and arse face rides off into the sunset... WTF are you talking about, boy? Jake is an unencumbered Australian and appears to be ultra polite... even then, if he wants to insult someone he'd do it so we all get the joke.

Frankly its not hard to insult you. So easy, that we don't even know we have done it.

Could you hang out in some gay bars? You might get to understand that concept of rough and tumble with your fellow males.

The next time I clearly want to insult you I will put it between quotation marks.. in the mean time, anything I say that you are offended at, consider it just me blowing up yer "ass".


I hate donkeys....

Just to be clear, you think that there is one objective love and happiness existing independently of humans that all humans hunger for?

"What objections did he skirt? Especially considering that it was a logical formulation and not a DEFENSE of the argument - again showing that you probably have taken one philosophy class"

I took the liberty of scrolling all the way to the end where he answers objections. Last I checked you did not need a degree to operate a scroll wheel.

I do not claim to have a degree in philosophy, only that I see the holes in your argument, and I do not think it necessarily requires a genius to do that.

yeah Jake, admit you are pussy whipped on the entire net!

I would point out that the test for every religious person is to believe in their deity (it could be in John 3 (16?)).

Look, nobody believes in a false god. They believe in god(s) under their own universal view. Universal views have now changed thanks to science. Gods are disappearing for what science would call the very most trivial outcomes.

It just so happens that science is so incredibly huge, that you (or I) cant even begin to get it. Even if you are a player, there would be thousands of papers, goodness knows how many applications that it is impossible to even begin to understand the status quo of science every week.

Everything in your life is there because of science. Furthermore, everyone on the planet is where they are because of science.. Everything that everyone does is because of science. If you disagree, just list one example and I will gladly mallet my head for making pompous statements on the net.

I just prayed (which is a supernatural miracle) for your god to appear, alas, only my wife turned up, and she had nothing good to say... there you have it, by your standards, that is evidence against god.

haha, for whatever reason, you seem to be the only one unable to glean sarcasm.

Sophistry alert... warning! warning!


Quote:

You seem to make the common skeptics mistake of thinking that because we dont know something = we cant know something; or we cant know something 100% = we cant know something at all.
Quote end


Skeptics just doubt clear bullshit. If the scientific opinion is something is useful to us, rather than dangerous practices or wallet extraction exercises. Everything a skeptic is skeptical about are dangerous practices or wallet extraction exercises.

Consider how much fruit juice you have drunk because Coca Cola is fattening? Fruit juices will pack your heart as quick as coke.

This is the sort of a question a real skeptic faces in daily life.

I have the best low calorie cigarettes on the market!

Papa, I know we have a unicorn in the universe... we see it in the night sky here. Its the constellation monoceros.


But another unicorn is a narwhal. You may argue that isn't a horse with a horn... who is to say the original unicorn idea was a horse with a horn? Biologically, it would be way out of equus.

Now to the statement that a living, breathing horsey unicorn exists outside our dreams on an earth almost identical to ours (astronomically and geologically and chemically); I can safely say that the probability that in all of our known universe, a unicorn is astoundingly unlikely (chemically).

Yes, life occurred and disseminated astoundingly quickly (geologically). Key developments made the separation of archaic forms possible. Furthermore, mass destruction events produced niches in which new selections occurred.

Its entirely likely that life evolved twice here.

Look into the equine evolution, at what stage would a unicorn evolve? Not that I would pre-empt nature, it's a very unlikely critter to evolve a single horn as the narwhal did...or on planet elsewhere, equus evolving from unicorn stock.


The upshot...It's damn unlikely that a horse evolved from a fish (the progenitor species). Even more that cetaceans evolved from an ugly bear-dog. The narwhal? well it didn't have to get the gene set to have hooves and run around and change its gut structure too much. Maybe its the only creature that woke up horny one morning and lost the plot...


For every animal we can imagine (or hollywood does) each is astoundingly unlikely elsewhere.

Yes I know I am insufferable... there is a whole household like me here...

Well in that case, the only evidence that I will accept against God is if there is a supernatural miracle to prove otherwise.

aw, Jake. even when we agree you still some how resort to insulting. Some people are blessed with intelligence, good looks, humor, likeability. I guess you are blessed with a supernatural ability to insult pretty much everybody for any and every reason.

Wow nice one.

No, more like: I live in California, I know there are certain laws in California, even if I dont know all the laws in california. Or think in terms of science - there are lots of things that we know exist but we dont know how or to what extent.

You seem to make the common skeptics mistake of thinking that because we dont know something = we cant know something; or we cant know something 100% = we cant know something at all.

The Lancet is still a reputable journal, but if you want to have a good scientific belly laugh, check out Medical Veritas journal, where Wakefield still publishes.

Tyler, I wear my riteousness on my sleave, I never said we couldn't agree, for I am better than you.

But seriously, all but four of the original coauthors and contributors to Wakefields original research retracted their suppot in 2004 (or 06) when his MASSIVE conflict of interests were brought to light. Not only was Wakefield being paid by "parents of children with Autism" specifically to find a link, but he had a patent pending on another MMR vaccine.

His original research has been repeated several times and even with the original data, the results and conclusions were unable to be replicated. This illustrates the bullsh*t factor of him and his research.

Yes yes, I know it well. Couple that with confirmation bias and you have a dastardly duo.

Yeah Tyler, they not too long ago pulled it completely off the medical journal. I don't know why it's still an issue...

Hi Trent, it's called Cognitive Dissonance (not sure why I capitalised it). Very interesting study for any psychology student (or uppity douche-bag like me).

It aptly describes that when forced with information which directly counters a deeply held belief, one will either accept the truth and change (i.e. learn) or disgard all contrary information.

It's easy to climb up onto a horse, but it really hurts to be knocked off!

"No, we dont KNOW all the moral parameters, only that there ARE moral parameters. "

"thus we are moral and can know moral truths "

So we can only know some moral truths? But we can't know all the moral parameters but some how we can know they exist?

Well I know that a unicorn exists somewhere in the universe, but I can't tell you it's name at the moment... Thats pretty much what you just said to me...

At my age, Sarah is scorching... I could imagine the screaming, scratching, biting and kicking at the lunch table.. sadly I just get a sandwich.

Oh, has Sarah ever said anything good? Sue always puts the mute on during the news.

I cried when I saw her in waders....

Another example of gluteal exegesis??

I just picked this out for my daily notes;
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=7632385287998589429&ei=hligS4mtPIG6wgOAjrSCDQ&q=ancient&hl=en&view=3&dur=3&client=safari#

The 96% believe in one or more of the subsets that create the whole of tripe thinking.

I made the point in a prior post; "you can be an atheist and point out the faults in religious belief". Sadly too many atheists believe in rubbish from another source. If you do not trust religion and yet trust;
insane non medical modalities (chiropracty, acupuncture etc), believe in UFO visitations, ghosts. fairies or non history (as the above), climate change denial, the big 2012 or psychic forces;
you aint an atheist, you have swapped a god of testimonial for a god of testimonial.

As interesting as these are to me (yes, I want to know what they think), I watch those around me warily... the saturday night mallet usually removes junk thinking.

Jake,

Jenny McCarthy = HOT

Sarah Palin = NOT SO HOT

BOTH are as thick as 3 short planks.

Just my intellectual contribution...

Kim,

Yes, I believe love is an immutable characteristic of God so yes. Happiness is our emotion when we react to objective situations.

What objections did he skirt? Especially considering that it was a logical formulation and not a DEFENSE of the argument - again showing that you probably have taken one philosophy class and think you know all there is to know about argumentation. In a logical proof you do not need to handle objections - only in the defense of a proof do you need to. So, what objections?


Papa,

so only fundamentalists think in absolutes? Do you think that absolutely? If so you self contradict, if not then its not true anyway. So good luck with that.


Henk,

Interesting. What a long and verbose way to not ever actually deal with anything that I said. I mean, why actually deal with the statements when you can just insult them and brush them aside?

Basically you just ranted and then didnt actually deal with anything. And you accuse me of making things up? This coming from the one who says that years in CE are different than in AD, that Jesus was an Ezrite and Hellenistic, and that morality is a non-sense concept even though you then posit moral assertions. Yeah, I must be the one making things up.

And as for sophistry. Seriously? This coming from the man who usually is so scattered and non-sensical that most people on here have no clue what you are talking about?

Holy Cow! we agree on something! I think this miracle alone proves that God exists and performs miracles! haha

My wife is studying to be an MFT and specialize in families that have children with autism so we have done a lot of reading on it.

Something that you might find interesting is that Dr Murch, one of the original researchers in the Wakefield study, has now come out and said, "There is now unequivocal evidence that MMR is not a risk factor for autism -- this statement is not spin or medical conspiracy, but reflects an unprecedented volume of medical study."

Papa,

Since Kim wont point out the obvious epistemological flaw in your statement because, well lets be honest, you guys dont seem to keen on actually being critical of your own worldview or anyone who holds it no matter how absurd they get (i.e. the antitheistic fundamentalism) so I will.

You blatantly confuse our ability to know morality and morality itself. I could lobby your same assault on your scientism. Science is only an evolved preference and doesnt actually tell you anything real about the world - only what you need to know for survival. If believing a lie would help you survive, then you have evolved it. Thus you cant trust any of your belief forming faculties.

No, we dont KNOW all the moral parameters, only that there ARE moral parameters. It takes the two books - the book of nature (imago dei and natural reason) and the book of revelation (the moral law Giver's presentation of what is moral) to know where those parameters are. We live in God's universe - and that universe is innately moral, thus we are moral and can know moral truths - this is why, as Rodney and I have both pointed out, the diversity of "morality" among cultures is not in substance, but in expression. Murder is always wrong in all cultures - but what makes something murder is debated and may change depending on circumstance.


Trent,

I know what you have said. But you really dont see the hopeless irrationality of saying that morality is evolved/socialized and thus not absolute, universal or even obligatory, and then making objective moral statements and sentiments? (Did the ones who gang-raped and killed your wife REALLY do something wrong? Are just something that society said was bad today but may not tomorrow?) Seems the Euthyphro dilemma is more of a problem for atheists than theist. Is it just what society says - to which it would be arbitrary; or does society kneel to a exterior standard - in which society wouldnt be the source of morality. The theist can escape the horns of the dilemma by offering a 3rd option - the immutable nature of God. The atheist has no such recourse.

Amelia, thou art a harsh one! What could another six months of this nice lady's search for the truth possibly do to our society? It's not like she is dispelling a religion is it?

As I have pointed out.. science is the be all to end all. If it wasn't for science we wouldn't be here for a start.

McCarthyism is a religion unto itself. It just worships the god of bullshit with a service called gluteal exegesis.

Awesome article. You know what though, if Jenny did stand up and say "I was wrong, there is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism. That being said, I will still continue to help those who have children diagnosed with autism," I would be hard pressed not to have respect for the woman.

It's one thing to be right. It's an entirely different thing to be wrong and be able to admit it. Wouldn't that be something.

Ah, but my head is in the clouds. Silly me, that will never happen.

"See if you REALLY think you are just feeling something like "I prefer chocolate ice cream."

I'm sorry you feel this way. That isn't how we view morality at all. It's at best an over-simplification. At worst completely off. But again, and as you've said, I've said my share more than enough times.

I'm totally with you Rodney. I took the exact same journey you did to migrating towards Chrome. That being said--

THANK YOU! I'm so happy to know that this problem can be resolved. I may now start using Mozilla again-- maybe. I have to say thought that I'm very used to Chrome now and I'm liking it a lot. You know what I especially like about Chrome? Is the most visited web pages that come when you hit new tab and being able to pin some of the most visited web sites.

Mozilla, you have fallen so far. I miss who you were, now who you are.

So-- personally I've been trying to justify a purchase of these handy little tools. I think this article pretty much persuades me to do it. Especially if they garner those sort of results.

Also-- sorry to admit that I traded in MW2... I know, I know. But a game that I get mad at when I'm going 64-6 because I didn't get a nuke even though I got 2 AC-130's... well it's time to put it to rest.

Not to mention those damn M203's.

These kids parents should be sterilised. They should be able to breed this into the next generation.

If this angers you, you should check out the movie Micmacs. It's a story of a guy that takes down to huge arms corporations from the inside.

According to both the Department of Health (Australia) and the Department for Health and Human Services (America) websites, the vast majority of children are fully immunised at or around age 4. Another interesting point to note is that a huge amount of chronic diseases, ie. asthma, juvenile diabetes and AUTISM, cannot be diagnosed until this age. ... See moreThis is one of the reasons that parents blame immunisation on their child's recent diagnosis or autism, because they recently completed the full immunisation schedule.

Are we to infer then that immunisation causes asthma and diabetes? And are those life-saving anti-bodies that are being injected into your child causing them to have behaviour problems? ADD? ADHD? Why don't we throw depression on the pile too? Because its fair to say that most Australians aged 17-35 have completed their child-hood immunisations, and on averge 20% of this demographic experience depression of some kind (beyongblue.org). Is it also fair to say that immunisation has caused these peoples chemical inbalances?

Jesus Christ Jenny! If you seriously can't pick up a medical journal and read it, maybe you should do some basic internet research! Or maybe that is too far beyond you too. Why not try wiki?

Ha, good impersonation!

How can morality not evolve Tyler? Do we just happen to live in the time of supreme knowledge where we finally know EXACTLY what god's moral parameters are?

I just purchased a "vaccinate against stupidity... with a book" shirt. Man she's hot, if only I could look past the chin and forhead... thank Flying Spaghetti Monster for paper bags!

Jake,

Ah yes, trying to redefine something so as o make your opponent false by definition. Nice. Well, I guess the fundamentalists have spoken.

Look, I'm done debating this topic. You can argue for relativism til youre blue in the face. But next time you feel wronged, or some kind of moral indignation, or praise for your children telling the truth, or happy when someone returns something you lost, etc. See if you REALLY think you are just feeling something like "I prefer chocolate ice cream."

Can I pull a 'Tyler' for a second?

Tyler, you clearly have no understanding for the definition of morality. Morality is a social construct. Ethics is the application of this morality.

Please consider your brain next time you decide to smack your head against a brick wall, you can do some real damage, buddy!

Dear Jenny,

I love the fact that you have become so erudite in the past two years. It's a lot better than the ignorant person you previously portrayed yourself to be.

I note that you have a vast amount of scientific literature in press. This is outstanding and I congratulate you on getting your trials, observation and analyses of MMR vaccines and autism published so rapidly and responsibly in the scientific circles.

Furthermore, I congratulate you for completely repudiating any hysteria that is perceived in the general public and scientific communities who are obviously paid off by "Big Vacc". Frankly, where would the current vacuous hordes of the easily influenced medical profession be without the Joan of Arc that you are now portrayed. I really wish that you are remembered as Joan of Arc in every detail as history closes itself around you.

But one thing disturbs me greatly, If you really that smart, how come a clown has the dominant influence in your life? Is it the really big feet? His prominent red hooter?

Thank you for your relatively recent advice, thanks to you I have all my vaccinations and so have my kids.


Henk van der Gaast

you guys all miss the point. if morality is a social construct it CEASES TO BE MORALITY. It is just socialization - there is no more good/bad, right or wrong. There is just what society approves and disproves. but that can change. So one society favors liberty another slavery. One opposes rape, one endorses it. On wants gay rights, another doesnt. One wants to suppress women another doesnt. One wants to kill all the jews, another doesnt. None are good are bad, they just want different things. Thats NOT morality.

And again, I would love to see your faces if your wives got gang-raped and killed. Would you just say, "oh they didnt do anything wrong - wrong is just a concept of society. But they had their own concept. They just did what I prefer them not to." Sorry, just like there are no atheists in foxholes, there are no relativists during injustice.


And Kim, no because they dont assert them as statements of preference but statements of fact - X is wrong, not just "I prefer not-x."

And Trent, I didnt say that I ACTUALLY believed my morality was more evolved. I was pointing out the absurdity of the claim that morality even can be evolved.

But nice way to ignore my challenge. I'll stop objecting to moral claims in other posts, if we limit all the evolution talk to one post - then I can posit as many ID and creationism claims as I want elsewhere and go unchallenged. Sound like a fair deal? (I hope not since it would be absurd - just like trying to say I can only object to inconsistencies on one post and not wherever they should arise)

Update: This issue has been resolved and can be fixed by updating your JRE, here:
http://www.java.com/en/download/manual.jsp

I am a gaming dumbass! I do a Homer Simpson after 30s! I did see a rather impressive 3D application for presentations using a WII. Blew my mind.

That is the sort of thing I'd like to see for presentations to us mere (but very cranky old) mortals.

Very cool. Who'd have thought such a simple idea would prove so effective?

If you are in a relationship.. equal means equal.. I hardly think any bloke expects to get the daily chores out of the way whilst the wife is up the pub till she thinks its dinner time.


Mind you, whilst washing is a breeze nowadays, many a male has ruined garments that do not carry the "Y chromosome proof" logo. Young husbands have complained of this to me far too often.