Comments for Bitchspot

Comment on I Get so Tired of Explaining the Word Objective by hausdorff

hausdorff — Wed, 22 May 2013 15:20:11 +0000

That's perfectly put. Perhaps he is right that once you settle on the standard then it is objective how the standard is applied. But in that case, the important thing is settling on a standard, which is certainly not objective. My recent post Genesis 39: Give the Slaves Control

Comment on And You Wonder Why I’m Not a Feminist? by Cephus

Cephus — Wed, 22 May 2013 14:57:16 +0000

To be honest, I don't know that there is a good side. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all feminists are bad people, I'm pointing out that the term is inherently problematic. If the goal is supporting gender equality and a gender-blind society, then the last thing you want to do is wear a label that defines one's support for only one gender. It just devolves into a lot of unnecessary bickering over labels, even among people who might support the same general ideas. What's the point of having men's rights advocates and women's rights advocates when the real goal is just having human rights advocates?

Comment on I Get so Tired of Explaining the Word Objective by Cephus

Cephus — Wed, 22 May 2013 14:51:53 +0000

He says that once you have a standard, you apply it objectively, he just doesn't explain how his standard is arrived at objectively, he just proposes a standard as though it's the only one worth using and rejects all others out of hand. I think this is a massive problem for a lot of philosophers who are desperately trying to make things that are inherently subjective into something that can be measured objectively and I don't think it's possible to do what they want to do.

Comment on I Get so Tired of Explaining the Word Objective by hausdorff

hausdorff — Wed, 22 May 2013 13:58:20 +0000

It always bugs me when Matt talks about morality. I generally agree with what he is trying to say, but it irks me when he says it is objective. I think one of the main problems is that "morality" is typically pretty poorly defined. I don't have Matt's definition handy, but I think it's something about doing the most good and the least harm as possible. Based on his definition, he claims that certain things are objectively immoral. I think there is something to that, if you start with his definition there are certain things that will just follow logically, in that sense perhaps it is objective. But the nature of moral discussions don't really seem to lend themselves to that rigid a framework. There's usually some crazy situation that can be concocted that makes something that would normally seem terrible the most moral option. My recent post Genesis 39: Give the Slaves Control

Comment on I Get so Tired of Explaining the Word Objective by iamanatheist

iamanatheist — Wed, 22 May 2013 12:55:43 +0000

I still have a problem wrapping my head around objective morality, thats why I appreciate the strict definition of the word objective given at the front of the article. Actually I try to understand these arguments about morality, but for me I just wish that people would realise these arguments do not show the existcne of a diety. All they do is try show us how morality "which is difficult tio understand in the first place" actually came about in the first place. My recent post Venner Suicide against Gay Marriage?

Comment on And You Wonder Why I’m Not a Feminist? by Martina

Martina — Wed, 22 May 2013 11:20:15 +0000

You only mentioned RADICAL FEMINISM, which is horible, and only because of that radical feminisim, most of the people think that all feminists are radical maniacs who hate men =/
Why do people always hook up to the bad side, and don't see the good side?
At the first, feminism was created by women to have equal political rights like men, to be treated like humans too.
I agree with you, we should all be equall, without all that political and sociological movements, but people are assholes I guess =)

Comment on Response to a Response for The Apologetic Professor by hausdorff

hausdorff — Tue, 21 May 2013 18:11:46 +0000

Exactly, it's infuriating. They won't address the points you bring up, they just keep repeating their initial flawed logic. And even if they do, the next day they will start over with a different person, or a new blog post, or whatever. It would be fine it they thought about it and actually addressed your argument and then went back to theirs, but that never happens, they just start over as if your conversation with them didn't take place. My recent post Apologists Attempt to Answer the Euthyphro Dilemma

Comment on Response to a Response for The Apologetic Professor by Cephus

Cephus — Tue, 21 May 2013 17:20:44 +0000

And what's worse is the fact that just because his arguments have been totally shredded, he'll just keep using them verbatim anyhow. I'm doing the same thing with another theist's claims and he just keeps repeating the same disproven claims again and again regardless.

Comment on Response to a Response for The Apologetic Professor by Cephus

Cephus — Tue, 21 May 2013 17:19:27 +0000

I stopped looking at his blog after he went a couple of weeks without any responses whatsoever, not even a "I'm busy, I'll get to this soon". You had tons of comments on your blog, last I looked, he had zero on his.

Comment on Jamestown Stamp Company: Geez, These People are Dumb! by Cephus

Cephus — Tue, 21 May 2013 17:17:53 +0000

I've done that, of course, and they've acknowledged that I've told them to stop sending in their letters, which I've kept. They just keep sending things. They'd have to sue me in my local court because this is where the "crime" took place and I'd just counter sue for harassment and win hands down anyhow.

Comment on Response to a Response for The Apologetic Professor by hausdorff

hausdorff — Tue, 21 May 2013 13:42:02 +0000

I don't ever really expect to see new stuff, but I'm always hopeful. Or at least a different angle on something I've seen before, or a different perspective on it, or something. It gets tiresome to see the same arguments we've all shredded before. My recent post Apologists Attempt to Answer the Euthyphro Dilemma

Comment on Jamestown Stamp Company: Geez, These People are Dumb! by moseszd

moseszd — Tue, 21 May 2013 12:43:40 +0000

You are correct that do not have to pay for unsolicited products mailed to you. However, you should document, including keeping invoices, stamps, etc., your refusals it in writing and send it to them by certified mail. Otherwise they may try to pretend something else has happened and seek a small-claims default judgment in a venue you can't defend from.

Comment on Response to a Response for The Apologetic Professor by Grundy

Grundy — Tue, 21 May 2013 11:09:06 +0000

I'll be doing a round up of my interactions with Dr. Conway soon, I'll include this post. He's responding to my rebuttals on his blog. I knew he would get to it eventually.
My recent post Hot Mohammad on Christ Action

Comment on Response to a Response for The Apologetic Professor by Grundy

Grundy — Tue, 21 May 2013 11:07:26 +0000

I wasn't really expecting something new. I thought about doing this crosspost idea with other apologetic blogs if it went well…but even though I think it did go well, I'm not going to. Since the their arguments are one-trick ponies and taken down often by all of us, it seems redundant.
My recent post Hot Mohammad on Christ Action

Comment on Are Agnostics Just As Bad? by Total non-answers feed my agnosticism | Neil's Commonplace Book

Total non-answers feed my agnosticism | Neil's Commonplace Book — Mon, 20 May 2013 23:50:47 +0000

[...] Yeah, whatever… [...]

Comment on Catholic Church Pays Repeat Pedophile Priest Legal Costs by More and more women paying alimony to ex-husbands - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 35 - City-Data Forum

Mon, 20 May 2013 23:18:01 +0000

[...] [...]

Comment on Response to a Response for The Apologetic Professor by Cephus

Cephus — Mon, 20 May 2013 15:37:39 +0000

That\’s really the problem with all of these theists, they\’re all disappointing and when you point out their problems, they don\’t want to listen, they\’re too busy repeating the same absurd nonsense over and over and over. Logic and reason are not the friends of religious fanatics.

Comment on Response to a Response for The Apologetic Professor by hausdorff

hausdorff — Mon, 20 May 2013 13:51:51 +0000

Great response to that post. I'd say that the post by TAP was disappointing, but it's really the type of thing I've come to expect when reading apologetics. Don't get me wrong, I was cautiously optimistic when I saw the cross posts, I think opening the lines of communication is a great thing. But then it winds up being the same bad arguments I see repeatedly. It's really a shame My recent post Everybody Draw Mohammad day

Comment on Horror Show Sunday: Buddhists are Peaceful, Huh? by Cephus

Cephus — Sun, 19 May 2013 18:51:19 +0000

Religious violence is nothing new, but most people in the west are unaware that most religions in the east are just as bad as the ones they're accustomed to. About the only religious group I'd be surprised to find isn't violent are the Jainists, and even then, it would be a momentary surprise.

Comment on It’s Depressing Being a Conservative Atheist by Cephus

Cephus — Sun, 19 May 2013 18:49:50 +0000

Sure it is. There's this little thing called "reality", perhaps you've heard of it? Any belief, and this isn't just a matter of religious belief, that falls outside of reality is wrong. This isn't about hating the religious, this is about correcting the religious and holding them, like everyone else, personally responsible for the crap they allow to fester in their heads. Holding any false belief and refusing to critically examine any belief at all is irrational and irrationality is one of the worst things mankind has going for it right now.

Comment on Horror Show Sunday: Buddhists are Peaceful, Huh? by Ahab

Ahab — Sun, 19 May 2013 15:52:27 +0000

Horrific. I can't imagine how many people are living in fear because of these religious tensions in Burma. Sadly, Buddhist violence is nothing new. As the anthology "Buddhist Warfare" points out, Buddhism has a long history of violence and violent rhetoric. My recent post Commentary Tidbits

Comment on Horror Show Sunday: Buddhists are Peaceful, Huh? by iamanatheist

iamanatheist — Sun, 19 May 2013 11:17:38 +0000

The link between the ruling government and prominent religious beliefs is always one that can get used negatively. Bhuddists murdering is a fine example of this, I am glad you are highlighting this as few people are actually aware of this and then give buddhism a free pass in the whole religion debate. But Buddhism is just like all the rest My recent post Evolution is fun

Comment on It’s Depressing Being a Conservative Atheist by Andrew Riegle

Andrew Riegle — Sun, 19 May 2013 10:29:04 +0000

“Once we get past the “religion is for idiots” bit that we all agree on, we have little left to discuss”

Maybe part of the problem is the hatred in your own heart. It’s never justified to insult someone based on what they believe. Not only is it cruel, it only polarizes people in their beliefs.

Religion doesn’t bother me much but I can respect the thought that “religion is idiotic”. But that is much different from saying “religion is for idiots.” To paraphrase Jesus Christ, love the religious, hate the religion.

Comment on Horror Show Sunday: Buddhists are Peaceful, Huh? by David

David — Sun, 19 May 2013 10:07:25 +0000

You wrote:

"…all violence is sad, but when it comes wearing the mantle of religion, it’s worse. At least if you’re fighting over something real, you have a chance to sit down and work out your differences. When you’re fighting over delusion, there’s no common ground upon which such talks can take place."

The violence in Burma is horrifying but they aren't fighting about doctrinal differences, whose 'god' is bigger or religious 'delusions'. The problem in Burma runs deeper than that. This is not a conflict about religion.

Be well, friend.

Comment on I’m Tired of Atheist Douchebags Too! by Cephus

Cephus — Sun, 19 May 2013 08:04:24 +0000

I don't care what people claim to be, I care what they can demonstrate themselves to be. Theists demonstrate themselves to be irrational in their beliefs constantly, there is no evidence for the existence of gods, therefore any claim that gods exist is, by it's very nature, irrational. Sorry if that bothers you.

Comment on I’m Tired of Atheist Douchebags Too! by Glib

Glib — Sun, 19 May 2013 07:44:29 +0000

Perhaps its a demonstration that the people who claim to be "rational thinkers" really aren't that more rational than anyone else (theist included).

I find anyone making such claims is actually the opposite, why claim what you already are unless you aren't but need to feel like you are.

However one thing that does need to be said is that if this is what it takes for you guys to think enough is enough, will the same feelings be invoked when such behavior is used towards theists? Or will this be a display of double standards, (its ok for atheists to abuse theists but not fellow atheists).