jeffapotimus (704) 21 SFW Posts | 353 Space Comments | Favorites | RSS Feed Registered 2007-06-28 18:33:06 Comment Karma: 44 Featured Comments: 0 Member of :

Recent Comments from jeffapotimus

Comment on Jeffpardy! (2015-10-30 02:54:23)
FUCK YES.
Comment on 10 Years is a hell of a long time to keep a blog open! (2015-10-22 18:45:31)
Thanks Tiki, you're my oldest bookmark besides google.
Comment on Convince an Atheist (2015-10-14 03:50:22)
You're right that I didn't articulate the time-travel hypothetical well enough (and also I shouldn't have said 10 chapters when I was only referencing the first). My point was that the Genesis story is older than written language. Older than the concept of a heliocentric universe, older than germ theory - we're talking about people that literally thought that disease was the result of some sort of curse rather than the fact that they were shitting in their drinking water. It was passed down in a 10,000 year game of telephone until writing was invented it was recorded in more or less its current form. Y'all like to focus on the details like the apple and the snake, and where did Cain's wife come from, but I'm sure I don't have to explain concepts like fables and metaphor. These were stories that a child can understand. Cave men. And please don't even mention the 6 days thing, I'm sure you know better. Unless you're a strict creationist, that dogma has been settled long ago. Not literal days. Stages, snapshots. Like acts in a play. But lets pretend I AM a strict creationist for a second. If I were, you and I could still agree on the following points: In the beginning, there was nothing, no time, no space. All of a sudden, there was light for some period of time. We may or may not agree that this was good. At a later point the light died down a little, and darkness started to share space. A structure was established (great firmament) Things coalesced. Now we have earth and a sky, separate from each other. Then a lot of water was collected together on the earth, now some land is covered by water and some land is exposed. Then we argue a little bit about when the stars, sun and moon enter the scene. Also, grass and trees happen before celestial objects come into view. Maybe it's a semantic argument (maybe it was just really cloudy for a long time?) or someone transposed a stanza at some point, but if I'm a strict creationist, we probably aren't going to agree on this particular aspect of the timeline. But back to consensus: Life starts in the sea, then emerges. Sea life, then land animals, then birds. Then cattle and 'other beasts'. I know, weird point to make, but technically still true. They all proceed to get biz-zay and populate the earth. At a later point, man comes into the picture, and makes the aforementioned plants and animals his bitches. Now, I know it's a gross simplification of Genesis I, not to mention relativity, stellar cosmology, geology, biology and evolution, but there is an awful lot of overlap, and from either perspective, none of the above statements are untrue. That's an awful lot to agree on. With a young-earth creationist, no less. But we live in a post-copernican world now. It's easy to forget that this story was even more ridiculous before we had the reference points of the theories of gravity, relativity, stellar cosmology, geology, biology etc... Objectively, going by what people outside christianity would have thought at the time, this was a very counter-intuitive scenario. The point about the raven and elephants is that if you were just going to pull something plausible sounding out of your ass, this would not be it. This was one of the few origin stories that creates EVERYTHING from scratch, and even gets the order of events (mostly) correct. On the other hand, if your job was to explain the theories of gravity, relativity, stellar cosmology, geology, biology etc. to a primitive shit-eating cave man, and he went on to write Gen. I then I'd say you hit it out of the park, man, and give you a promotion and a raise. Genesis didn't say HOW these things were made. Because IT'S NOT A FUCKING SCIENCE BOOK. So I don't understand how it doesn't blow your mind. This was a model for the formation of the universe that is completely dependent on theories that wouldn't be conceived for thousands of years. The Bible may not be a science book, it IS a history book. Again, a pretty unreliable one, but we can independently verify at least some of the figures, places and events chronicled (besides creation itself), especially in the New Testament. So there is at least some factual information. Eventually Occam's Razor has got to start to cut the other way. Random chance no longer seems like the simplest explanation. That someone, somewhere could actually gather enough monkeys and typewriters to eventually accidentally bang out the theory of relativity? Sure, absolutely possible, in theory. That the random rantings of a type-monkey then becomes the prevailing conventional wisdom of an entire culture? Sure, I guess, why not? That after 10,000 years this theory has become the most dominant prevailing backbone theory in a largely global civilization and that civilization has gone on to become the most successful, advanced, creative, industrious civilization in the entire history of life as we know it? Hmmm. Anything's possible.... That we then do the math and discover that the type-monkey was actually right the whole time? No fucking way! And so we come to faith. YOUR faith instinct. Standard issue for all homo sapiens. The one that makes you curse at the sky when you stub your toe. Makes you bang on the steering wheel and say 'please please pleaese...' when you are late for an important meeting or date, stuck in traffic. You, who lives in a universe of unimaginable complexity, beauty and symmetry, and who is actually wired to notice such things, the rhyme of a budding leaf, a nautilus shell, and a stellar formation all governed by the same simple poetry. You, who are the direct consequence of a world that has always, universally and cross-culturally believed that it was created with intent. You are positive that it was not. Because... science. Well you don't get to claim science as your own. I believe in science too. It's just not the only thing a person should believe. Love is not governed by science, nor trust, nor belief. And so that is where you are expressing YOUR BELIEF, my friend. Just like the rest of us. As all human culture and history, as the whole universe screams it at you, you're just so sure it's all a bunch of bullshit. And your evidence is not only no better than mine, but in fact, completely non-existent. If you don't recognize that as an EXERCISE OF MOTHERFUCKING FAITH, then you are just as delusional as someone who believes that someday they're going to get sucked naked into the sky to go live on a cloud.
Comment on Convince an Atheist (2015-10-13 17:52:04)
It's OK, I'm used to people feigning exasperation when I make a compelling point. Happens a lot, actually.
Comment on Convince an Atheist (2015-10-13 17:45:47)
That's a neat rhetorical trick, I'mma try now: Wow. I mean just... Wow.... Wow. You're just... wow. Once again, IF IT WAS PROVABLE THAN IT WOULDN'T REQUIRE FAITH. WE WOULD USE A DIFFERENT FUCKING WORD FOR IT. I mean, c'mon. wow Now, a word on science, which we can all agree is pretty useful and cool, right? Throughout history, science has often disabused people of their silly notions about the nature of the universe. Scientists would disprove something widely held as truth, and then, after a time, we could all enjoy ridiculing people for still believing in a flat earth, phrenology... whatever. But it takes evidence before you can start being a dick about it. Ha ha! That's right! You need evidence too! Not in order to believe that there is no God, that's perfectly fine. But in the absence of evidence, you're just a condescending asshole with an OPINION. Like I said, I have a bunch of shitty evidence that validates my faith. Did I say PROOF? Did I? Mister putting-fucking-words-in-my-mouth-because-you're-only-comfortable-arguing-with-stupid-people? I mean... wow.
Comment on Convince an Atheist (2015-10-13 11:11:52)
OK, well I'm sorry that your head hurts. The post title is "Convince an Atheist" and you know I'm always game. I'll just end by saying that y'all need to stop pretending that religion invented violence, and pulling random, indefensible, dusty old quotes from the Bible instead of actually talking to someone about their beliefs. You all have a very cartoonish view of it all, and not because you are stupid or incapable of understanding. I know it feels good to be all smug and superior, but remember that's one of your biggest problems with my side as well.
Comment on Convince an Atheist (2015-10-12 18:45:49)
"Evangelical" is not a brand, it encompasses many people of faith besides mouth-breathers and born-agains. Many moderate and reasonable people are members of a denomination that fits in the evangelical category. Hysterical morons that think they see demons at the walmart have come to exemplify the term. It's a real fucking tragedy that they've given the rest of us such a bad name, but they are NOT the majority. They are just the loudest voices in Christianity right now. I will concede that the existence of "hell" may still be the official position of the Vatican as last revisited 23 years ago, but in my experience this is a more current attitude of mainstream catholosism (uscatholic.org/blog/2011/03/do-you-believe-hell) emphasis mine: "Catholic teaching has always and still maintains hell as a radical possibility of human freedom (though we don't say anyone is actually there). In other words God doesn't "damn" anyone, but human freedom makes ultimate rejection of God possible, a condition we'd call hell. But Catholic teaching also affirms that explicit faith in Christ is not necessary for salvation, even as it maintains that Christ is "necessary" for human salvation. ..... That position, of course, reflects a change in a previously commonly held and taught position that anyone not in the Catholic Church would be damned." So, hell is the absence of god, no more lakes of fire and whatnot. But anyways, I'm not catholic, I'm just happy they're starting to come around. And my point about the big coincidence is not that civilization requires a system, but that every civilization has developed more or less the SAME system, often independent of each other. At some point, you have to wonder if they may have been onto something. After all, pattern recognition is the human trait that ultimately led to superstition, then religion, in the first place. And faith really is the only human trait you can't otherwise find somewhere else in nature in one form or another. Are you really so sure there's nothing to it? As for evidence for my faith, I have TONS. The biggest problem is none of it is very good evidence. Circumstantial, unreliable, most completely unsubstantiated. But there's just so damned much. And still, more evidence than you have. What I really can't get over is the book of Genesis. I know I know, this has been a featured player in this argument for literally centuries now, but hear me out: If I were to send you back in time 50,000 years with the sole mission to nip this whole 'organized religion' thing in the bud before it gets out of hand, to go back and explain the big bang, the formation of the solar system, the earth, evolution, human development to our primitive fore-bearers, then 40,000 years later you'd end up with something that looks a whole hell of a lot like the first 10 chapters of Genesis. There are no elephants balancing of a stack of turtles, no ravens puking out the sun and shitting out stars. A time before time? Light, before the existence of the sun? Great firmament? What the fuck even is that? First the oceans, then the plants and animals, and then man? It's one of the few creation myths that makes MORE sense as we learn more about the universe. And consider that it is a story common to a majority of all faithful people on the planet, across multiple faiths. And that these faiths and their philosophies built western civilization. They did not develop coincidentally, in parallel. Judaeo-Christian philosophy led directly to the modern world. All of the moral justification for the American and French Revolutions, the prototypes for modern constitutional democracy, were distilled from concepts of justice and equity that were developed during the Reformation. The broad strokes and imagery may have been Greek and Roman, but the Bill of Rights? Not possible without Martin Luther. As someone who strongly believes in evolution by means of natural selection, it's hard to ignore so much success. And as a human that's hard-wired to notice such things, it's hard to ignore all the coincidence. But, fuck it, some people I hate believe some of the same things I do. The answer, obviously, is to reject my entire belief system and find some cooler kids to hang out with. It's my hair, I can dye it black if I want to and you just try to stop me, Mom!
Comment on Convince an Atheist (2015-10-12 16:37:03)
"I have plenty of faith like that, but it’s all shit that I can see or prove the existence of." I know you know better than this. Anyone that has been in a serious relationship does. Do you love your (GF/BF/Spouse/SO)? Do you trust them? Completely? Great! Please provide evidence that they will not (lie/hurt/cheat/fuck you over). Show all work.
Comment on Convince an Atheist (2015-10-12 15:55:05)
I agree with absolutely everything you say about my ethical system. Our ethical system. Yours and mine. "Independently in multiple cultures across the history and geography of this planet." Well said. Quite a fucking coincidence tho, huh? I like the fact that you use the word evolution, please keep in mind that it's only the truly zealous idiots that still maintain "My grandaddy weren't no monkey!" Now please tell me of the social evolutionary successes of all the great and ancient godless civilizations. Now, I only mention "amoral monster" for the same reason you mention "divine sky king" and "eternal damnation" and so forth. We're just throwing around whatever bullshit sticks, right? But you're putting it our there like it's supposed to insult me, which belies your own assumptions about my beliefs. I'm only giving back to you in order to demonstrate how worthless the premise for that assumption is. Difference is that I'm being facetious, because I learned to give people the benefit of the doubt. Maybe I learned it in sunday school, maybe it was at the end of a GI joe cartoon (because knowing is half the battle!) but if so, whoever wrote that script probably learned it from someone who learned it in sunday school. And yes, eternal damnation is a pretty horrible concept. But if your (completely original, trademarked, proprietary atheist) philosophy of "let's all try not to be assholes, and forgive each other and try to work together and stuff" wasn't such a completely radical paradigm shift from the natural order we wouldn't have needed the concept of Hell to enforce it. And look at us now, nobody really believes in a literal hell anymore, besides the baptists and other know-nothing fundamentalists. Even the catholics gave it up, pre-Francis, no less. So which of us is keeping an open mind? You keep telling me what I mean to say, but you don't take the trouble to actually try to understand what the fuck I'm actually saying.
Comment on Convince an Atheist (2015-10-12 14:55:21)
hmmmm... nope, but you're almost there. You see, that's actually NOT what I'm saying. I was trying to show you where YOUR argument falls apart. Scroll up.
Comment on Convince an Atheist (2015-10-11 20:40:25)
Jesus. Aside from on the TeeVee, have any of you actually ever even seen a christian (that's basically what we're talking about here, right?) Or talked to one that wasn't an ex-con, a recovering drug addict with two remaining brain cells, or holding a 'God Hates Fags' sign? Seriously, you should get out more.
Comment on Convince an Atheist (2015-10-11 20:19:17)
I actually have seen a fist fight over the speed of light (sort of, the subject was relativity). It was kind of hilarious. And seriously, be fair. There are many wars that have been fought over non-religious ideologies, and many between those who share the same religion (and even the same pope). I'm not saying that everybody involved didn't think that God was on their side, or that religious beliefs and inspiration was not present at the squad level, so to speak. Thats just human nature. Literally, when they find a bunch of bones buried in the ground, they look at HOW they were buried, or any other evidence of supernatural belief in order to assess HOW HUMAN they might be. Vietnam was not a relious conflict. The russian invasion of afghanistan was not an attempt to impose a religion (or lack thereof). The first Gulf war was not about God, but OIL, even the instigators will admit that. Europe beat the shit out of itself for centuries, and both sides of almost every conflict would petition the same Pope for support. Blaming religion for violence is like blaming the federal reserve bank for your gambling addiction.
Comment on Convince an Atheist (2015-10-11 20:04:04)
Yeah, me neither. Lets make a deal, if you stop fucking assuming you understand my belief system, and stop accusing me of being a small-minded, prejudiced, ignoramus, I won't accuse you of rebranding my ethical system and pretending you were the first to think it up, and being some sort of amoral monster who is a danger to the fabric of society. Because I have an open mind, I know better. Fucking try it some time.
Comment on Convince an Atheist (2015-10-11 19:50:43)
Tiki, In the 1990's after the cold war ended, Lockheed and Boeing and Ratheon and all the other merchants of death that had been harvesting the best and brightest mathematicians from the ivy league in order to advance the cause of mass murder all of a sudden found they could no longer match the offers coming from AIG and Goldman who wanted advance the cause of economic exploitation. That's one example.
Comment on blue dress (2015-10-10 18:53:59)
TAN dress