Intelligent Design

Truth Confronts Error

Spread the love

Today I ran across one of my favorite Francis Schaeffer aphorisms: “Truth demands confrontation”

I was thinking about this later today when I read that Caitlyn Jenner has been proclaimed “woman of the year” by Glamour magazine.

Now Bruce Jenner can certainly change his name to Caitlyn Jenner.  But he cannot change himself into a woman.  He can no more be woman of the year than my left shoe can.

Well, that’s just narrow minded and bigoted, Barry.  Nope.  If you say 2+2=5,203, you have erred.  And when I say “Nope, it’s 4,” I am confronting your error with the truth, but I am not being narrow minded and bigoted.  No matter how much you sincerely wish that 2+2 equaled 5,203, it does not and it never will.  I do you no favors by allowing you to pretend error is truth.

No matter how much Caitlyn Jenner believes he is a woman, he is not.  Which reminds me of another useful aphorism, this one from George Orwell:  “We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”

UPDATE:

Seversky writes in the comments below, what’s wrong with all of this if it makes Jenner happy?

And WJM has an apt reply:

The issue that Mr. Arrington brought up was not about Jenner calling himself a woman, but that Glamour magazine (and other progressive outlets) glamourizes, validates and entrenches this falsehood to the point where it is considered bigotry to point out the lie and assert the truth.  Is it your opinion that we must all abide lies people tell because those lies make them happy?

To WJM’s word I would add that of Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his earth-shattering 1974 article (written on the eve of his arrest), Live Not By Lies:

And the simplest and most accessible key to our self-neglected liberation lies right here: Personal non-participation in lies. Though lies conceal everything, though lies embrace everything, we will be obstinate in this smallest of matters: Let them embrace everything, but not with any help from me . . . It’s dangerous.* But let us refuse to say that which we do not think . . . Our path is not to give conscious support to lies about anything whatsoever!

And this, I think, would be Solzhenitsyn’s special reply to Seversky:

And he who is not sufficiently courageous even to defend his soul — don’t let him be proud of his “progressive” views, and don’t let him boast that he is an academician or a people’s artist, a merited figure, or a general — let him say to himself: I am in the herd, and a coward. It’s all the same to me as long as I’m fed and warm.

Refuse to live the collective lie Solzhenitsyn says, for tyranny depends for its very existence on a people willing to bow down before falsehood for fear of the consequences of dissent.  For freedom to exist truth must confront error and face it down.  The danger of failing to do so is that we become a people conditioned to servitude to the lies of tyrants.  And if we do fail to confront the lies with truth?  Solzhenitsyn again:

And if we get cold feet, even taking this step, then we are worthless and hopeless, and the scorn of Pushkin should be directed to us:

“Why should cattle have the gifts of freedom?

“Their heritage from generation to generation is the belled yoke and the lash.”

______

*And lest anyone believe it is not dangerous, just yesterday I filed a brief in a case in which a baker was sentenced to Maoist-style re-education for the crime of refusing to participate in celebrating a same-sex wedding.  Tyranny is advancing in this country; for there are few people more intolerant than those who preach the gospel of tolerance.

159 Replies to “Truth Confronts Error

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    No matter how much Caitlyn Jenner believes he is a woman, he is not.

    What does it matter? If it makes him/her happy to dress and act as a woman and no one else is harmed then why not? Two plus two continues to equal four whether it’s Bruce or Caitlyn Jenner.

  2. 2
    Robert Byers says:

    Gross. He is not worthy of being called a woman. This mag shows it has no interest in women being recognized for accomplishment but wants to use this guy for a moral and poltical cause.
    God did not make him a woman and people don’t make women or men. Its a profound thing.
    It should be illegal and the desire be seen as a health problem.
    Its right;y scorned in the playgrounds and where normnal people feel they are in trusted circles to say what they think.
    Gross and serve.

  3. 3
    Barry Arrington says:

    Seversky

    What does it matter? If it makes him/her happy . . .

    In ten words Sev sums up everything that is wrong with the progressive mind.

  4. 4
    bFast says:

    Seversky, “What does it matter? If it makes him/her happy…”

    I know a young man/lady. (S)he was so excited to show off the new look. (S)he was sooo wanting to people to acknowledge “her”. I obliged, didn’t make much sense to do otherwise.

    Now, six months later, (s)he is glum. (S)he isn’t happy with the new look. It didn’t satisfy.

    (S)he isn’t the only one. As far as I understand this is the norm, not the exception. So if our society is selling people “happiness”, but when they buy it they find that it doesn’t deliver — then what?

  5. 5
    vjtorley says:

    Hi Barry,

    Here’s a quick question for people to ponder: if calling yourself a tiger doesn’t make you a tiger, and calling yourself a Russian doesn’t make you a Russian, then why should calling yourself a woman make you a woman?

  6. 6
    Seversky says:

    What does it matter? If it makes him/her happy . . .

    In ten words Sev sums up everything that is wrong with the progressive mind.

    I prefer to think of myself as a Millian libertarian, following John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty

    I also hold that my position is on firmer Constitutional ground:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

  7. 7
    Seversky says:

    vjtorley @ 5

    Here’s a quick question for people to ponder: if calling yourself a tiger doesn’t make you a tiger, and calling yourself a Russian doesn’t make you a Russian, then why should calling yourself a woman make you a woman?

    Good questions. And, like all good questions, they raise other good questions, for example, what makes a tiger a tiger or a Russian a Russian or a woman a woman? More germane to this discussion, what makes wanting to be something other than you are morally reprehensible?

  8. 8
    Virgil Cain says:

    Well it would make me happy to have everyone kneel before me and call me “Master of the Universe”- so kneel, I say! 🙂

  9. 9
    asauber says:

    “What does it matter? If it makes him/her happy…”

    So if the idea that Evolution is a crock of sh*t makes me happy…

    Andrew

  10. 10
    Dr JDD says:

    But you cannot argue this from materialist point of view. This is fundamental – after all, we were all once sexless organisms anyway.

    If you are a materialist, you argue that nature makes mistakes, it is inherent in our progression and evolution and we should embrace those mistakes and do what we like – there is no purpose to the wrong hormones and the way we feel being like that and no consequence to trying to live differently.

    If you are a theist you are then saying that God made a mistake. Either that or He is powerless. Either way is really not a God that I would suspect anyone would want to meet on their judgement or after death.

    If you are a materialist you claim this is more proof that God is unloving if He did exist, and He makes mistakes. How could He let a woman be trapped in a man’s body? God would support this is He was loving. Absolve any self-responsibility.

    So you will never convince an atheist with reasoning over this. And this thinking has infiltrated into the theistic vantage point too, sadly.

    Who are you, oh man to question God? Does the pot say to the potter why did you make me this way?

  11. 11
    asauber says:

    “If you are a theist you are then saying that God made a mistake.”

    Huh? Bruce is making the mistake, not God.

    Andrew

  12. 12

    Seversky,

    The issue that Mr. Arrington brought up was not about Jenner calling himself a woman, but that Glamour magazine (and other progressive outlets) glamourizes, validates and entrenches this falsehood to the point where it is considered bigotry to point out the lie and assert the truth.

    Is it your opinion that we must all abide lies people tell because those lies make them happy?

  13. 13
    Mung says:

    I nominate Barry’s left shoe for man of the year.

    Sorry Barry, but woman of the year is taken.

  14. 14
    Barry Arrington says:

    See my response to Seversky in the update to the OP.

  15. 15
    Zachriel says:

    Barry Arrington: Tyranny is advancing in this country; for there are few people more intolerant than those who preach the gospel of tolerance.

    Do you think that businesses should be legally allowed to discriminate against race and religion in public accommodations?

  16. 16
    Seversky says:

    Virgil Cain @ 8

    Well it would make me happy to have everyone kneel before me and call me “Master of the Universe”- so kneel, I say! 🙂

    And it would also make me very happy to tell you what you could do with that demand. So everybody’s happy 🙂

  17. 17
    Seversky says:

    asauber @ 9

    So if the idea that Evolution is a crock of sh*t makes me happy…

    … then you will be in good company here. 🙂

  18. 18
    Barry Arrington says:

    Zachriel @ 15.

    No. And neither should the state array its power against a man and coerce him to violate his deeply held religious beliefs by forcing him to use his personal artistic expression to celebrate a ceremony that is counter to those beliefs.

    The man said he would be happy to sell regular cakes, donuts and other pastries to the couple. His crime was refusing participate in celebrating their ceremony.

  19. 19
    mike1962 says:

    Seversky: What does it matter?

    Because Jenner is not a woman.

    It’s a lie to say that he is.

    the pursuit of Happiness…

    And that entitles one to live a lie, and expect others to go along with the lie?

    Barry: In ten words Sev sums up everything that is wrong with the progressive mind.

    Yep.

    WJM: glamourizes, validates and entrenches this falsehood to the point where it is considered bigotry to point out the lie

    People of reason ought fight this dishonesty with everything they’ve got. People who accept the lie ought to be made to feel embarrassed for going along with it.

  20. 20
    Seversky says:

    Dr JDD @ 10

    If you are a materialist, you argue that nature makes mistakes, it is inherent in our progression and evolution and we should embrace those mistakes and do what we like – there is no purpose to the wrong hormones and the way we feel being like that and no consequence to trying to live differently.

    Nature does not make mistakes because it is not an intelligent agent with a purpose in mind.. Things change for various reasons. When you judge whether a change is good or bad you are also asking, good or bad for whom?

    Mutations in a genome are just changes in its molecular structure. They can be caused by radiation or chemicals or transcription errors or causes that we can’t detect at present. They may have no detectable effect of the organism or they may be harmful or they may be beneficial. Which it is depends on the environmental context in which it occurs. A white fur coat may be of little use to a predator that hunts only in jungles or temperate grasslands – it might even be positively disadvantageous – but if it decides to journey north for its winter holidays…?

    Who are you, oh man to question God? Does the pot say to the potter why did you make me this way?

    When a child grows and matures and becomes an adult like his or her parents, is he or she not entitled to ask of them, why did you do this or that when I was growing? And are the parents, if they love that child, not bound to explain why they acted as they did?

  21. 21
    Zachriel says:

    Zachriel: Do you think that businesses should be legally allowed to discriminate against race and religion in public accommodations?

    Barry Arrington: No. And neither should the state array its power against a man and coerce him to violate his deeply held religious beliefs by forcing him to use his personal artistic expression to celebrate a ceremony that is counter to those beliefs.

    So “the state should array its power against a man and coerce him to violate his deeply held religious beliefs by forcing him to use his cake-making ability to celebrate a ceremony that is counter to those beliefs; such as miscegenation and marriages not countenanced by his religion. Is that correct? Don’t those goals seem contradictory?

  22. 22
    Dr JDD says:

    Andrew – my post was rhetoric to demonstrate the fallacy of many theists’ acceptance of such things. It was not literal, but illustrative of logical fallacy when a theist accepts this as ok.

    Seversky – proving a true materialists viewpoint. Of course most scientists refer to mutations as errors or mistakes – because the template is meant to be copied like for like yet an error occurs. But as you demonstrate the materialist must come to the conclusion that nothing is right or wrong, there are no morals as there are no mistakes. Thank you for illustrating my point. Secondly, the potter to the clay/pot is infinitely different as an analogy to a parent/child. Those are two of the same kind, type, order. To say a child to a parent is the same as a pot to the potter is idiocy.

  23. 23
    Seversky says:

    William J Murray @ 12

    The issue that Mr. Arrington brought up was not about Jenner calling himself a woman, but that Glamour magazine (and other progressive outlets) glamourizes, validates and entrenches this falsehood to the point where it is considered bigotry to point out the lie and assert the truth

    For the first six weeks or so of our existence we are all female. Then the genes we inherit from our parents kick in and determine whether we continue as female or change course and become male. That much is biology.

    Sexual identity or the sexual roles people play in society are as much cultural conventions as they are biological imperatives. In the Victorian era it was the custom, at least in some parts of society, to regard women as delicate creatures, less robust and capable than men both physically and mentally. The harsh realities of World Wars One and Two showed that was simply not true Women were able to do everything that men had done before, with the exception of taking part in combat. Femininity in that previous sense was no more than a cultural stereotype

    If sexual identity in society is as much roleplay – conforming to accepted behavioral norms – as it is physiology, then again why shouldn’t Caitlyn Jenner play that role if it makes her happier?

    I suspect that Glamour magazine is much more about celebrating – and selling – the current cultural stereotype of femininity than it is about female biology. if they want to vote Caitlyn Jenner as Woman of the Year then they are free to do so. If Barry Arrington or anyone else wants to condemn it as a lie then they are also free to do so. If others want to denounce such views as bigoted then they are also free to do that. That is the nature of a society that holds freedom of expression to be a fundamental human right.

    Is it your opinion that we must all abide lies people tell because those lies make them happy?

    Yes, it’s called religious tolerance.

  24. 24
    Mung says:

    Zachriel:

    Do you think that businesses should be legally allowed to discriminate against race and religion in public accommodations?

    It’s objectively morally wrong. Is that what you’re saying?

  25. 25
    Seversky says:

    Dr JDD @ 22

    Seversky – proving a true materialists viewpoint. Of course most scientists refer to mutations as errors or mistakes – because the template is meant to be copied like for like yet an error occurs. But as you demonstrate the materialist must come to the conclusion that nothing is right or wrong, there are no morals as there are no mistakes. Thank you for illustrating my point

    If a gene were to be damaged by environmental factors such as radiation or chemicals or a virus and led to a serious illness like cancer, it would not be a mistake nor would it be immoral. It would not have been the consequence of purposive intelligent agency. It would just be a tragic accident.

    If doctors were then to go in to try and cure the illness by manipulating the affected gene but, in the process, damaged a neighboring gene, that would be a mistake but it would not be immoral.

    If one of the doctors were to be the stereotypical “mad scientist” who damaged that neighboring gene deliberately for some nefarious purpose of his own – something other than the well-being of the patient in his care – then that would be immoral.

    Accidents and mistakes are not immoral, unless there is some sort of culpable negligence involved, but deliberately and recklessly causing harm to others in society is.

    If we look at the function of moral codes it looks as if their role is to regulate the behavior of human beings towards one another in society. I see no reason why we cannot work these things out for ourselves through a process of negotiation or so-called inter-subjective agreement. Are you really saying you can’t tell right from wrong – moral from immoral – unless somebody else tells you what it is?

  26. 26
    Virgil Cain says:

    Seversky @ 16- Mine wasn’t a demand. It would just make me happy.

  27. 27
    Dr JDD says:

    “Are you really saying you can’t tell right from wrong – moral from immoral – unless somebody else tells you what it is?”

    Yes – or if it has been preprogrammed to know right from wrong. Evolution has no power to explain right from wrong or morals. Yet all children from birth demonstrate an inherent understanding of right from wrong. In fact, morals go against evolutionary success. If we are evolved to survive as the fittest and pass on our genes why do we find murder and rape wrong and abhorrent?

    Mistakes are not immoral. However the fact that you are unwilling to even use this term demonstrates the thought process a materialist must go through. Yet you still cannot take yourself to the point that materialism requires – no room for morals no absolute right or wrong.

    society is moving towards that though – and it is all to absolve responsibility for one’s own actions. I am a man yet feel like a woman. It’s my gene’s fault not me. Just nature. Next, paedophilia will be purely genetic, not choice. Murder is a genetic disease….etc. people will always want to blame someone or something else and not take any responsibility for their own actions even though they inherently know certain things are right or wrong.

    tell me, how do you know something is right? How does a child know when they have done something they should not do? Even in children who cannot yet fully talk you can see when they sense they have done something they should not do.

  28. 28
    Barry Arrington says:

    Zach, government coerced expression is always wrong. Coercion of expression that violates the victim’ right to conscience is doubly wrong. Go ahead. Trot out another list of horrible people you want the government to coerce into expressing the government’s officially approved position. I will say the same thing. I say there should never be an officially sanctioned orthodoxy that the government forces everyone to express. As a progressive fascist (but I repeat myself) you disagree. BTW thanks for making my point about the intolerance of the tolerance crowd.

  29. 29
    mugwump3 says:

    Response to DrJDD:
    You fail, in your case against theism, to grasp the concept of free will and man’s liberty to err. Allowing one’s child to stumble before he can walk is not a mistake nor immoral. Judeo-Christian theology is premised on the fallen nature of both man and nature…omit that key premise and of course your theology demands a lesser god.

    And, trotting out an unempirical, unevidenced “random mutation equals progress” myth doesn’t help your case. The only available examples of survival through mutation are examples of genetic deletion. And, of those, when the drifted population is reintroduced to the general population of a given species, the preprogrammed variations subsume the anomaly…or you get mass extinction.

  30. 30
    StephenB says:

    seversky

    What does it matter? If it makes him/her happy

    It matters because no one in the LGBT mob has ever maintained a “live and let live” attitude toward others. As a “community” (what a misuse of words) they insist that everyone else should approve of what they are doing. Personal convictions do not matter and should not be given expression. As Hillary Clinton put it, “Religious beliefs have to be changed.” The LGBT/gay rights enthusiasts, and their political allies, are very clear: They seek to destroy the Christian religion and every trace of Biblical morality–in the name of tolerance, of course.

  31. 31
    Vy says:

    I see no reason why we cannot work these things out for ourselves through a process of negotiation or so-called inter-subjective agreement. Are you really saying you can’t tell right from wrong – moral from immoral – unless somebody else tells you what it is?

    Can you? Go ahead and try.

    Just wondering, where exactly do you get the idea that X is right or wrong? Your “feelings” (personal opinion)??? Public opinion???

    – Do you want a list of people that are dead because of “feelings”? I mean, not long ago, some seemingly atheopathic monster murdered about 9 people simply because “he hates organized religion” and even further back, we have an Atheist that murdered 3 muslims, are you kidding me???

    – What makes your “feelings” that racism, for example, is wrong anymore right than the “feelings” of a racist if morality is based on personal opinion? In fact, can you objectively explain on a materialistic/evolutionary/naturalistic basis why it’s wrong to murder people you don’t like?

    —–

    – Apart from the public being a bunch of individuals, where’s the evidence that public opinion is right? They say “two heads are better than one” but a billion fools doesn’t = genius super-organism.

    – If public opinion is right, doesn’t that mean that racism was never wrong as it was once “publicly” accepted? I mean, who’s to say that racism won’t become perfectly acceptable in the future? After all, there are several places where racism is still prevalent. Public opinion is simply that, opinion.

    With morality based on materialism/evolution, all that truly matters is “survival of the fittest” and passing on genes (don’t gimme that “naturalistic fallacy” crap) so who’s to stop you from raping someone you find on the street? Sam Harris is on record for saying:

    … there are many things about us for which we are naturally selected, which we repudiate in moral terms. For instance, there’s nothing more natural than rape. Human beings rape, chimpanzees rape, orangutans rape, rape clearly is part of an evolutionary strategy to get your genes into the next generation if you’re a male.

    Perfectly consistent with an Atheopathic worldview. Obviously, that’s not the Atheist promise so he goes on to babble about worldview-contradiction nonsense:

    You can’t move from that Darwinian fact about us to defend rape as a good practice. I mean no-one would be tempted to do that; we have transcended that part of our evolutionary history in repudiating it.

    Where’s the evidence for no-one would be tempted to do that? Does he think rapists don’t have a (foolish) perfectly subjectively valid explanation for their actions?

    I like honest Atheists like this guy. Under Atheism, everything and anything is right and wrong.

  32. 32
    Vy says:

    You fail, in your case against theism

    I don’t think he has a case against theism, I’m pretty sure it’s the other one.

  33. 33
    Vy says:

    This pretty much sums it up:

    It is interesting to note the two non-coherent positions: “conducting my life in a moral manner” and “…argue instead for a ‘subjective morality’…” Obviously if a person defines his own morality, then he will consider himself moral; the sliding scale of “…choos(ing) how to act in any given situation” makes one perfectly moral in “any given situation” – how could he go wrong? Resulting in a tautological position of perpetual “morality” regardless of what he does makes morality a completely useless word, in fact a mockery of something that conceptually means something else entirely. It is, in fact, the opposite of a moral system; it is a justification for whatever behavior one chooses to be called what it is not: moral.

    I am moral because I decide what is moral.
    I decide what is moral, therefore I am moral.

    He cannot be immoral or amoral under his own system, so his claim to be moral cannot be falsified – under his own system. It is tautological, having defined himself as moral, regardless of his behaviors. But if judged by a different, absolute moral system, rather than his own sloppy self-referential definitional system, he would be beholden to something other than himself and his own variable moral principles. And that would not sit well with him because it would place constraints on him from which he is otherwise free. The whole point is this: No Constraints. It’s how Atheists roll.

    In fact, it renders public opinion useless. Stuff like the “law” would be both illogical and dictatorial in an Atheist Utopia because what do you base it on? Freedom of speech, assembly, to life, from discrimination etc.? Says who?

    Joe – I believe murder is bad because …
    Jane – I believe murder is good because …
    Doe – I believe murder is neither good nor bad because …

    Oh, and let’s not forget that the materialistic assumption is that we’re nothing but meatbags acting according to the random reactions in the randomly formed meat in our head.

    Michael Egnor also dealt with it at ENV:

    The question about moral law is two questions: is moral law objective or subjective, and how can we know it?

    The first question on the objectivity of moral law can be summarized: is moral law something we discover, or something we create? If it is something we discover, then it is something other than man-made. If moral law is discovered, it is God’s law, as understood by virtually all religions.

    If moral law is created by man, it is really moral laws — seven billion opinions — opinions created by each person as he contemplates right and wrong. In the sense of moral law as subjective opinion, rather than objective reality, no one man’s version of moral law has any particular claim to truth that is binding on anyone else. I believe that starving Ukrainians to take their farms is immoral; Joseph Stalin disagreed.

    If moral law is not God-given law, but rather human opinion, who is to decide what law shall be binding on humanity? The answer is: those with power will decide, and do decide, in our secular world. [Ergo, dictatorship]

    The obvious example is Harris’s own notion that moral law is just that set of behaviors (which science can help us discover) that promote human flourishing. But who decides what counts as human flourishing, and why exactly is human flourishing the basis for morality anyway, if there is no objective moral law independent of human opinion? Hitler’s conquest of Eastern Europe was the consequence of his view that the flourishing of Germans depended on living space that the East could provide. His moral calculus was that the net good from conquering Poland et al. far outweighed any net evil from exterminating the locals who were in the way. And if moral law is mere opinion and what counts as flourishing is subjective (which in the atheist worldview it must always be), who are we to say that Hitler had moral law wrong? It was a difference of opinion, in that case, not a difference between good and evil, which atheism must deny as objective categories.

    The notion of moral law as created by man, rather than discovered by man, is always a prescription for the raw exercise of power, and the more emphatic the morality, the more brutal the power. The atheist view of moral law is the nidus of totalitarianism.

  34. 34
    Zachriel says:

    Mung: It’s objectively morally wrong.

    It was a question, not about morality, but about when it is reasonable to use the power of government.

    Dr JDD: In fact, morals go against evolutionary success.

    No. First of all, not all people are moral. More to the point, morals can lead to cohesion in a cooperating group, which can increase overall fitness. What evolution would expect is a balance between cooperators and cheaters. We should also see group identification, and the ability to distinguish cooperators and cheaters. We observe this in ants and we observe this in humans.

    mugwump3: The only available examples of survival through mutation are examples of genetic deletion.

    That’s not the case. Many adaptations are due to gene duplications, for instance. See Blount et al., Genomic Analysis of a Key Innovation in an Experimental E. coli Population, Nature 2012.

  35. 35
    Zachriel says:

    Barry Arrington: Trot out another list of horrible people you want the government to coerce into expressing the government’s officially approved position.

    Okay. Posting a “Whites Only” sign is a form of expression, so the government should not intervene. Just wanted to understand your position.

    http://www.tn4me.org/images/up.....o-Dogs.jpg

    It is an act of tyranny. It is the assassin’s knife stuck in the back of liberty.

    With this assassin’s knife and a blackjack in the hand of the Federal force-cult, the left-wing liberals will try to force us back into bondage. Bondage to a tyranny more brutal than that imposed by the British monarchy which claimed power to rule over the lives of our forefathers under sanction of the Divine Right of kings.

    Today, this tyranny is imposed by the central government which claims the right to rule over our lives under sanction of the omnipotent black-robed despots who sit on the bench of the United States Supreme Court.

    http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/docu.....-1964-.php

  36. 36
    Virgil Cain says:

    Many adaptations are due to gene duplications.

    And only ignorance says that gene duplications are genetic accidents, errors and mistakes.

  37. 37
    Virgil Cain says:

    Posting a “Whites Only” sign is a form of expression, so the government should not intervene.

    But anyone can be white! The color of your skin doesn’t matter. Think about it- if a man can say he is a woman and a woman can say she is a man, then color is just another arbitrary label.

  38. 38
    mike1962 says:

    Zechriels: Posting a “Whites Only” sign is a form of expression, so the government should not intervene.

    How about a sign that says, “No weirdos who refer to themselves with plural pronouns allowed.”

    Should that be regulated?

  39. 39
    Zachriel says:

    mike1962: How about a sign that says, “No weirdos who refer to themselves with plural pronouns allowed.” Should that be regulated?

    No, it shouldn’t be regulated. Generally, people have the right to free association. Private clubs can exclude people for any reason, including race, religion, or weirdness. Public accommodations shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against race or religion, but can discriminate for many other reasons. Few people would want to return to a time when racial and religious discrimination in public accommodation was allowed. Not only was it socially unstable, but it was patently unjust.
    https://www.awesomestories.com/images/user/fba33a83c1.jpg

  40. 40
    Vy says:

    No

    Whatever makes you sleep well at night, Zach.

    Meanwhile, in evodelusionary reality-ville:

    God is dead, so why should I be good? The answer is that there are no grounds whatsoever for being good. There is no celestial headmaster who is going to give you six (or six billion, billion, billion) of the best if you are bad. Morality is flimflam.

    Morality then is not something handed down to Moses on Mount Sinai. It is something forged in the struggle for existence and reproduction, something fashioned by natural selection. It is as much a natural human adaptation as our ears or noses or teeth or penises or vaginas. It works and it has no meaning over and above this.

    Rape, racism, bullying, murder, theft, pedophilia etc. are, in an evodelusionary worldview, as natural as your eyes and are no more wrong nor right than looking at a picture.

    The rest of Ruse’s comments about how yu can you delude yourself into thinking you can be good under an evodelusionary worldview are contradictory and nonsensical as shown by my earlier posts and his very own comments quoted above.

    “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander” – remember that next time you say anything about morality when coming from an evodelusionary stance

  41. 41
    Seversky says:

    tell me, how do you know something is right? How does a child know when they have done something they should not do?

  42. 42
    Vy says:

    tell me, how do you know something is right?

    I believe in the biblical God, the rest is pretty much self-explanatory.

    How does a child know when they have done something they should not do?

    Under what circumstances?

    Do you think the child-bombers captured by the Boko Haram monsters in Nigeria still know right from wrong, especially the ones born to them?
    Do you think the children of cannibals know right from wrong?

    You may or may not be interested but the whole concept of being born-again is based on being like children so I feel morality is somewhat inherent under normal circumstances up to a certain age but it is by no means unchangeable:

    Matthew 18:6 – but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

  43. 43
    Popperian says:

    No matter how much Caitlyn Jenner believes he is a woman, he is not.

    Jenner is woman of the year not because she currently is a biological a woman, but be cause she was a male athlete that strongly identified as a woman, waited to reveal that identification at his (then) own expense for many decades, recently revealed it publicly and is taking actual steps to bring her physiology in line with her identify.

    IOW, The fact that Jenner is not a biological woman isn’t some hidden conspiracy that no one knows about or that you’ve somehow exposed as a fraud. Instead, it is the reason why Jenner is on the cover.

  44. 44
    Seversky says:

    Dr JDD @ 27

    “Are you really saying you can’t tell right from wrong – moral from immoral – unless somebody else tells you what it is?”

    Yes – or if it has been preprogrammed to know right from wrong.

    So, if your God commanded you to sacrifice your firstborn child as proof of your faith, you would do so without question? You would see nothing wrong in doing so?

    So your take on the Euthyphro Dilemma is that, whatever God says is right, is right? No questions asked?

    Evolution has no power to explain right from wrong or morals.

    In case you hadn’t noticed, the theory of evolution was not about right or wrong or moral guidance.

    Yet all children from birth demonstrate an inherent understanding of right from wrong.

    No, they don’t. They learn it from adults, primarily their parents. Children can be quite cruel on their own. Look at the incidence of bullying in schools.

    If we are evolved to survive as the fittest and pass on our genes why do we find murder and rape wrong and abhorrent?

    Individual human beings are weak and vulnerable creatures. They fare much better when co-operating in groups or societies. Anything that tends to strengthen the bonds between people – promote social cohesion – can be advantageous.

    Which sort of society would you prefer to belong to, one that allows its members to murder, rape and pillage other members with impunity or one which frowns upon such behavior and agrees on rules which promotes respect for the rights and well-being of others?

    Yet you still cannot take yourself to the point that materialism requires – no room for morals no absolute right or wrong.

    No absolute right or wrong, maybe, but it’s perfectly possible to construct an a/mat morality which has no need to refer to anyone other than those it affects for approval.

    tell me, how do you know something is right?

    That’s a good question. Is something right because it benefits us in some way or is it only right if a god says so, even though he doesn’t tell us why he decided it’s right? In other words, do we get to decide or do we let someone else do it for us?

  45. 45
    Seversky says:

    Vy @ 31

    I see no reason why we cannot work these things out for ourselves through a process of negotiation or so-called inter-subjective agreement. Are you really saying you can’t tell right from wrong – moral from immoral – unless somebody else tells you what it is?

    Can you? Go ahead and try.

    Just wondering, where exactly do you get the idea that X is right or wrong? Your “feelings” (personal opinion)??? Public opinion???

    The Golden Rule, empathy, common interests, inter-subjective agreement. It’s harder than having them handed to you on a plate – or tablets of stone – I agree, but that doesn’t mean we can’t do it. Or do you have such a low opinion of humanity that you think only fear of your God’s wrath will keep them in line?

    Do you want a list of people that are dead because of “feelings”? I mean, not long ago, some seemingly atheopathic monster murdered about 9 people simply because “he hates organized religion” and even further back, we have an Atheist that murdered 3 muslims, are you kidding me???

    How many people died on 9/11 because of religious feelings? I posted a list atrocities recorded in the Old Testament committed willingly by people intensely committed to their faith.

    According to one eyewitness, the man who shot people after asking them if they were Christian killed them regardless of what they answered. Not all atheists are psychopaths or mass killers any more than all Christians are capable of committing atrocities in the name of their faith.

    – What makes your “feelings” that racism, for example, is wrong anymore right than the “feelings” of a racist if morality is based on personal opinion? In fact, can you objectively explain on a materialistic/evolutionary/naturalistic basis why it’s wrong to murder people you don’t like?

    It’s that Golden Rule again. I would not like to be discriminated against on the basis of my race so I would not want to inflict that on others. It’s wrong to murder because of the pain and suffering it causes the victim and his or her family and friends.

    In my view, there is no objective morality, only empathy, common interests and inter-subjective agreement on what most of us agree is best for all.

    – Apart from the public being a bunch of individuals, where’s the evidence that public opinion is right? They say “two heads are better than one” but a billion fools doesn’t = genius super-organism.

    What’s the evidence that it is always wrong? Why shouldn’t individual opinions be considered? Your God is just another individual. Why should His opinions count above all others? He never tells us the reasons He says some things are wrong. Why is there a commandment against worshipping graven images or coveting your neighbor’s ox but not a mention of rape or child abuse?

    You can’t move from that Darwinian fact about us to defend rape as a good practice. I mean no-one would be tempted to do that; we have transcended that part of our evolutionary history in repudiating it.

    Where’s the evidence for no-one would be tempted to do that? Does he think rapists don’t have a (foolish) perfectly subjectively valid explanation for their actions?

    What makes you think that Sam Harris or that blogger speak for all atheists? Does the Westboro Baptist Church speak for all Christians?

    Rape has occurred throughout recorded history. It’s probably been happening ever since we emerged as a sexually-reproducing species. It’s been committed by atheists, agnostics, Protestants, Roman Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, you name it. It happens a lot so, to that extent, it is natural but that doesn’t make it right and the naturalistic fallacy crap means that you can’t argue it’s right just because it happens. The pathology of rape indicates it is committed for a variety of reasons but very rarely does it have anything to do with the passing on of genes.

    Under Atheism, everything and anything is right and wrong.

    No, what is right or wrong is what we decide is right or wrong. Your alternative is to hand over the decision-making to some extraterrestrial or alien being that you hope is out there somewhere with our best interests at heart. Good luck with that.

  46. 46
    Virgil Cain says:

    How many people died on 9/11 because of religious feelings?

    Less than the number that died due to feelings of oppression.

  47. 47
    Barry Arrington says:

    Zachriel @ 35.

    No, you do not understand my position. If you did, you would realize your example is not even close to germane.

    I have explained my position twice. Go back and read those explanations again and after you have, come back and explain why your example in 35 is not germane. It is not that hard.

  48. 48
    Barry Arrington says:

    Popperian @ 43:

    Popperian says he has a hard time understanding, much less answering, a simple question about whether he would prefer a true or a false explanation (here).

    Yet he is utterly certain that a man is a woman just because he says so.

    Funny that.

  49. 49
    Vy says:

    Sev, I’ll deal with your argument when I get to a comfortable device. 😀

  50. 50
    Popperian says:

    @Barry Arrington#48

    Popperian says he has a hard time understanding, much less answering, a simple question about whether he would prefer a true or a false explanation (here).

    Of course, Barry. It’s just so blatantly obvious that everyone holds the exact same epistemological views as you and the choir your preaching to. As such, I couldn’t possibly be asking for much needed clarification. I must be merely having a hard time understanding your extremely simple question.

    Really?

    Yet he is utterly certain that a man is a woman just because he says so.

    Given that I pointed out Jenner is not a biological woman, but has identified as one for decades, I have to ask: do you always misrepresent everyone, or just me?

    Are you claiming that being a woman is merely a question of biology? Or, as you might put it, merely materialistic?

  51. 51
    Zachriel says:

    Barry Arrington: I have explained my position twice. Go back and read those explanations again and after you have, come back and explain why your example in 35 is not germane. It is not that hard.

    Don’t see it, so you may want to explain your position more clearly. Here’s your stated position: “government coerced expression is always wrong.”

    Here are some wedding cakes:
    https://www.google.com/search?&tbm=isch&q=wedding+cake

    In what way is selling a wedding cake “government coerced expression”?

    Are you okay then with government coercion to prevent expression, such as “Whites Only” signs?

    Are you agreeable with laws against racial and religious discrimination in public accommodations?

  52. 52
    Dr JDD says:

    Seversky :

    So, if your God commanded you to sacrifice your firstborn child as proof of your faith, you would do so without question? You would see nothing wrong in doing so?

    This seems to be a favoured example against the Judeo-Christian God that people like to bring up. There is not a single example of God demanding a true human sacrifice to merely satisfy His desire – except for that of His own Son (except as judgement). The Abrahamic story reveals God was testing Abraham’s faith and it was less of a test of his faith to Abraham than it was a demonstration of how strong real and true faith is. Hebrews expands on this – that Abraham believed that God could raise his own son from the dead. That is the demonstration of understanding who God is and His nature. If the Almighty God were to reveal Himself and clearly command to sacrifice my first-born child if I lived in the day with no written and revealed Scripture (God’s Word) then yes I would do so based on the faith I have (and bear in mind God did not allow Abraham to actually sacrifice his son…yet sacrificed His own Son). With the revealed Scripture today it is clear that God would not ask that of an individual as He has already revealed Himself and how the sacrificial system can never take away our sin, apart from Jesus. Therefore I would conclude it was “from another god” or the “god of this world” as it goes against the written and revealed Scripture, which the whole must be taken into the context.

     

    So your take on the Euthyphro Dilemma is that, whatever God says is right, is right? No questions asked?

    The Bible is full of people asking questions of God. God gives us rational minds but He is also as revealed the One who is by definition good and holy and in Him no wrong can be found. Therefore He is the definition of right. God cannot lie, and all He says is truth. If indeed, He is our Creator. If He is not then we have good reason to doubt that. Just like a programmer sets the rules of a program and whatever the programmer says is unequivocally true for the program, by definition, the same is true of a Creator to the creature. It would be absurd to say the creation could supersede the Creator. Yet God has created the ability of reasoning where that was meant to operate in the original moral definitions that He authored into humans. He “wrote” His moral code on our hearts which is why we perceive certain actions as apparently wrong and/or evil.

     

    In case you hadn’t noticed, the theory of evolution was not about right or wrong or moral guidance.

    No of course not, but it has implications for morals. The explanation of how we got to this point and how the universe and life got to this point has the most far-reaching implications in everything, not least of all morals. Surely you can understand this. And how you base your world view will determine your personal morals, ultimately, even if a different set of morals was originally written in your internal coding.

     

    No, they don’t. They learn it from adults, primarily their parents. Children can be quite cruel on their own. Look at the incidence of bullying in schools.

    Actually, such atheistic slant is to be expected from modern-day psychology (although this prevails for many of centuries) in that the idea is that morality is learned rather than engrained. Such was the Freudian approach however more recent research does show that infants from as young as 3 months old have perception of “good and bad” and thus suggests that there is a “hard-wired” morality code in humans. This is actually what the Bible teaches too – that everyone has a conscience to know right from wrong (although it teaches that there is an age of accountability thus this is also a conscious that grows and matures with an understanding of the world, and the implication is then that the way children are brought up can dampen or heighten the conscience), but it also teaches that all humans have an inherent sin nature and tend to rebel against what is good and right. Hence why children KNOW what is right and wrong, but often DO wrong. Both are in our nature.

     

    Individual human beings are weak and vulnerable creatures. They fare much better when co-operating in groups or societies. Anything that tends to strengthen the bonds between people – promote social cohesion – can be advantageous.

    This is why evolution answers nothing as a science – it can just come up with a story that is untestable for anything and everything and any and every scenario as providing “advantage”. Even if society was created in a way where things that provide benefit are inherent in them, the answer will always be “evolution” because evolution always brings the advantage. It’s a non-theory from a scientific perspective – it is more a theology of types.

     

    Which sort of society would you prefer to belong to, one that allows its members to murder, rape and pillage other members with impunity or one which frowns upon such behavior and agrees on rules which promotes respect for the rights and well-being of others?

    Where do you think those rules came from? I would prefer to live in a society that gave glory to God and actually cared about people’s souls, not just gave the appearance of doing so.

     

    No absolute right or wrong, maybe, but it’s perfectly possible to construct an a/mat morality which has no need to refer to anyone other than those it affects for approval.

    Sure, and lose your soul. But you  know, a good 70 years in a sub-optimal body with death and disease no amount of nicety can do away with seems more favourable to most than self-restriction, giving glory where is it due, submission, and ensuring eternity is not spent in a far worse place…

     

    That’s a good question. Is something right because it benefits us in some way or is it only right if a god says so, even though he doesn’t tell us why he decided it’s right? In other words, do we get to decide or do we let someone else do it for us?

    You mis-understand God and the concept of “God” on so many levels. Do you think a God who is the same forever can change what is right or wrong? A God who is the definition of good therefore by definition is good always – the same God that created mankind and yet the creature wishes to say that they have a right to tell the Creator what is right or wrong, good or evil? Do you realise how twisted that is? Does a computer program turn around and tell the person who created the program to run that they are wrong to make the program do or not do something in the design? You take God and you bring Him down to an equal and demand that you have a right to speak and tell Him what to do – that clearly demonstrates you have no concept of what “God” encompasses. But it is expected as you have no belief in a creator God, your god is nature and material things so none of these conclusions ever surprise me and are expected from anyone who will not acknowledge God’s existence let along everything else that must follow.

  53. 53
    Popperian says:

    Vy,

    Speaking of Questions. There is one that Barry has not even acknowledged, let alone asked for clarification or even “agreed with but danced around.” (At best, his response is the genetic fallacy, but that would be false in I have not stated my position on abortion. [Apparently, he thinks I must believe in the dichotomy that objective morality exists and accessible to us in the sense he defines it or I must think that anything goes. But that is not the case.] Rather I’ve criticized his theory of moral knowledge. So, what we’re left with is an argument for undesired consequences.)

    However, perhaps you can explain how you managed to infallibly identify and interpret an infallible source of moral principles. How does that work, in practice, when you are faced with moral problems to solve?

    IOW, it’s unclear how your personal beliefs about right and wrong did not come prior when you employ them to determine if you should or should not defer to a supposedly infallible source. What comes first is your human moral views about what a being that was supposedly all knowing, all powerful and perfectly good would do. They would be your beliefs, somehow infinitely better. Otherwise, you would reject that source as being infallible or interpret those parts as being non-literal.

    For example, the Quran claims it is an infallible source. Yet I’m guessing you do not recognize it as such. The question is, why not?

    Would that have something to do with your personal moral judgements about an all knowing, all powerful and perfectly good being giving men permanent erections and 72 virgins when they entire paradise? Is that something you think the source of all morality would do? Is your rejection of the Quran as a source of infallible moral guidance not a refection of your moral views?

    What becomes problematic is the idea that God is morality itself, in which anything God did supposedly did must be morally right. It’s OK for God, but not for us. But that is yet another belief that is simply not explicit. Namely, the idea that knowledge can only come from authoritative sources and that moral knowledge of how to solve moral problems does not genuinely grow, but has always existed.

    And there is still the pesky question: you may think it’s moral that the potter should be able to destroy the pot because he’s the potter, but not a think a perfectly moral being would give us 72 virgins, cause that’s not the God that you would have to recognize. After all, every text that claims it is an infallible authoritative source that would be equally justified by their own claims of infallibility. So, you would have to pick one arbitrarily. Is that what you’re doing?

    This is not to say it moral questions are merely subjective. We guess at what solutions we think we want. But we can be mistaken about the outcomes and the means to reach them. So, moral knowledge is independent of our beliefs. It is objective in that sense.

    Again, it’s unclear how you, Barry, or anyone else has any other recourse that to conjecture moral solitons to moral problem and criticism them, just like someone who does not believe in the supposed infallible source you believe in. It’s effectively the same process. And it’s just as subjective, in that we choose, and objective in that it is independent of our beliefs.

    What I’m suggesting is that, as with Barry, you’re just confused about how that process works.

  54. 54
    Popperian says:

    Feel free to chime in here Barry. I mean, I’ve only asked you directly, what, at least 4-5 times now?

    Will you disappoint me yet again?

    Confused about the question? Ask for clarifications.

  55. 55
    Popperian says:

    DrDDJ

    This seems to be a favoured example against the Judeo-Christian God that people like to bring up. There is not a single example of God demanding a true human sacrifice to merely satisfy His desire – except for that of His own Son (except as judgement)

    But if God is morality, then what’s the big deal? It’s OK for God, but not us. Your moral views and intuitions on the subject should be irrelevant because God is supposedly an infallible source of moral principles. As would any text that makes the same claim. Your choice between them should be arbitrary as they all claim infallibility.

    Yet one’s God seems to reflect one’s moral views. Why should this be the case? See above.

    IOW, God as an explanation for human moral knowledge is a bad explanation.

  56. 56
    Barry Arrington says:

    Popperian:

    Are you claiming that being a woman is merely a question of biology?

    God help us.

  57. 57
    Barry Arrington says:

    Barry:

    I have explained my position twice. Go back and read those explanations again and after you have, come back and explain why your example in 35 is not germane. It is not that hard.

    Zachriel

    Don’t see it,

    I suspect you do (it is really simple) and a more accurate statement on your part would be “won’t admit it.”

  58. 58
    Zachriel says:

    Barry Arrington: I suspect you do (it is really simple) and a more accurate statement on your part would be “won’t admit it.”

    We admit to being a slow learner, but we do learn. To move the discussion forward, perhaps you could respond to @51.

    PS. Thank you for removing the moderation on our comments.

  59. 59
    Barry Arrington says:

    Zachriel,

    You were never in the moderation queue. Currently, the moderation queue is completely empty. I don’t know why your comments were being placed in moderation.

    As to your question: It is tyrannical to force someone to speak against their conscience by forcing them to use their artistic expression to advance a point of a view that is contrary to their deeply held beliefs.

    And that is very different from forcing someone to refrain from speaking pernicious statements such as “whites only.”

    I am astounded that you have a difficult time grasping that distinction.

  60. 60
    Zachriel says:

    Zachriel: Here are some wedding cakes:
    https://www.google.com/search?&tbm=isch&q=wedding+cake

    In what way is selling a wedding cake “government coerced expression”? Are you okay then with government coercion to prevent expression, such as “Whites Only” signs? Are you agreeable with laws against racial and religious discrimination in public accommodations?

    Barry Arrington: As to your question: It is tyrannical to force someone to speak against their conscience by forcing them to use their artistic expression to advance a point of a view that is contrary to their deeply held beliefs.

    You are repeating your claim, but don’t seem to be answering any of the questions.

  61. 61
    Bob O'H says:

    As to your question: It is tyrannical to force someone to speak against their conscience by forcing them to use their artistic expression to advance a point of a view that is contrary to their deeply held beliefs.

    And that is very different from forcing someone to refrain from speaking pernicious statements such as “whites only.”

    There are a few differences here: same sex marriage/race and baking a cake/hiring. So, to help to split these up, I wonder which of these acts Barry thinks is OK:
    1. refusing to bake a cake for a same sex couple
    2. refusing to bake a cake for a mixed race couple
    3. refusing a job to someone who is gay
    4. refusing a job to someone who is not white

  62. 62
    Barry Arrington says:

    Bob @ 61,

    Here is how you frame the issue:

    1. refusing to bake a cake for a same sex couple

    That you would frame the issue this way shows that you have not been paying attention. The baker said he would bake a regular cake and other pastries for anyone, including this couple.

    Now, go back and read the OP and my other comments, and after you have done so, come back and explain your error. Again, it is really simple.

    Is it really the case that progressive ideological blinders are so powerful that progressives can no longer grasp basic, elementary, kindergarten level distinctions?

  63. 63
    Vy says:

    The Zachriels say:

    We admit to being a slow learner, but we do learn.

    They‘re baaaack … :p

  64. 64
    Barb says:

    Seversky asks, “When a child grows and matures and becomes an adult like his or her parents, is he or she not entitled to ask of them, why did you do this or that when I was growing?”

    They can ask. They are absolutely not entitled to an explanation.

    “And are the parents, if they love that child, not bound to explain why they acted as they did?”

    No explanation is owed the child. If the child grows into a happy, healthy adult then he or she should be thanking the parents for doing a good job.

    Why would you (wrongly) assume that children are owed some sort of explanation for their parents’ parenting styles and choices? That is absurd.

  65. 65
    Dr JDD says:

    Popperian:

    Yet one’s God seems to reflect one’s moral views. Why should this be the case? See above.

    Indeed it does which is why ecumenical approaches that say all roads lead to God are absurd and a fallacy. If God does exist He certainly cannot be the God of all of the multitude of religions. He cannot even be the God of all the different sects for an individual religion in some cases. Just because a text claims infallibility does not mean it is true.

    However the Bible has stood the test of time and has the weight of historic, archeology, autographic, hermeneutic, prophetic, etc etc vastly behind it. See the likes of MacDowell, Strobel, etc etc for an introduction to this.

    More than that though, it is my experience that reading the Bible with an open mind – open to revelation – has powerful illuminating effects. However most who read it have a) already made their mind up or b) don’t want to believe it regardless of whether it is true or not.

  66. 66
    Barry Arrington says:

    Dr JDD

    Are you sure Popperian is a worthy interlocutor? After all, he suggested up thread that a man who lies about being a woman is in fact a woman.

  67. 67
    Barry Arrington says:

    And then there is this from Popperian:

    The fact that Jenner is not a biological woman isn’t some hidden conspiracy that no one knows about or that you’ve somehow exposed as a fraud.

    Pop, here’s a little newsflash for you: The fact that everyone knows it is a lie, does not make it less of a lie. Everyone knew the emperor had no clothes on. Only the boy was brave enough to say so.

    In real life, everyone knew the lies told by the leaders of the Soviet Union were lies. Only Solzhenitsyn and a very few others were brave enough to say so.

    Everyone (including you) knows Jenner is not a woman. Only those willing to face the charge of “narrow minded bigot” from the PC brigade stand up and say so.

  68. 68
    Popperian says:

    @Barry#66

    Yet another on of your typical non-answers where you selectively quote my comment.

    To rephrase, are you suggesting Jesus isn’t the Son of God unless he has a biological body? Otherwise, he’s the child of God? Next time Jesus could just as well return as a woman?

  69. 69
    Vy says:

    Next time Jesus could just as well return as a woman?

    and

    are you suggesting Jesus isn’t the Son of God unless he has a biological body?

    ???
    Looks like everyone is trying to pull a Zachriel.

    I do wonder what the logical basis of this comment is. It shows quite a paucity, in fact, absolute lack of understanding of the Bible and Jesus.

  70. 70
    Barry Arrington says:

    Popperian @ 68,

    I decline your invitation to engage in a theological debate on Matthew 7:6 grounds. When you demonstrate you can recognize the difference between a man and a woman (hint, every cell in a woman’s body has an XX chromosome and every cell in Jenner’s body has an XY chromosome; men have penises; women have vaginas), then maybe, just maybe, we can move up to discussions about the nuances of the incarnation. But until you grasp the simple basics, such a discussion would be wasted on you. IOW, you’ve gotta prove you can do 2+2=4 before I even begin to think about discussing calculus with you.

    Move along now.

    I do urge you to stop embracing the lie that Mr. Jenner is a woman. He is not. Do not be proud of embracing the lie. Do not say you are open-minded and intelligent and thoughtful. Instead, you should say to yourself: I am in the herd, and a coward.

  71. 71
    kairosfocus says:

    Whom the gods would destroy, first they rob of reason.

  72. 72
    Eugen says:

    “Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

    –George Washington

    Farewell reason, truth, and freedom. Hello feelings, lies and tyranny. Thanks for nothing liberals.

  73. 73
    Pro Hac Vice says:

    Here is how you frame the issue:

    1. refusing to bake a cake for a same sex couple

    That you would frame the issue this way shows that you have not been paying attention. The baker said he would bake a regular cake and other pastries for anyone, including this couple.

    That he would frame it that way suggests that he’s getting his information from a more reliable source than Uncommon Descent. The ALJ’s decision makes clear that this is exactly what happened: Phillips refused to prepare a cake for the couple, based on their orientation. The fact that he would sell them other cakes is irrelevant—as a public accommodation, he doesn’t have the right to refuse to serve some people based on their sexual orientation. No more than a diner could exclude black patrons from eating at the counter, even though it would gladly serve them coffee to go. (Thank god those damn dirty progressive liars triumphed over the bigots of their day, who similarly complained about the rights of diner owners being trampled.)

    Nor is expressive speech a significant issue in this case. Phillips refused to sell the couple a wedding cake, based on their orientation, without discussing the design. It’s hard to claim that you’re being asked to participate in speech by not selling a cake to someone if you don’t take the time to find out if they wanted decorated in any particular way, or would be happy with an off-the-shelf design.

    It’s an interesting issue to me, because I generally fall on the side of protecting speech aggressively. I’m not at all persuaded by the ALJ’s discussion of Rumsfeld, although I can’t claim to be an expert in the field. And I’m generally sympathetic to the photographers who refuse to rise above their personal bigotry to photograph same-sex weddings; I think photography is legitimately an act of expressive speech. But baking a cake, while it can rise to that level, doesn’t necessarily rise to that level, and Phillips’s eagerness to trumpet his prejudices resulted in facts that just won’t support a persuasive legal case. No matter how heated the rhetoric. Standing up to evil just like Solzhenitsyn, indeed! More like the owners of whites-only cafes.

    Incidentally, I was curious about the “Maoist-style re-education” you mentioned. I looked at the opinion, and it sounds like the owner was ordered to provide training for his staff on Colorado anti-discrimination law. In other words, “You broke the law, now train your staff on how not to do it again.” Is that the “Maoist-style re-education” you mentioned? Or is there something else that the owner was ordered to do?

    If you’re willing to share it, I’d love to read your brief.

  74. 74
    Pro Hac Vice says:

    When you demonstrate you can recognize the difference between a man and a woman (hint, every cell in a woman’s body has an XX chromosome and every cell in Jenner’s body has an XY chromosome; men have penises; women have vaginas), then maybe, just maybe, we can move up to discussions about the nuances of the incarnation.

    This reminds me of your “lying with charts” post, in which you demonstrated your point with a resounding own-goal. The “difference between a man and a woman” is a lot more complicated than you want it to be.

    You say that women are XX and men are XY, and that women have vaginas and that men have penises. But this isn’t always true! Complete androgen insensitivity results in people who are phenotypically female, and genotypically XY. Is such a person a man or a woman?

    Such a person doesn’t have functioning ovaries, as I understand it. Is that part of the definition? Would an XX person with female genitals who was born with an ovary defect not be a woman?

    The fact is that we cut the cake, as it were, by assigning people to categories based on how they present themselves. Someone who is phenotypically female is called a woman in daily life, even if that person is XY.

    Similarly, Caitlyn Jenner isn’t telling the world that she’s XY. She’s selecting a presentation. Her decision doesn’t pick your pocket or break your nose. And heaping scorn on her doesn’t make you a hero. Actual heroism entails something other than spitting on strangers.

  75. 75
    Barry Arrington says:

    PHV’s argument in 74: We can only be sure about the whole man/woman thing in 99.99999% of the cases. Therefore, the question is always up for grabs. God help us.

  76. 76
    Barry Arrington says:

    PHV @ 75:

    Similarly, Caitlyn Jenner isn’t telling the world that [he’s] XY.

    No, he is telling the world that even though he’s XY he is nevertheless a woman. And that is a lie.

    And heaping scorn on [him] doesn’t make you a hero.

    I did not heap scorn on him. I merely pointed out that he is lying when he says he is a woman. That does not make me a hero; you are right about that. It makes me a person who, like Solzhenitsyn, refuses to participate in the lie.

    Solzhenitsyn again:

    And the simplest and most accessible key to our self-neglected liberation lies right here: Personal non-participation in lies. Though lies conceal everything, though lies embrace everything, we will be obstinate in this smallest of matters: Let them embrace everything, but not with any help from me . . . It’s dangerous.* But let us refuse to say that which we do not think . . . Our path is not to give conscious support to lies about anything whatsoever!

    And this is what Solzhenitsyn says about people, like Pro Hac Vice here, who choose to participate in the lie:

    And he who is not sufficiently courageous even to defend his soul — don’t let him be proud of his “progressive” views, and don’t let him boast that he is an academician or a people’s artist, a merited figure, or a general — let him say to himself: I am in the herd, and a coward. It’s all the same to me as long as I’m fed and warm.

  77. 77
    Popperian says:

    Barry:

    I decline your invitation to engage in a theological debate on Matthew 7:6 grounds.

    Barry, it’s a valid question based on attempting to take your view seriously. You want us to do that right?

    But if you’re objecting to a specific verse, and since you’ve claimed over and over that a marriage is only between a man and a woman, does a preexisting marriage cease to exist if the man and woman have no physical body?

    No physical body, no man and woman?

    Again, I’m just trying to take your claims of non-materialism seriously for the purpose of criticism.

  78. 78
    asauber says:

    PHV,

    “She’s selecting a presentation.”

    Should be

    “He’s selecting a presentation.”

    Andrew

  79. 79
    kairosfocus says:

    Let us listen to these Serbian women sing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKLwutElZ-s As in, what will in the end prevail. KF

  80. 80
    Barry Arrington says:

    Popperian @ 77:

    Read my comment at 70 again, slowly, for comprehension.

    I will not stoop to discuss issues of sex with someone so foolish as to agree (not believe; you don’t believe it any more than I do) that a man who says he is a woman is in fact a woman. You are a fool; arguing with a fool is itself foolish. Now run along.

  81. 81
    Eugen says:

    Kairos

    Wow, what a beautiful song rooted in tradition, respect and pride of religion and customs. Atheist fools will never understand that. Their level is mental vomit show I Am Cait. They can have it.

    Mr Arrington I saved those great Solzhenitsyn quotes!

  82. 82
    Pro Hac Vice says:

    someone so foolish as to agree (not believe; you don’t believe it any more than I do)

    Nothing so comforting as a world in which no one is allowed to disagree. You get to always be right, without ever having to examine or defend your ideas! Now I’m especially curious to read your brief. Do you tell the court that the appellate panel couldn’t possibly have believed their own opinion, or are you compelled to reason as the rest of us do by the strictures of a society ruled by people who are not you?

  83. 83
    Popperian says:

    It’s a simple question, Barry. Why are you being so evasive?

    Again, I asked…

    Are you claiming that being a woman is merely a question of biology?

    As you suggesting it’s unreasonable to expect you to have an answer that is consistent with your beliefs and arguments you’ve made here, as someone who is not one of those “materialists”?

    Let me guess. God made men and women, so he couldn’t have mixed the material and non-material aspects up? Jenner couldn’t be a non-material woman, but a material man, because God doesn’t make mistakes?

    For someone who laments about how supposedly un-open minded we are, why is your’s so closed?

  84. 84
    Barry Arrington says:

    PHV:

    Nothing so comforting as a world in which no one is allowed to disagree.

    PHV demonstrates yet again that he has no clue. This is not about agreeing or disagreeing. Everyone agrees that 2+2=4. Those who say they don’t are liars or idiots. Everyone agrees that a man is not a woman. For those who say they do not, there are three categories: Liars, idiots, cowards. Which are you PHV?

  85. 85
    Barry Arrington says:

    Popperian: Mr. Jenner is a non-material woman, but a material man.

    God help us.

  86. 86
    kairosfocus says:

    Eugen,

    There is more, here is Divna Ljubojevi? of Serbia with Agni Parthene, in Greek: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE1FzSC8DBs

    Similarly, one does not have to agree with the doctrine to appreciate the beauty of voice and expression in Helene Fischer singing Ave Maria (German Version – Franz Schubert): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCNgQUVPqdk

    Likewise, here are the Celtic Women with Amazing Grace . . . which is what we need to sweep away the rubbish accumulating in our minds and souls: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsCp5LG_zNE (The pipes are a historically rich bonus.)

    Then, Carline Davis sings to our civilisation, not just Jamaica: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUzRFT-NtSM

    Real women.

    A = A, A is itself.

    A is not, not itself.

    When the current march of folly and its consequences are utterly exposed and discredited for what they are, when the blood crying up from the ground at Umpqua will have been answered, those things will long be remembered.

    A is A.

    That is how far we have fallen.

    That is how debauched, jaded and en-darkened our civilisation is.

    When the light in you is darkness, how great is your darkness.

    And darkness pretending to be light is deception and folly.

    Which, end in ruin.

    KF

  87. 87
    Andre says:

    So Jenner was voted woman of the year even though Jenner is biologically a man, so what is stopping the feminine partner in a homosexual relationship from entering a woman of the year contest? After all a man has already won the woman of the year contest.

    If you disagree with this you are an anti-feminist and a bigot!

    The defining requirement for being a woman is a XX chromosome, Does this guy have the xx Chromosome or the XY chromosome?

    This is no trivial matter because people are shunting truth.

  88. 88
    Bob O'H says:

    Barry @ 62 – my understanding is that the baker refused to bake a wedding cake for the couple. Wedding cakes are, I believe, cakes. So aren’t you just splitting hairs?

    I was trying to find out where the areas of agreement and disagreement were, so you and Zachriel et al. wouldn’t be shouting past each other. Ah well.

  89. 89
    asauber says:

    If a human is actually an animal with presentation, why can’t a woman be a man with presentation?

    So adults are children with presentation.

    Don’t you guys get how this works? 😉

    Andrew

  90. 90
    Popperian says:

    Barry,

    In the OP, point out that saying 2+2 = 5,203 is a error. It doesn’t add up and is factually wrong. However, you’ve also claimed that anyone says we can add up merely the “material” aspects alone and get a person is in error as well. You are a dualist in the sense that by only adding the “material” + “non-material” = a human being.

    You’ve also claimed that the only way to equal a marriage is to add a man and a woman, so to speak. Any one claiming man + man or woman + woman = marriage is also in error.

    However now, in the OP, you’re also claiming that Jenner cannot be a woman because his is not biologically a woman.

    Now, if we try to take all of these claims, not as mere dogma that you are theologically committed to applying in very a narrow scope, but as explanatory ideas about how the world works – that when taken seriously as a whole, would have real consequences – this starts to appear problematic.

    Which is why I asked the question “Are you claiming that being a woman is merely a question of biology?” It’s a reasonable question, given your claims.

    One of those consequences, if we take you ideas seriously, would be about Jesus. Is he merely the child of God when he does not have a body, but the son of God when he does? Then again, if he doesn’t have any chromosomes, nor does God, how can he even be a child? How can that not be an error a well, that we should not accept?

    Another would be about marriage between two people that no longer have physical bodies. Are they no longer married because being a man and a woman is merely a question of biology?

    And since many people who are male but identify as a women say they feel like a woman trapped in a man’s body, as a dualist, it’s unclear how why you object to Jenner merely because he does not have the physical body of a woman.

    That is, unless you’re views and objections are merely dogmatic, rather than being based on supposed explanations that we should prefer.

  91. 91
    Barry Arrington says:

    Popperian

    That is, unless you’re views and objections are merely dogmatic, rather than being based on supposed explanations that we should prefer.

    Thank you for summarizing the folly of your epistemic approach. Truth is not a matter of subjective preference or majority vote. If you prefer to call Jenner a woman, then your preference has led you away from truth into error. It really is just that simple.

  92. 92
    Zachriel says:

    Barry Arrington,

    In what way is selling a wedding cake “government coerced expression”? Are you okay then with government coercion to prevent expression, such as “Whites Only” signs? Are you agreeable with laws against racial and religious discrimination in public accommodations?

  93. 93
    Barry Arrington says:

    Z, I’ve answered your questions. You don’t seem be able to grasp the answers. Now you are repeating questions I’ve already answered. Time to give it a rest.

  94. 94
    Popperian says:

    UD Editors [Popperian’s highly offensive lies deleted]

  95. 95
    Zachriel says:

    Zachriel: In what way is selling a wedding cake “government coerced expression”? Are you okay then with government coercion to prevent expression, such as “Whites Only” signs? Are you agreeable with laws against racial and religious discrimination in public accommodations?

    Barry Arrington: As to your question: It is tyrannical to force someone to speak against their conscience by forcing them to use their artistic expression to advance a point of a view that is contrary to their deeply held beliefs.

    No, you didn’t seem to answer any of the questions. You were apparently trying to answer the first question. However, you just repeated that you are against “government coerced expression”, not *in what way* it is “government coerced expression”. Are you claiming that baking a cake is expression under the First Amendment? If so, can’t anyone claim that most anything is expression under the First Amendment. A cake is usually just decoration. Where do you draw the line?

  96. 96
    Barry Arrington says:

    Zachriel,

    Are you claiming that baking a cake is expression under the First Amendment?

    Protected expression under the First Amendment is extremely broad and is not limited to words. It includes pictures and even actions (dancing has been held to be protected expression). Artistic expression has been held to be protected in numerous cases. A wedding cake is different from a non-wedding cake by the artistic expression incorporated into it. That’s why they call it a “wedding cake” and not just a “cake.”

    Where do you draw the line?

    The line is drawn between expression and non-expression.

  97. 97
    Zachriel says:

    Barry Arrington: Protected expression under the First Amendment is extremely broad and is not limited to words.

    Sure.

    Barry Arrington: The line is drawn between expression and non-expression.

    Z: Where is the line drawn?
    B: Between one side of the line and the other side of the line.

  98. 98
    Barry Arrington says:

    Popperian,

    I did not say anything about Jesus. I specifically declined your request to debate the incarnation. Now you are putting words into my mouth as if I said them instead of you. Do that again and you will be shown the exit.

  99. 99
    Pro Hac Vice says:

    Everyone agrees that a man is not a woman. For those who say they do not, there are three categories: Liars, idiots, cowards. Which are you PHV?

    Disagreeing with the “BA knows it when he sees it” standard for Ultimate Truth makes me all three, because applying such labels is much easier and more satisfying than answering difficult questions like, “What’s the criteria for determining whether a person is female?” It seems like an easy question, but there are those edge cases that make it hard. One solution is to ignore them and demonize people who ask the hard questions, so as to preserve easy certitude. Another is to think about it. Most people who think about it eventually decide that we treat gender, in practice, as a social construction.

    So if someone wants to redesignate their gender–not claim to be XX, but redesignate their socially constructed gender–who does it harm? And what good does it do to preen about how brave you are to reject the pernicious lie? All I can see is that it makes you feel good to claim to be on the side of angels.

    Artistic expression has been held to be protected in numerous cases. A wedding cake is different from a non-wedding cake by the artistic expression incorporated into it. That’s why they call it a “wedding cake” and not just a “cake.”

    The appellate court considered this argument, of course, and acknowledged that a wedding cake could be expressive enough to protect Mr. Phillips’s discriminatory conduct. But alas for his burning desire to discriminate against gay customers, he talked himself right out of this defense. He refused to accommodate them without bothering to find out if or how they wanted the cake decorated. (And that was a big mistake. They eventually got a rainbow-themed cake; if they had asked him for that, he would have had a much better case. But you go to trial with the facts you’ve got.)

    A wedding cake isn’t more expressive than any other cake just because it’s called a “wedding cake.” White frosting isn’t any more expressive than any other color.

    I was kidding above when I asked whether you briefed the case by simply declaring that the appellate panel couldn’t possibly have believed what they claimed to believe in the opinion. But it doesn’t sound like you have any particular response to their position on this particular question. Huh.

  100. 100
    Zachriel says:

    Pro Hac Vice: He refused to accommodate them without bothering to find out if or how they wanted the cake decorated. (And that was a big mistake. They eventually got a rainbow-themed cake; if they had asked him for that, he would have had a much better case. But you go to trial with the facts you’ve got.)

    And that’s one way to draw the line. The baker can’t be asked to decorate a cake with messages against his sincerely held beliefs, but if he sells neutrally decorated wedding cakes, he has to sell them to all comers.

    Thank you for the informative posts.

  101. 101
    Eugen says:

    atheist:

    “..my understanding is that the baker refused to bake a wedding cake for the couple. Wedding cakes are, I believe, cakes. So aren’t you just splitting hairs?..”

    What happens when Muslim owned catering company refuses customer who orders pork on a menu? Pork chops are, I believe, pork chops. So aren’t you just splitting hairs, atheist?

  102. 102
    Zachriel says:

    Eugen: What happens when Muslim owned catering company refuses customer who orders pork on a menu?

    Huh? It’s probably not on the menu, but if it is, then they have to serve it to anyone who asks. On the other hand, if they only sell halal food, they still have to serve it to anyone who asks.

  103. 103
    Andre says:

    And when someone ask for pork and they refuse what then?

  104. 104
    Zachriel says:

    Andre: And when someone ask for pork and they refuse what then?

    If it’s on the menu, they have to serve it. If it’s not on the menu, they don’t.

  105. 105
    Virgil Cain says:

    There was a muslim owned restaurant in a neighboring town. Because of their adherence to Islam they did not sell/ serve alcohol. There is no longer a muslim owned restaurant in that town. (if there is they sell alcohol)

  106. 106
    Pro Hac Vice says:

    And that’s one way to draw the line. The baker can’t be asked to decorate a cake with messages against his sincerely held beliefs, but if he sells neutrally decorated wedding cakes, he has to sell them to all comers.

    That’s essentially how the courts draw the line. The appellate court considers this question in Section C, starting at para 57: http://www.cobar.org/opinions/.....;courtid=1

  107. 107
    Pro Hac Vice says:

    And when someone ask for pork and they refuse what then?

    Zachriel already explained the upshot, but the principle is basically that any business serving the public is a “public accommodation.” This includes bakeries, restaurants, bus lines and airlines, etc. Public accommodations cannot treat their customers unequally based on certain classifications. That is, a public accommodation can refuse to serve you because you aren’t wearing a shirt, but not because you’re black. Sexual orientation is a protected classification.

    If you don’t serve pork to anyone, then you aren’t treating any customer unequally by refusing to serve them pork. There’s no way to compel a restaurant to serve pork if they don’t want to. If they serve pork to some people but not others, they can’t make the distinguishing factor race or religion or some other protected classification.

    In the bakery example, Masterpiece sold wedding cakes to straight couples but not gay couples. If they refused to sell wedding cakes at all, this would be an issue. The issue is that they offer the service only to straight people. It would be the same if they only sold wedding cakes to gay couples or black couples or Muslim couples–that would also be impermissible discrimination.

    (ETA: Sexual orientation isn’t a protected classification everywhere. Colorado has a specific statute that is relevant here.)

  108. 108
    Barry Arrington says:

    PHV:

    Most people who think about it eventually decide that we treat gender, in practice, as a social construction.

    Yes, as Solzhenitsyn said, many people choose to live the lie. But he also said:

    And he who is not sufficiently courageous even to defend his soul — don’t let him be proud of his “progressive” views, and don’t let him boast that he is an academician or a people’s artist, a merited figure, or a general — let him say to himself: I am in the herd, and a coward.

    Yes, PHV, we know you enjoy being in the fashionable, progressive herd. We also know that you convince yourself to spout lies such as that you cannot be certain that A=A. All the way up to the time you back off that lie because it has been demonstrated to be untenable.

  109. 109
    Mung says:

    And when someone ask for pork and they refuse what then?

    Let them eat cake!

  110. 110
    Eugen says:

    Imagine two homosexuals Zach and Prohac want to have ceremony and invite friends for a party. Muslim caterer is the only one in the area so their feelings would be extremely upset if they couldn’t have a party.

    Would it be right to ask Muslim caterer to do something against his religion just to accommodate the request one time?

  111. 111
    Pro Hac Vice says:

    It would be legal. Would it be right? I’m conflicted. On the one hand, I don’t think anyone is happy when a bigot is forced to serve someone he despises. On the other hand, would you say that if the only restaurant in town is owned by a white supremacist, then black people should do without rather than force him to open his business to them? On balance, I favor requiring prejudiced businesses to comply with the law rather than letting them discriminate. But it’s a reasonable question.

  112. 112
    bornagain says:

    Here is one reason why gays getting married probably don’t ever ask Muslim bakers to bake them a cake:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeSIzimj53s

    🙂

  113. 113
    Pro Hac Vice says:

    Golly, bornagain, how do people ever get the idea that the conservative position on this issue is rooted in prejudice?

  114. 114
    Virgil Cain says:

    Eugen- If you are a public business then you have to cater to the public, even if you are not a catering service. That is just the way it is and has to be. If your religion is going to interfere with your business perhaps you should find a new business or even a new religion, especially if your religion doesn’t teach you to have tolerance of others that are “different”.

  115. 115
    Eugen says:

    Pro Hac Vice

    Are you considering sexual behavior and race as equal?

  116. 116
    bornagain says:

    So gays being prejudiced against Christian morality is OK. But Christians being prejudiced against gay morality is not OK?

    As I’ve heard said before, tolerance to a liberal means ‘tolerant as long as you agree with them’.

    http://weekendpundit.org/tolerant20liberals.jpg

    I guess you also think I’m completely backwards for believing an actual woman, perhaps a grandmother, should have won ‘woman of the year’ instead of a very confused man who imagines he is a woman?

    Caitlyn Jenner and the Ironic Flaw of the Gay Agenda
    http://www.charismanews.com/op.....gay-agenda
    The great irony of the “gay agenda”—if that’s what you want to call it—is that it actually cheapens the very people it is proposing to protect. When people obnoxiously promote their sexuality, exalt their sexuality and wholly focus on their sexuality, then what they are saying is that they are first and foremost a sexual being. But the truth is they are so much more than that. As any married couple will tell you, while sex is indeed an important part of a healthy marriage, it is a relatively small part of a much greater, beautiful whole. The fact that so much of the gay debate devolves into applauding someone’s sexual bent as the most important part of themselves—is in fact WHO THEY ARE—does an immense disservice to the truth. You are not a sexual being. You are a human being. You are a spiritual being. You are an emotional being. You are a relational being. A creative being. Sex is a small part of who we all are, not the biggest part.

  117. 117
    Vy says:

    when a bigot is forced to serve . . .

    The funny thing is that the fools that use that term don’t realize it applies to them.

    Their rants are usually along the lines of: “You bibleTHUMPING BIGOT!!! Learn TOLERANCE and NO I DON’T have to tolerate your BIGOTRY”. Apparently they think their delusional view of what qualifies as “bigotry” affects reality, or that they can claim “tolerance” while subscribing to any form of intolerance.

    I guess that’s what you get when people seemingly dump their brains in the refridgerator and replace it with air.

  118. 118
    Pro Hac Vice says:

    Eugen,

    Are you considering sexual behavior and race as equal?

    In some respects, but it depends on context. I think refusing to serve a customer based on their sexual orientation is equally repugnant as refusing to serve them based on their race.

    Bornagain,

    So gays being prejudiced against Christian morality is OK. But Christians being prejudiced against gay morality is not OK?

    Well, it sounds as if we agree that you’re prejudiced against “gay morality,” whatever that is. Buying cakes, I guess?

    Of the Christians I know, most favor equal rights for gay people, including same-sex marriage and equal access to public accommodations. I think they’d be perturbed to hear that “Christian morality” means prejudice against gay people. And no, prejudice against Christians is not OK. It would be reprehensible for someone to refuse to make the proprietor of the Masterpiece bakery a cake because of his religion.

  119. 119
    Vy says:

    Of the Christians I know, most favor equal rights for gay people, including same-sex marriage and equal access to public accommodations. I think they’d be perturbed to hear that “Christian morality” means prejudice against gay people.

    Riiight.

    Much like the “Christians” that support racism and the “Christians” that claim there’s no conflict b/w the Bible and evodelusion. In fact, much like Hitler who several Atheists claim he was “Christian”.

    Hmmm, that’s a lot of “Christians”

  120. 120
    franklin says:

    Barry

    PHV’s argument in 74: We can only be sure about the whole man/woman thing in 99.99999% of the cases. Therefore, the question is always up for grabs. God help us.

    gender ambiguity is found in 1% of the population (~3 million in the US alone) stemming from over 75 known medical disorders. It is not as simple as XX=female and XY=male. It is a much more complicated situation than you are aware of and your statement is simply wrong.

    Does Jenner have one of these disorders? Who knows but he certainly would not be alone in this world if he did.

    There are numerous case studies of intersex births where the parents have been asked ‘do you want this baby to be a boy or a girl’ with often tragic outcomes. A bit of research on this subject seems in order to correct your erroneous assumptions about gender. Androgen insensitivity is only one of the many disorders causing gender ambiguity in humans.

  121. 121
    bornagain says:

    ‘you’re prejudiced against “gay morality,” whatever that is

    Exactly, and exactly because gay morality in the end boils down to a compromised whatever that is, i.e. anything goes, view of morality. Which is to say, it is really no morality at all.

    Sedgwick, Adam to Darwin – 24 Nov 1859
    Excerpt: There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly.,,
    http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2548

    Romans 1:20-27
    For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
    For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
    Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
    Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

  122. 122
    Vy says:

    It is not as simple as XX=female and XY=male. It is a much more complicated situation than you are aware of and your statement is simply wrong.

    So you’re saying simply because genuinely sick people exist who are somewhat in between, any mentally unstable individual can wake up one morning and claim to be another gender irrespective of the fact that the person is most likely not genuinely sick???

    I guess you support the “transabled” movement because genuinely disabled people exist, right?

  123. 123
    franklin says:

    Vy

    t;So you’re saying simply because genuinely sick people exist who are somewhat in between, any mentally unstable individual can wake up one morning and claim to be another gender irrespective of the fact that the person is most likely not genuinely sick???

    No that is not what I said. What I said was that gender ambiguity is a common occurrence and without access to an individual’s detailed medical records you just don’t have any idea of what is driving a person to make this type of decision. Stating that a person is likely not genuinely ‘sick’ is based solely on ignorance. You can’t tell gender just by looking at someone and there are multitudes of medical case histories that document this. You might also try to do some research on the subject at hand.

  124. 124
    Vy says:

    Stating that a person is likely not genuinely ‘sick’ is based solely on ignorance.

    Not as much ignorance as stating that every Tom, Dick and Harry is most likely genuinely sick simply because of the 1%.

    You can’t tell gender just by looking at someone and there are multitudes of medical case histories that document this.

    Again:

    So you’re saying simply because genuinely sick people exist who are somewhat in between, any mentally unstable individual can wake up one morning and claim to be another gender irrespective of the fact that the person is most likely not genuinely sick???

  125. 125
    Vy says:

    you just don’t have any idea of what is driving a person to make this type of decision.

    I have no idea what is driving a woman to inflict blindness on herself or a man to try and turn himself into a parrot but I can be 100% certain of this: sanity is not one of them.

  126. 126
    Eugen says:

    ProHacVice

    “it depends”, “context” …
    Whatever. Just say it: “I feel like it and that makes it right”.

    Nothing new here, you are just another commie/Bolshevik/atheist. It is shameful how you promote rights of one group that you prefer over another that you don’t. By supposedly promoting equality you are denying it. We are expecting illogical actions from you comrades.

  127. 127
    Barry Arrington says:

    franklin tells us it is “only” 99%, not 99.99%. That is your argument franklin? That sex is up for grabs always because the normal applies “only” 99% of the time. Do you realize how pathetic that sounds?

  128. 128
    Mung says:

    To me it sounds pathetically sexy!

  129. 129
    Vy says:

    He’s probably too busy “not” having idea what could make someone choose to mutilate themselves like that.

  130. 130
    franklin says:

    Barry

    franklin tells us it is “only” 99%, not 99.99%. That is your argument franklin? That sex is up for grabs always because the normal applies “only” 99% of the time. Do you realize how pathetic that sounds?

    No I gave you a corrective on your error of facts. the incidence rate in the population is 1.5-2% (more recent studies), 98-98.5% and not as you claimed as being 99.99999%……I realize that you were trying to make a point but being off by 6 orders of magnitude in your facts should give you some pause….likely not but it should.

    In colorado there are ~55000 of these individuals around are you pretty good at spotting which ones are ‘true’ male and female? I bet not at all.

    Barry realize that 1-2 out of every live birth in Colorado (and the rest of the world) results in this type of syndrome…..certainly not rare by any measure.

  131. 131
    Vy says:

    Barry realize that 1-2 out of every live birth in Colorado (and the rest of the world) results in this type of syndrome…..certainly not rare by any measure.

    Indeed. NOT!

  132. 132
    Vy says:

    No I gave you a corrective on your error of facts.

    You made a baseless assertion.

    the incidence rate in the population is 1.5-2% (more recent studies), 98-98.5% and not as you claimed as being 99.99999%……

    Provide the studies. Until then:

    The number of intersex people depends on the definition used. ISNA suggest that 1 percent of live births exhibit some degree of sexual ambiguity. Between 0.1% and 0.2% of live births are ambiguous enough to become the subject of specialist medical attention, including surgery to assign them to a given sex category (i.e., male or female). According to Blackless, Fausto-Sterling et al., on the other hand, 1.7 percent of human births are intersex.

    That’s worldwide not “in the US alone”.

    I realize that you were trying to make a point but being off by 6 orders of magnitude in your facts should give you some pause….likely not but it should.

    Look who’s talking.

  133. 133
    Pro Hac Vice says:

    Mung! Cracking me up twice in a row.

  134. 134
    franklin says:

    Vy

    That’s worldwide not “in the US alone”.

    yes indeed out of every 100 live human births encompassing the planet 1.7% of those human births result in intersex children. Thanks for supporting the information I posted!

    You do realize, Vy, that this incident rate indicates that nearly 6 million american citizens are afflicted with these disorders. Hopefully, you are astute enough to realize that these children grow into adults during their lives.

  135. 135
    Vy says:

    yes indeed out of every 100 live human births encompassing the planet 1.7% of those human births result in intersex children. Thanks for supporting the information I posted!

    *facepalm*

    Looks like you have reading comprehension issues, here’s a clearer version for “US alone”:

    There is no simple answer to this question. Intersex conditions are not always accurately diagnosed, experts sometimes disagree on exactly what qualifies as an intersex condition and government agencies do not collect statistics about intersex individuals. Some experts estimate that as many as 1 in every 1,500 babies is born with genitals that cannot easily be classified as male or female.

    In the “US alone”, the rarity of intersexuality is about 15 times more than “1 out of 100”

    Clean your eyes.

  136. 136
    franklin says:

    To me it sounds pathetically sexy!

    Oh yes, more that a few intersex individuals are models who are considered to be quite sexy by the majority of folks. There are also a number of accomplished athletes, and musicians as well.

    I would enjoy seeing Barry going through a picture lineup of some of these individuals, even naked photos, and see if he can distinguish the ‘males’ from the ‘females’. In more than a few cases he wouldn’t have a clue.

  137. 137
    Vy says:

    You do realize, Vy, that this incident rate indicates that nearly 6 million american citizens are afflicted with these disorders.

    Harebrained assertion.

    Hopefully, you are astute enough to realize that these children grow into adults during their lives.

    Ya think?

    Glad to know you just found out an obvious fact. Keep it up, you’ll figure it out eventually.

  138. 138
    franklin says:

    Vy

    1 in every 1,500 babies is born with genitals that cannot easily be classified as male or female.

    That only represents one portion of the 1.7 % incidences of intersex births now you need to add the in the rest of the ~75 known medical disorders, e.g. androgen insensitivity, attributed to intersex births. Talk about reading comprehension problems….do try to do better, Vy. It appears that understanding statistics and their implications is not one of your strong suits. Try going back to the website you linked to and look at the various disorders and their frequency……cherry picking one out of 75 disorders is simply silly.

  139. 139
    franklin says:

    Vy

    Harebrained assertion.

    Vy I assume that you would agree (since you posted the incident rate, that 1.7% of live births result in intersex individuals.

    I also assume that we could agree that there are 330 million people living in the USA.

    I also assume that we agree that each of those 330 million people represent live births.

    Now here is the hard part, Vy….given the 330 million people in the USA and a incident rate of 1.7% for intersex births what do the statistics (that you presented) indicate the total number of intersex individuals that will be found in the population of the USA.

    hint multiply 330 million bu 0.017……if you need any more help let me know.

  140. 140
    Vy says:

    That only represents one portion of the 1.7 % incidences of intersex births now you need to add the in the rest of the ~75 known medical disorders, e.g. androgen insensitivity, attributed to intersex births.

    Are you even reading what you’re posting?

    Use your eyes this time:

    The number of intersex people depends on the definition used. ISNA suggest that 1 percent of live births exhibit some degree of sexual ambiguity. Between 0.1% and 0.2% of live births are ambiguous enough to become the subject of specialist medical attention, including surgery to assign them to a given sex category (i.e., male or female). According to Blackless, Fausto-Sterling et al., on the other hand, 1.7 percent of human births are intersex.

    ____

    Vy. It appears that understanding statistics and their implications is not one of your strong suits. Try going back to the website you linked to and look at the various disorders and their frequency……cherry picking one out of 75 disorders is simply silly.

    Huh? Talk about the projected ramblings of the madman, sheesh!

  141. 141
    Vy says:

    Vy I assume that you would agree (since you posted the incident rate, that 1.7% of live births result in intersex individuals

    Go and pull out your eyes from the fridge then read this:

    The number of intersex people depends on the definition used. ISNA suggest that 1 percent of live births exhibit some degree of sexual ambiguity. Between 0.1% and 0.2% of live births are ambiguous enough to become the subject of specialist medical attention, including surgery to assign them to a given sex category (i.e., male or female). According to Blackless, Fausto-Sterling et al., on the other hand, 1.7 percent of human births are intersex.

    It’s not “1.7% of human births in country X or 1.7% of human births in country X are intersex because of Y”, it is “1.7% of all live births”.

    Damn! Go back and learn some English, Math too.

  142. 142
    franklin says:

    vyAre you even reading what you’re posting?

    Of course I am.

    using my eyes:

    The number of intersex people depends on the definition used. ISNA suggest that 1 percent of live births exhibit some degree of sexual ambiguity.

    I see that in a given population 1% of the individuals will have some degree of sexual ambiguity.

    continuing to use my eyes:

    Between 0.1% and 0.2% of live births are ambiguous enough to become the subject of specialist medical attention, including surgery to assign them to a given sex category (i.e., male or female).

    I see, using my eyes, that 0.1-0.2% of those intersex births have external genetalia that cannot be recognized as being sole male or female and that often misguided attempts at surgical determination of sex on these individuals has been performed.

    continuing using my eyes:

    According to Blackless, Fausto-Sterling et al., on the other hand, 1.7 percent of human births are intersex.

    I see that 1.7% of the human population are intersex.

    which, is of course, what I have been saying all along.

    Now Vy, what do your eyes see in the data? How many intersex individuals would we expect to find in a given population, say 330 million, of human beings.

    Let see if Vy can do the math…..not holding breath.

  143. 143
    franklin says:

    Vy

    It’s not “1.7% of human births in country X or 1.7% of human births in country X are intersex because of Y”, it is “1.7% of all live births”.

    Yes, I understand that the incident rate is 1.7% of all live births are intersex.

    Now given a population of 330 million and you incident rate how many individuals would be intersex.

    This appears to really difficult for you but it is very simple math.

    Maybe this will help you grasp the concept: If I give you $1 dollar for every 100 acorns you collect and you collect 330 million acorns how much money do I owe you?

  144. 144
    franklin says:

    Vy here is something to help you understand the information you posted:

    1.7% =
    1.7:100
    17:1000
    170:10000
    1700:100000
    17000:1000000

    given the above can you fill in the blank:

    ___:330000000

  145. 145
    Mung says:

    170000:10000000:330000000?

  146. 146
    Barry Arrington says:

    Franklin,

    You are missing the point. Check that. You are not missing the point; you are doing your damnedest to obscure the point. Yes, there is a very tiny fraction of people out there with defective genes. The key word there, “defective.” For these people we can have pity and compassion. Jenner has no such defect. He is a liar. He is a man, but he says he is a woman. And I refuse to participate in that lie.

  147. 147
    franklin says:

    Barry

    Jenner has no such defect

    and you know this how?

    You are not missing the point; you are doing your damnedest to obscure the point.

    I’ve not missed the point at all. You were 6 orders of magnitude off in your statement of ‘fact’.

    Yes, there is a very tiny fraction of people out there with defective genes

    6 million in the USA alone does not seem like an insignificant amount. And that figure doesn’t even include individuals who are transgender of which 1:2500 in the population have undergone sexual reassignment surgery. Hardly a low rate at all. Calling these people insane is plain ignorant and ignores the epidemiology of these gender ambiguity issues.

    For these people we can have pity and compassion.

    I think the people who have these conditions would tell you to shove your pity but I would agree they would appreciate compassion for their plight concerning how they are perceived and treated by their fellow citizens.

    mung

    170000:10000000:330000000?

    is that your final answer?

  148. 148
    daveS says:

    Is it wrong for a person with a Y-chromosome to dress and behave like a woman? I often read arguments against biological determinism here, so I would assume no one is saying that we have to “obey our genes”, so to speak.

  149. 149
    Barry Arrington says:

    franklin,
    “and you know this how?”

    Because if he did he certainly would have said so.

  150. 150
    franklin says:

    Barry

    Because if he did he certainly would have said so.

    Why would Jenner feel obligated to say so? There have long been rumors that Jaime Lee Curtis is intersex and despite years and years of rumor and questioning she has felt no need to provide an answer to those questions.

    In other words you are simply assuming he has no underlying pathology because you want to portray him in a negative light. I have understood that position from the start.

  151. 151
    Barry Arrington says:

    “Why would Jenner feel obligated to say so?”

    To justify what he is doing. Now you are just being intentionally dense, which shows bad faith. End of discussion.

  152. 152
    Vy says:

    Damn! This guy is utterly foolish! 1.7% of all the human births in the world are intersex and you translate it to 1.7% of human births in the US???

    No wonder what Jenner is doing makes perfect sense to you, you’re just as mentally unstable as him.

  153. 153
    Vy says:

    Now Vy, what do your eyes see in the data? How many intersex individuals would we expect to find in a given population, say 330 million, of human beings.

    The given population is the world, not the US. do I need crayons to illustrate this???

  154. 154
    Vy says:

    And what do you know, 1.7% is about 100 times too common compared to reality:

    Anne Fausto-Sterling s suggestion that the prevalence of intersex might be as high as 1.7% has attracted wide attention in both the scholarly press and the popular media. Many reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. If the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling’s estimate of 1.7%.

    Hey Frank, what was that again about 6 million???

  155. 155
    Vy says:

    6 million in the USA alone does not seem like an insignificant amount. And that figure doesn’t even include individuals who are transgender of which 1:2500 in the population have undergone sexual reassignment surgery.

    Ah, the mental gymnastics is quite telling. You’ve gone from the fraudulent 6 million intersex people to mentally unstable humans that call themselves transgender. So according to you, every transgender is intersex. This is the third time I’m asking this:

    So you’re saying simply because genuinely sick people exist who are somewhat in between, any mentally unstable individual can wake up one morning and claim to be another gender irrespective of the fact that the person is most likely not genuinely sick???

    There are many dictionaries on the internet if you don’t understand any word there, I can even help you with that.

  156. 156
    Vy says:

    I often read arguments against biological determinism here, so I would assume no one is saying that we have to “obey our genes”, so to speak.

    Go and ask the members of the LGBT Agenda who claim “I was born this way”.

  157. 157
    daveS says:

    Go and ask the members of the LGBT Agenda who claim “I was born this way”.

    Sure, I know some people make that argument. What about you? If our identities do not have a material basis, are we still required to behave in accord with our DNA?

  158. 158
    Vy says:

    This reply to Sev’s comment @45 has been long overdue so here it is.

    ———

    The Golden Rule . . .

    Really?

    – How exactly has the Golden Rule stopped ISIS (well, the Silver Rule), Boko Haram, the Al-Qaedan Syrian Islamists etc.?

    – How did the Golden Rule stop the Soviet Union, the Nazis, the Spanish Inquisition etc.?

    – How did the Golden Rule stop this Atheist from killing 3 Muslims, this Atheist from killing 9 people simply for believing in God, this Atheist mass-murderer of 69 people, this other Atheist mass-murderer?

    – How has the Golden Rule stopped bullying, rape, racism, theft, murder etc., especially when considering the fact that they are all “naturally selected” and according to evodelusionists, so is morality. From above:

    Morality then is not something handed down to Moses on Mount Sinai. It is something forged in the struggle for existence and reproduction, something fashioned by natural selection. It is as much a natural human adaptation as our ears or noses or teeth or penises or vaginas. It works and it has no meaning over and above this.

    – How did the Golden Rule stop the League of Militant Atheists? Especially the League considering their ultimate goal was to accomplish what a majority of (if not all) Atheists want:

    It had about 96,000 offices across the country. Guided by Bolshevik principles of antireligious propaganda and party’s orders with regards to religion, the League aimed at exterminating religion [except Atheism of course] in all its manifestations and forming an anti-religious scientific mindset among the workers.

    Also, an Atheist claiming s/he derives his/her morality from the Golden Rule while at the same time making ignorant comments like “Or do you have such a low opinion of humanity that you think only fear of your God’s wrath will keep them in line?” is pretty much as big a hypocrite as they come. You say that “It’s harder than having them handed to you on a plate – or tablets of stone” but yet, the first non-fantastical version of the Golden Rule is in the Bible, that’s in text form FYI. Even more so, it wasn’t until the time of Jesus that it had any noticeable value:

    [The Golden Rule] is a strongly egalitarian message. When first conveyed, in the inegalitarian social settings of ancient Hebrews, it could have been a very radical message. But it likely was not, since it appears in scripture as an obscure bit of advice among scores of rules with greater point and stricture, given far more emphasis.

    Only when this rule was made a centerpiece of social interaction (by Jesus or Yeshua, and fellow John-the-Baptist disciples) did it become a more radical message, crossing class, clan and tribal boundaries within Judaism. Of special note is the rule’s application to outcasts and those below one’s station—the poor, lepers, Samaritans, and certain heathens (goyem). Yeshua apparently made the rule second in importance only to the First Commandment of “the Father” (Hashem).

    You Atheists have “freeloaded/poached” several things from Christianity that it makes one wonder what the whole purpose of the movement is. I’m talking churches, the 10 commandments, the Bible, the four horsemen (google it), Christmas (yes, Jesus wasn’t born on 25th December but that’s not the matter) etc. and now you guys are moving on to morality, I guess hypocrisy doesn’t under the religion of Atheism.

    Note: The Golden Rule (Do unto …) is different from the Silver Rule (Do not do unto …).

    . . . empathy . . .

    Uh uh, that doesn’t work.

    common interests

    So you don’t think gang-rapists, terrorists, the League of Militant Atheists, Pol Pot, group robbers etc. have “common interests”?

    What makes your “common interests” any more good or bad than the “common interests” of the aforementioned?

    inter-subjective agreement.

    Er, what???

    – Sev and Zach agree not to steal from Pop if he agrees to help them steal from Frank?

    – Obama tried to smuggle in his immoral LGBT nonsense into Nigeria and Kenya so when their presidents showed him that such immoral nonsense won’t fly there, he started threatening to cut-off aid. They still showed him immoral nonsense will remain immoral nonsense and no sort of Yoda Complex posturing would change that by going ahead to pass rightly anti-gay bills, so he eventually cut-off aid. Apparently, he thinks because there’s a considerable amount of fools in the US that support his insanity, he can pass that on to other countries.

    Is either of these objectively moral based on your “Golden Rule, empathy, inter-subject agreements” morality? Or are you ready to admit that such superficial morality is as grounded as a tsunami and purely situational?

    Or do you have such a low opinion of humanity that you think only fear of your God’s wrath will keep them in line?

    Apparently you think people become Christians primarily because they’re afraid of hell, carry on.

    Quick question: If the purpose of Christianity (and then Judaism) was to scare people with the aim of keeping them in line, why* did the Jews go against God’s commands several times even when God showed them the consequences?

    * Try to keep the reply as objective and ad hominem-free as possible. Comments like “It didn’t happen” or “It was a story written by stone age goat herders blah blah blah” are demonstrably false and pathetic.

    How many people died on 9/11 because of religious feelings?

    What is “religious feelings”? Did you see any Atheists or Christians at 9/11? I hope you’re not trying to portray Atheism as a non-religion because if so, the links provided above should help you rethink your position.

    9/11 was caused because of Islamic teachings, the Qu’ran has over 100 verses promoting violence so what they did at 9/11 was perfectly consistent with their murderous “religion of [violence]”.

    However, the number of people that died on 9/11 is a blimp compared to the number of people that died thanks to the aforementioned League of Militant Atheists – over 10 million people.

    I posted a list atrocities recorded in the Old Testament committed willingly by people intensely committed to their faith.

    Atrocities? Really?

    Last year or so, I read the Skeptics Anotated Bible just to see these “atrocities” and all I could find was someone who could only rant about how he had a problem with killing animals (like everyone is a vegetarian, nonsense!), take the rape issue out of context, claim that God was bad for taking the life of people He created (like they bought the life in the market, it was a gift!), twist the story of Isaac and make several other inane comments.

    As for your list, I haven’t seen it though I’m pretty sure it holds as much weight as your nonexistent morality.

    According to one eyewitness, the man who shot people after asking them if they were Christian killed them regardless of what they answered.

    Demonstrably false!

    [He started] asking people one by one what their religion was. ‘Are you a Christian?’ he would ask them, and if you’re a Christian, stand up. And they would stand up and he said, ‘Good, because you’re a Christian, you are going to see God in just about one second.’ And then he shot and killed them

    then they were shot in the head. If they said no, or didn’t answer, they were shot in the legs.

    More:

    Witnesses also said he seemed to seek specific revenge against Christians

    . . .

    “Vicari said at one point the shooter told people to stand up before whether they were Christian or not. Vicari’s brother told her that anyone who responded ‘yes’ was shot in the head. If they said ‘other’ or didn’t answer, they were shot elsewhere in the body, usually the leg.”

    I don’t know who that your “one eyewitness” is but his/her claims are as baseless as the Darwinian tree of life and by baseless, I mean floating Hallelujah Mountains of Pandora baseless.

    Not all atheists are psychopaths or mass killers . . .

    That’s what they should be if they were being consistent with their worldview and didn’t freeload morality from Christianity. This Atheist understands that.

    any more than all Christians are capable of committing atrocities in the name of their faith.

    That’s the difference between Atheism and Christianity; there’s nothing against murder in Atheism (but almost everything for it) but it’s antithetical to Christianity.

    Every Tom, Dick and Harry can claim to be Christian, but only when judged against the Bible can such a claim stand.

    With Atheism and its subjective [non]morality, every Tom, Dick and Harry that murders is just as GOOD as every other non-murderer. Why? Because their morals say so. It’s your morality, YOU decide what is good and bad. That is why everything is good AND bad under Atheism.

    It’s that Golden Rule again. I would not like to be discriminated against on the basis of my race so I would not want to inflict that on others.

    And a racist Atheist doesn’t care about that, you cannot objectively say such an Atheist is immoral as your morality is based on your opinions of what is discrimination and what isn’t. Also, a racist Atheist might not have any problem defending himself against any hypocritical Atheist that uses the Christian Golden Rule as a basis to “do unto him what he did to others”.

    It’s wrong to murder because of the pain and suffering it causes the victim and his or her family and friends.

    Murder is not wrong under Atheism, it is naturally selected for, just like your morality. In fact, some evodelusionists claim that murder victims are “picked” by natural selection. So your idea that murder is wrong is immoral to an Atheist that thinks it’s not wrong to murder people and neither of you are moral.

    In my view, there is no objective morality

    Glad to know. That is what evodelusion and materialism/naturalism leads to.

    only empathy, common interests and inter-subjective agreement on what most of us agree is best for all.

    Only a few years ago, “most of you” agreed that slavery and racism was what was “best for all”.

    That is not morality, only a set of situational and time-based opinions.

    What’s the evidence that it is always wrong?

    I can’t provide that but I do know this, if it were up to Atheism and if the US existed in an anti-objective morality vacuum, you’d most likely be dead. Look to China, the Soviet Union, Kyrgyzstan, the French Revolution etc. for evidence.

    Why shouldn’t individual opinions be considered?

    And what happens when you have a billion differing opinions? Suppress the rest and do as Hitler did?

    Your God is just another individual.

    God is not an “individual”.

    Why should His opinions count above all others?

    Because He is the very definition of good. He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

    You can choose to ignore that.

    He never tells us the reasons He says some things are wrong. Why is there a commandment against worshipping graven images or coveting your neighbor’s ox

    God is obligated to explain His commands? Wow, that’s like saying my parent’s are obligated to explain why they brought me up the way they did, utter nonsense.

    but not a mention of rape or child abuse?

    Rape:
    – Deuteronomy 22:13-29
    – Mark 12:31

    Child Abuse:

    Matthew 18:6 – but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

    To be bornagain is to be like a child so it’s pretty much a given that child abuse is a no. If you’re referring to “don’t spare the rod and spoil the child”, it’s not in the Bible. The verse, Proverbs 13:24, reads:

    Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him

    All in all, the second most important commandment of Jesus was to “love thy neighbor as thyself” so if you feel rape and child abuse are forms of love in line with the teachings of Jesus, then go ahead and your baseless claim.

    What makes you think that Sam Harris or that blogger speak for all atheists?

    Bravo!

    You’re catching on. Now, apply that reasoning to your entire post and see why it’s self-refuting. Atheism is selfism, you come first.

    In other news, Sam Harris IS one of the four horsemen of Atheism so I bet he has quite the puppet collection.

    >Does the Westboro Baptist Church speak for all Christians?

    Again, that’s the difference between Atheism and Christianity. We have the Bible, Atheists have their subjective opinions (and the four horsemen).

    Rape has occurred throughout recorded history. It’s probably been happening ever since we emerged as a sexually-reproducing species.

    We were made as sexually reproductive creatures.

    It’s been committed by atheists, agnostics, Protestants, Roman Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, you name it. It happens a lot so, to that extent, it is natural but that doesn’t make it right and the naturalistic fallacy crap means that you can’t argue it’s right just because it happens.

    The naturalistic fallacy cannot apply to rape for the same reason it cannot apply to the flawed naturalistic morality. To claim rape is wrong as an Atheist because of it is to claim everything you’ve said about how you can be moral is wrong.

    The pathology of rape indicates it is committed for a variety of reasons but very rarely does it have anything to do with the passing on of genes.

    Actually, that’s exactly what my previous links and quotes have shown so your claim, on a naturalistic level, is baseless.

    No, what is right or wrong is what we decide is right or wrong.

    Actually, yes as your entire post has shown. Or are you saying murderers aren’t part of the “we”?

    Your alternative is to hand over the decision-making to some extraterrestrial or alien being that you hope is out there somewhere with our best interests at heart.

    The only one here that believes in ET is you and your buddies.

    Good luck with that.

    In light of your earlier projection, this is for you.

    Taken in the context of “Good luck with God-given morality”, it’s been working well for the past ~6,000 years. You are the one that needs the luck.
    ———

    Phew! That was quite the effort.

  159. 159
    Vy says:

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Interesting …

Leave a Reply