding to her insults, since she brought her gender into the debate talk to her if having an actual woman talk with the men.

          1. You don't think because you don't want to outclass me? That's ridiculous, even for you. Do you ever go look back at what you've said and consider not saying it? You should.

          2. Yes I do. I know your every thought. I listen to rush limbaugh. I don't need to know his parrot

          3. Rog, old buddy! Looks like your struggling; Old friend? Your handlers I hear are about to drop you. Turns out the Koch brothers have out sourced your commenting job to India, Well at least you still have your job writing ad copy for the local penny saver. At least for now. But you can always fall back on pleasing truckers at the AMACO gas stations men's room.

          4. Why would it appear I'm struggling?
            It would appear the posse is struggling. Otherwise you all wouldn't be spending so much time trying and trying to not sound like the trolls you are.

            And now we can understand why there are gaps between your posts, are you that busy down at the truckstop? I'm glad I don't get to that side of town very often.

          5. It's advice your handler paid you to post, and you are just a 'rented mouth' of sorts for the handlers that pay you to drive people out of the temple/off web sites.

          6. Well this is a major breakthrough. Realizing you have a problem is the first step. I'm proud of you. Now the healing can begin. It's a big world out there roger. A lot to experience

          7. Well this is a major set back.

            The problem doesn't equal 'my problem' and you still can't seem to read well enough to explain to your handlers what is said here.

          8. There is a lot to experience out there roger. Life love friends laughter. Don't be afraid. You can do it. Just have faith

          9. I have my faith. And it's not in some Iranian centric intellectual too stupid to hire anyone decent to work this profile.

          10. You have enough faith to venture out there and find yourself a nice woman. YOu can do it. This has gone on long enough. How long have you been doing this now? Five years. Enough is enough

    1. Thanks for that one GOD HIMSELF. The chuckle it induced was refreshing.

      Now about you being God. I'd like to challenge you for that title. What do you say, a game of Trivial Pursuit or perhaps my favorite, the rather obscure game called Solar Quest?. The winner gets the title and the other humbles and prostrates himself before God Almighty. Or perhaps you would just prefer to concede now. Or maybe we should contact Mr. Deity and ask him to arbitrate this dispute.

      1. It's really unfortunate that Solar Quest will probably never be reprinted and it's getting harder and harder to find, at least the original 1986 version. There are a couple of them on eBay at the moment though, maybe God might want to place a bid?

        1. It pleases me to know that there is at least one other person out there familiar with the game. I can no longer find people locally who will play it with me.

          1. Oh yeah, I'm a board gamer. Luckily, I have plenty of people to play games with, everyone in my family, as well as all of my friends, love getting around a table for some dice rolling and card flipping.

      2. Challenge accepted but I'd recommend you choose something you are very good at – bloviating. I'll tell you what, mortal, I'll read from the book of Numbers. You may read your collected works from these pages. First one to put Cephus to sleep wins.

        Also, when you lose (I am The Almighty, after all), you must attend adult Sunday School taught by Roger every week for a year.

          1. We've said that about you around the office for years. Junior is particularly vocal about it, since you claim to follow him. "With followers like that, who needs atheists?"

          2. My Me, you did get shortchanged during manufacturing. I'll tell you what … call customer care, mention my name and that I believe Clyde in QC forgot to fine tune sub-system #6. I'm not sure there's much that can be done fifty-some years after you left the production line, but perhaps we can get your folks a partial refund or a credit toward a replacement (non-defective) product.

Leave a Reply to destroydogma Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPG only)