The Absurdity of AtheismPosted 7 years Ago

At 3/30/2014 5:36:41 PM, neutral wrote:
So atheism is not absurd because boiling takes place at the molecular level but produces a visible effect at the macro level. And somehow, acknowledging that means I don't get what heat does to molecules ... and cooks can still see water boiling.

Bravo atheism!!!

There is no God because agh ... water boils but can be seen boiling but is the result of molecular level that has an aggregate and visible effect of water that is not 212 degrees ...

Oh, that pretty much defines an absurd argument.

Fatihah will get a kick out of that one.
*sigh*
Arguing with you, as it is with arguing with any other fundamentalist, is pointless.
You continue to dismiss what I say, you continue to put words in my mouth, you continue to convolute my points to build straw men, and you persist on being ignorant.

While I have said previously that I was arguing your posts instead of the thread at this point, you have decided to blatantly ignore me and make up an entirely new argument that suits yours.

While you say that black holes are not visible because you're only looking at their effects, you say that observing the effects of boiling is the same as seeing the water boil. You continue to be ignorant and be hypocritical, and only accept to be true the things that you want to be true in the time being.

This will by my last post replying to you. If you want any further conversation about the matter, please do so over PM.
Forums Home > Religion

Why Prostitution Should Never be Legalized.Posted 7 years Ago

At 3/30/2014 5:49:56 PM, neutral wrote:
At 3/30/2014 5:43:35 PM, WaterTipper wrote:

You seem to have two very convoluted beliefs:
1. Prostitution always is linked with and results in human trafficking

It is. Always. Anywhere prostitution is allowed to thrive, human trafficking is the result. Always.
Then cite your sources?

At 3/30/2014 5:49:56 PM, neutral wrote:
At 3/30/2014 5:43:35 PM, WaterTipper wrote:
2. People are all selfless and kind and are all Good Samaritans

They are not. That does not man we except the rationalization for criminal and immoral acts. It is precisely the inability of less moral people that necessitates a legal system and police force for enforcement of laws and moral norms.
Why would we not except the rationalization for criminal and immoral acts? Why are you contradicting yourself?

At 3/30/2014 5:49:56 PM, neutral wrote:
At 3/30/2014 5:43:35 PM, WaterTipper wrote:
Neither is the case.

Any case that results in ignoring human trafficking is wrong. Always.

No being a good dude, doesn't make it right. It just makes it bad dude doing bad things to people who do not deserve to have bad things happen to them.

Eventually, and we are at that point now, we will get the point where enough mothers and fathers have to chase down their daughters to brothels and rescue them ... axing government officials, essentially, WTF?

And when it happens, When the police catch you in the act? When a Father catches you in the act? WITH HIS DAUGHTER? We'll see how convincing your argument is that putting your junk in her mouth was charity and kept her fed will be? We'll see if 'just not being a good dude' hold any sway in that case.

Better by far we expose and eliminate these excuses now. Bad dudes don;t get to make our laws or moral codes ... and they sure as hell deserve to be held accountable for the abuse and sexual exploitation of our daughters and sons.
Your entire argument seems to be based around the opinion that prostitution is always linked to human trafficking.
Is it, therefore, not the case that if prostitution were to be legalized and regulated, those acts of human trafficking will diminish?

If you wish to continue this discussion, please do so over PM.
Forums Home > Politics

Why Prostitution Should Never be Legalized.Posted 7 years Ago

At 3/30/2014 5:33:16 PM, neutral wrote:
At 3/30/2014 5:26:55 PM, WaterTipper wrote:
At 3/30/2014 5:16:13 PM, neutral wrote:
At 3/30/2014 4:11:13 PM, WaterTipper wrote:

Of course they don't. They acknowledge that it's a terrible life to lead, but it's getting them money to live on. Better than living in a cold alleyway eating scraps you find.
Do janitors want their kids to grow up as janitors? Do housekeepers want their kids to become housekeepers? How do you think the stereotype of "Asian dad" came along?

That might be the most insulting rationalizations I have ever seen for prostitution ... a john putting his penis inside her is actually preventing her from being in the gutter?
Money is money.
It's time you grow up and learn that.

At 3/30/2014 5:16:13 PM, neutral wrote:
No way that money could be spend on shelter or education or skills training? No way that money could be spent on counseling or simply given as a donation to keep her out of the gutter based on KINDNESS and CHARITY ...

Nah, we gotta put our penis in her to SAVE her ... Seriously? To kep her kids form becoming prostitutes? WTF???
See, the thing is, not all people in the world are philanthropic saints that freely give away their money. In our nation of capitalism, you gotta do something in return for getting money. And for some unfortunate few, that is prostitution.
Grow up, seriously.

At 3/30/2014 5:16:13 PM, neutral wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

I am sure the $5 the prostitutes in Dallas get is ... saving them ...
That $5 can mean having a meal on your table, for yourself and your family.
Not everyone is as fortunate and as economically stable as you probably are.

At 3/30/2014 5:16:13 PM, neutral wrote:
"Yet that is beginning to change. There"s a growing awareness that sex trafficking is one of the most serious human rights abuses around, with some 100,000 juveniles estimated to be trafficked into the sex trade in the United States each year."

http://www.nytimes.com...

I am SURE you are saving the CHILDREN of a sex trafficking victim when you pay her .. pimp to stick your penis in her.

Clap.
You are willing to sacrifice having a roof above a child and food in his stomach, for what? Your own subjective moral values that you believe everyone must follow?

You are right, many people are criminals. Which is why we slap them in jail rather than pander to their exploitative excuses than enslave other people ... quite literally. That is why prostitution is illegal, so we can put people who rationalize it in jail. Go figure.

And where it is not? And criminals can ply their trade? We get devastated mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, whose siblings are kidnapped, raped, brutally enslaved against their will, and sold for sex to feed that demand.

But really, is noble ... the inability to control ones penis is actually saving children.

Its not the shelters, its not the outreach, its not the charity ... its your penis that saves ... the real Jesus ... :eye roll:

Governments have the duty to stop this kind of thinking in its tracks. Other people's children are more valuable to a society than a man's penis.
You seem to have two very convoluted beliefs:
1. Prostitution always is linked with and results in human trafficking
2. People are all selfless and kind and are all Good Samaritans

Neither is the case.
Forums Home > Politics

Why Prostitution Should Never be Legalized.Posted 7 years Ago

At 3/30/2014 5:16:13 PM, neutral wrote:
At 3/30/2014 4:11:13 PM, WaterTipper wrote:

Of course they don't. They acknowledge that it's a terrible life to lead, but it's getting them money to live on. Better than living in a cold alleyway eating scraps you find.
Do janitors want their kids to grow up as janitors? Do housekeepers want their kids to become housekeepers? How do you think the stereotype of "Asian dad" came along?

That might be the most insulting rationalizations I have ever seen for prostitution ... a john putting his penis inside her is actually preventing her from being in the gutter?
Money is money.
It's time you grow up and learn that.

At 3/30/2014 5:16:13 PM, neutral wrote:
No way that money could be spend on shelter or education or skills training? No way that money could be spent on counseling or simply given as a donation to keep her out of the gutter based on KINDNESS and CHARITY ...

Nah, we gotta put our penis in her to SAVE her ... Seriously? To kep her kids form becoming prostitutes? WTF???
See, the thing is, not all people in the world are philanthropic saints that freely give away their money. In our nation of capitalism, you gotta do something in return for getting money. And for some unfortunate few, that is prostitution.
Grow up, seriously.

At 3/30/2014 5:16:13 PM, neutral wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

I am sure the $5 the prostitutes in Dallas get is ... saving them ...
That $5 can mean having a meal on your table, for yourself and your family.
Not everyone is as fortunate and as economically stable as you probably are.

At 3/30/2014 5:16:13 PM, neutral wrote:
"Yet that is beginning to change. There"s a growing awareness that sex trafficking is one of the most serious human rights abuses around, with some 100,000 juveniles estimated to be trafficked into the sex trade in the United States each year."

http://www.nytimes.com...

I am SURE you are saving the CHILDREN of a sex trafficking victim when you pay her .. pimp to stick your penis in her.

Clap.
You are willing to sacrifice having a roof above a child and food in his stomach, for what? Your own subjective moral values that you believe everyone must follow?
Forums Home > Politics

The Absurdity of AtheismPosted 7 years Ago

At 3/30/2014 4:47:24 PM, neutral wrote:
At 3/30/2014 4:42:15 PM, WaterTipper wrote:
Continued:

At 3/30/2014 3:58:30 PM, neutral wrote:

Black holes are not visible in the sense that they cannot be seen directly. However, we can see black holes in the sense that we can quite visibly view the effects of the black hole.
If I say I can see the water boiling, it is sensical to say that I'm actually lying since you cannot observe molecules gaining enough energy to be projected into the air with the naked eye?

You have continuously attempted to desperately avoid the question of my asking for evidence. Still waiting.

I see nothing here that is convincing anyone that atheism is not absurd.

I see instead, you failing to concede points.
I know. I've already stated my points on why atheism is not absurd.
The last couple posts have been stating why your posts are absurd.
Again, dem reading skills :P

At 3/30/2014 4:47:24 PM, neutral wrote:
You said, you could see a black hole with a telescope. You cannot. Is there any reason that you would parry back to me the ability to see their effects .. IN SOME and NOT ALL cases? What are you attempting to prove? That your scientific knowledge is equal to mine? After the fact?

And yes, you can see water boiling ... even without a telescope, water boils at 212 degrees, and even the dumbest, least educated cook, can see it boiling.
No, you are seeing the effects of boiling, which are the bubbles of water vapor rising to the surface.
>.>

At 3/30/2014 4:47:24 PM, neutral wrote:
And that is apparently why religious people are the stupid ones ... Good Lord ...
No one said anything of such a kind, but if you want to believe something like that, be my guest.

At 3/30/2014 4:47:24 PM, neutral wrote:
The case SUPPOSEDLY being made is that atheism is NOT absurd ... because ... agh .. water can be seen boiling?

Am I missing something here? Like the a valid point in this?
Yes. You are missing how boiling works.
And I thought I was arguing with someone who actually knew what he was talking about. I guess you really did prove me wrong, at least on something.
Forums Home > Religion

The Absurdity of AtheismPosted 7 years Ago

Continued:

At 3/30/2014 3:58:30 PM, neutral wrote:
At 3/30/2014 2:33:52 AM, neutral wrote:
Thus, and as logic requires for the use of assumptions in planning, we ASSUME THAT THERE IS A GOD, and proceed as if its fact - that is faith.
Yeah... no.

Well, YOU say so .... guess we could not find a valid reason to actually support that claim. Denial again, quaint but a tad repetitive.
Denial: n. The action of declaring something to be untrue. (Oxford English Dictionary)
Why are you talking as if denial is a bad thing? It's simply the opposite of agreement.

The action of declaring something to be untrue:
At 3/30/2014 2:33:52 AM, neutral wrote:
Atheists do the EXACT SAME THING, don't they?
Sorry, no.

Really? Atheists DON'T use inductive logic? That would indeed be a problem for atheism.
You were supposed to be trying to convince us that your case was science and evidenced based, and instead you have made severe basic scientific errors and just admitted that atheists don;t use inductive logic.
Straw men are pretty.
I was arguing that atheists don't do the "exact same thing" in making a baseless assumption and using it as the foundation for all their arguments. It was actually quite obvious of what I meant; perhaps you need to spend more time honing your reading skills instead of arguing terribly.

At 3/30/2014 3:58:30 PM, neutral wrote:
Man ... in the face of this stupendous logic ... its a wonder religion survives AT ALL.
As I've said before, no one (that I know of)'s here to evangelize.

At 3/30/2014 3:58:30 PM, neutral wrote:
At 3/30/2014 2:33:52 AM, neutral wrote:
And yet they sit back and tell us that they are using scientific reasoning and we are not? That they are using bonafide true and false to reach their conclusion, when, given the lack of that, they SHOUD BE, if they are driven by scientific processes, agnostics OPEN TO ALL POSSIBILITIES ALLOWABLE BY EVIDENCE.
And where's that evidence you keep rambling about?

So you have not investigated anything, and yet you are certain. SCIENCE drove your conclusion, and here you are waiting to start ... pathetic.
Why do you keep avoiding the question? What are you afraid of?
I'm still waiting on that evidence.

At 3/30/2014 3:58:30 PM, neutral wrote:
Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. It doesn't state whether gods exist or not.
Get your facts straight.
Like black holes being visible? And your position is nothing but an excuse to avoid the burden of proof required by science, logic, and simple civility.
Getting pedantic, are we? Very well.
Black holes are not visible in the sense that they cannot be seen directly. However, we can see black holes in the sense that we can quite visibly view the effects of the black hole.
If I say I can see the water boiling, it is sensical to say that I'm actually lying since you cannot observe molecules gaining enough energy to be projected into the air with the naked eye?

You have continuously attempted to desperately avoid the question of my asking for evidence. Still waiting.
Forums Home > Religion

The Absurdity of AtheismPosted 7 years Ago

At 3/30/2014 3:58:30 PM, neutral wrote:
At 3/30/2014 2:33:52 AM, neutral wrote:
Thus, and as logic requires for the use of assumptions in planning, we ASSUME THAT THERE IS A GOD, and proceed as if its fact - that is faith.
Yeah... no.

Well, YOU say so .... guess we could not find a valid reason to actually support that claim. Denial again, quaint but a tad repetitive.
Denial: n. The action of declaring something to be untrue. (Oxford English Dictionary)
Why are you talking as if denial is a bad thing? It's simply the opposite of agreement.

The action of declaring something to be untrue:
At 3/30/2014 2:33:52 AM, neutral wrote:
Atheists do the EXACT SAME THING, don't they?
Sorry, no.

Really? Atheists DON'T use inductive logic? That would indeed be a problem for atheism.
You were supposed to be trying to convince us that your case was science and evidenced based, and instead you have made severe basic scientific errors and just admitted that atheists don;t use inductive logic.
Straw men are pretty.
I was arguing that atheists don't do the "exact same thing" in making a baseless assumption and using it as the foundation for all their arguments. It was actually quite obvious of what I meant; perhaps you need to spend more time honing your reading skills instead of arguing terribly.

At 3/30/2014 3:58:30 PM, neutral wrote:
Man ... in the face of this stupendous logic ... its a wonder religion survives AT ALL.
As I've said before, no one (that I know of)'s here to evangelize.

At 3/30/2014 3:58:30 PM, neutral wrote:
At 3/30/2014 2:33:52 AM, neutral wrote:
And yet they sit back and tell us that they are using scientific reasoning and we are not? That they are using bonafide true and false to reach their conclusion, when, given the lack of that, they SHOUD BE, if they are driven by scientific processes, agnostics OPEN TO ALL POSSIBILITIES ALLOWABLE BY EVIDENCE.
And where's that evidence you keep rambling about?

So you have not investigated anything, and yet you are certain. SCIENCE drove your conclusion, and here you are waiting to start ... pathetic.
Why do you keep avoiding the question? What are you afraid of?
I'm still waiting on that evidence.

At 3/30/2014 3:58:30 PM, neutral wrote:
Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. It doesn't state whether gods exist or not.
Get your facts straight.
Like black holes being visible? And your position is nothing but an excuse to avoid the burden of proof required by science, logic, and simple civility.
Getting pedantic, are we? Very well.
Black holes are not visible in the sense that they cannot be seen directly. However, we can see black holes in the sense that we can quite visibly view the effects of the black hole.
If I say I can see the water boiling, it is sensical to say that I'm actually lying since you cannot observe molecules gaining enough energy to be projected into the air with the naked eye?

You have continuously attempted to desperately avoid the question of my asking for evidence. Still waiting.
Forums Home > Religion

The Absurdity of AtheismPosted 7 years Ago

At 3/30/2014 3:58:30 PM, neutral wrote:
Have you ever looked at a science textbook from the 1950's? the entire point of a textbook it to impart what is known at the time of in a specific, and at this point rapidly evolving, understanding in a single subject.
Yep.
And that's why you don't use a textbook from the 1950s as your source.
What's your point again?

At 3/30/2014 3:58:30 PM, neutral wrote:
To claim certainty in science, while taking the records of of a man and casting them as somehow flawed because they are not science in the error brother.
um wat
Did you use Google Translate to type this up? Because I can suggest a better translation site if you want.

At 3/30/2014 3:58:30 PM, neutral wrote:
The evidence is the proof, the ability to support an argument, not a text book. And that in indeed ia valid point made by Fatihah.
Aaand that evidence is compiled in those textbooks.
As for scripture, however...

At 3/30/2014 3:58:30 PM, neutral wrote:
Your books, blindly followed, are no better proof than any other book, and when take a book of the wrong subject an apply to a different subject ... is indeed quite absurd.
I thought applying a science textbook to argue about science was quite valid. Maybe I was mistaken.

At 3/30/2014 3:58:30 PM, neutral wrote:
You may not have followed, and perhaps disagreed with Fatihah, but her point is nevertheless a valid one.

Your textbooks do not support the conclusion of atheism now do they?
No, because I'm looking at a science textbook, not an "atheist" one (whatever that means :P).

At 3/30/2014 3:58:30 PM, neutral wrote:
Nope. Wrong.
A hypothesis is a question that is being tested, based on previous observations.
Shows how much you know about the scientific method >.>

No, a hypothesis is merely a theory.
smh
Hypothesis != theory
Do you even have half a clue of what you're talking about?

At 3/30/2014 3:58:30 PM, neutral wrote:
Definition: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

If we find ourselves changing the scientific process to maintain our religious views ... that would be a strike against atheism.

You might try to use that logical process and actually support a claim rather than just make one. Honestly the continuous derision of atheists can get quite tiresome - particularly when they are wrong.
The scientific process still stands, whether the person in question is religious or not.

At 3/30/2014 3:58:30 PM, neutral wrote:
Now where are those "evidence and observations" :/

So, the ENTIRE field of apologetics is unknown to you? You have investigated nothing, and cannot even reach the valid hypothesis stage, which requires the gathering of evidence and observations ... and yet you are certain in your conclusion?
I've yet to come across ANY piece of work of apologetics that has not been biased or blatantly dishonest.
Surprise me.

At 3/30/2014 3:58:30 PM, neutral wrote:
An appeal to ignorance? You literally, for millennia, have never come across any proof of God have you? Or will you, like Hitchens and Dawkins, just dumb them down to grotesque straw men now?

Are you making a case? Or merely looking to deny?
And I'm still waiting on that evidence that you claim to exist.
It seems that you're the one who's ignorant here.

At 3/30/2014 3:58:30 PM, neutral wrote:
You can see black holes with telescopes :/
What's your point?

No, actually, you cannot see black holes with a telescope .. no visible light can escape them. You can see SOME gravitational effects from SOME black holes. The proof of black holes is mathematical.

The point being that inductive reasoning is a valid form of logic used by scientists ... but your pride is preventing you from acknowledging that point. So you are now denying BOTH God and inductive logic. Excellent.
Aaand where's that inductive reasoning?
>.>

At 3/30/2014 3:58:30 PM, neutral wrote:
...or that gravitational source might be a star. Just saying.

Yep, that is the downside of inductive reasoning, yet a SCIENTISTS could analyze the data and make that case ... and atheist? Weill become and agnostic blackholer who merely disagrees with the idea of there being a black hole there ya see?

Science that is not. And neither is agnostic atheism.
If I have evidence that black holes exist, then I'll accept that they exist.
And that evidence exists.
However, about God...

At 3/30/2014 3:58:30 PM, neutral wrote:
Again, what's your point? Because I sure can't find it.

If you wish to continue to deny inductive reasoning AND that religious people use it, and atheists, so be it.

Denial appears to be the only thing atheist argumentation is good at ... well, that and not being able to find things ...
Still waiting for that inductive reasoning.
Take your time.

At 3/30/2014 3:58:30 PM, neutral wrote:
So ... clearly this superior logic is about to cause me to abandon faith.
What are you talking about?
I am merely arguing about the sheer silliness and dishonesty of Fatihah's and your posts. Unlike Christians, no one here's trying to evangelize you to abandon faith.

At 3/30/2014 3:58:30 PM, neutral wrote:
And where is the evidence for those acts of creation, miracles continuing to happen, faith changing lives for the better in droves, testimonies, and spirituality?
Go on, take your time.

Oh, you have never heard of the Big Bang have you? Odd .. .for someone claiming to reeve science ... Guess you could not find that one either ... or Apologetics. Or the related science of black holes.

This is very convincing argument based solely on denial. Riveting and convincing and all.
Sorry, I don't see how the Big Bang theory has to do with this.
Perhaps you could explain? I have some ideas as to what you might be talking about, but I want to be sure.
Forums Home > Religion

Why Prostitution Should Never be Legalized.Posted 7 years Ago

At 3/30/2014 4:15:12 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/30/2014 4:10:31 PM, WaterTipper wrote:

The hell are you talking about?
Could you come back later when you have all your ideas formulated in your head? Because you're not making any sense here.
You want to outlaw prostitution. Not just trafficking, but all prositution.
...where'd you get that idea?
Maybe I was a little unclear: I'm arguing FOR the legalization of prostitution.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Forums Home > Politics

Why Prostitution Should Never be Legalized.Posted 7 years Ago

At 3/30/2014 2:24:24 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
My responses to your comments are per my posts #44 and #48.

At 3/30/2014 1:55:33 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
Why did a few rural areas in Nevada allow legal prostitution?

"The state of Nevada is the only jurisdiction in the United States where prostitution is permitted. Strictly regulated brothels operate in isolated rural areas, away from the majority of Nevada's population."
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Because NIMBY. I thought this was obvious.

At 3/30/2014 1:55:33 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
So, I will state it again. Just because a few Libertarians believe consensual anything should be legalized does not change the fact that we have a system in the USA that must be followed to pass state and federal laws... blah blah blah... Let's see where your logic and arguments get you now that you are in reality!
I will say this again:
"will" != "should."
Check your title again, and consider picking up a dictionary every now and then.

At 3/30/2014 1:55:33 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
Here are a few final thoughts.

"We say that slavery has vanished from European civilization, but this is not true. Slavery still exists, but now it applies only to women and its name is prostitution.""VICTOR HUGO, Les Mis"rables"
Human trafficking and sexual slavery != prostitution.

At 3/30/2014 1:55:33 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
"I was wondering how many people who claim that women choose to be prostitutes encourage their beloved daughters to be prostitutes. Even prostitutes do not want their daughters becoming prostitutes. They are desperate to send their daughters to schools, so that daughters can get an education and a decent job."
http://freethoughtblogs.com...

Most of you young Libertarians at this site are too young and don't have beloved daughters; and if you ever do have beloved daughters or sons, I am sure you will not encourage them to become prostitutes.
Of course they don't. They acknowledge that it's a terrible life to lead, but it's getting them money to live on. Better than living in a cold alleyway eating scraps you find.
Do janitors want their kids to grow up as janitors? Do housekeepers want their kids to become housekeepers? How do you think the stereotype of "Asian dad" came along?

At 3/30/2014 1:55:33 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
You are just dishonest and disingenuous; mainly because you are young and immature, and know almost nothing about real life, e.g., holding a real job and paying for your own home or apartment - many of you live at your parent's home and have never worked a day in your lives, which has been proven by your comments.
Oh my gosh, I am so hurt by your insults. You're so cool.

At 3/30/2014 1:55:33 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
"What is prostitution?

Andrea Dworkin was a prostitute. She knows what prostitution is . . .
http://freethoughtblogs.com...
Oh of course, because a single person's views represent those of all prostitutes in the entire world, right?
Not saying she's wrong, but it's pretty hilarious of you to think like that.
Forums Home > Politics

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.