Smut for Smut

[Pippy]

Hey,

Can you provide evidence for any of this?

Nope. I think god made the world. We have been over my ability to provide someone like yourself with "evidence" over the internet. Me having to make my own site, and cite the site... But I can prove that when you declare the world inefficient that you define efficiency by proxy, and that the world cannot be as inefficient as you purport. All the animals that went extinct are not a sign of an inefficient world unless an efficient world includes all animals at once...

Did you forget what you wrote?

Oh, I see. Well irreducible complexity is about the best point, that is why I was laughing when you told me I couldn't use it. Please tell me why you disapprove of god, but you cannot mention christians or the bible or creationists. Go.

Do you have evidence to support your claim that humans are more perverse than 20 years ago?

What is with you people? Are you Kyu in diguise? There is no such thing as evidence for an opinion. I hold the thought that people are more perverse nowadays. Can I provide evidence? No. What evidence did I make my idea upon? The world I live in... One track minds, evidence evidence evidence...

Are you actually serious? You said:
"Illegal narcotics make more money than guns, food, precious metals, real drugs, houses, cats, and pornography. I bet you it's the case, if you feel like looking it up, and you can disprove that, please do."
Now, there are a lot of things wrong in this statement.
First, you make an assumption without backing up any of your claims, and trying to shift the burden of proof.
Second, you make a claim that illegal narcotics makes more money than your other criteria. You then try to include pharmaceuticals as dangerous and "should be illegal". What the hell? I'm not here to cater to your assumptions and think that would be illegal in your view of the world.
Third, you say the number for illegal narcotics is low, based on ???
You made a claim, and not only have you failed to back it up, you have disproven it.

I know what I said, thank you. It was in response to your argument that 'McDonald's makes money' when I said they were immoral. You maintain that you weren't arguing that making money was a moral quialifier, but I am not sure what you did mean. I also said that Child Slavery makes more money, and you also asked me to prove that. I told you it was an impossible estimate to make. First, I make an assumption without (gasp) backing up my claims. I made an assumption because to all appearances you best argument was that McDonald's can't be bad since it makes all that money, and I was trying to show that bad things make a ton of money by their nature. It is not 'invalidated' by this precious 'evidence', it is a statement of opinion. And I asked if you disagreed with me, if you would take the best that that was an untrue statement. And then, with the best 'evidence' we can produce on the internet, I googled it and posted some sentences. That is evidence. It is fallable, could be written by a monkey, could be untrue, but it's the best numbers we got. So I went, after you chose not to take the bet, and looked it up. Shifting the burden of proof? It is an opinion. You burdens or proof and evidence get old fast, this is a conversation not a public debate. And in my first point I added that drugs make more money than anything if you count the drugs the ar elegal but just as destructive. SSRI's for one. I;m not here to cater to your assumptions of what you think should be illegal" ROFL man, you take this too seriously. I'm not here to pander to whatever the fuck you think is not bad for us. Then I say the number for narcotics is low, based on my knowledge of the size and scale of narcotics trafficking. Again, a wild and untamed opinion. I think up my own thoughts, they don't come out with teir own 'evidence' I can send over the internet. Fucking evidence. I made an assumption, you did not get involved in it, I looked it up, as per the numbers I found food made more money, but it was in different years. I still think drugs makes more money, now am I denying evidence? Don't worry about the stupid fucking drugs opinion. Fuck.

"If I couldn't have thought of it, how could it be possible?"
You also make MORE claims with no evidence. It's traversing from intellectual dishonesty into full-on willful ignorance.

Argue the point or don't See in other parts you lambaste me for not qualifying what I say with 'i think' and in others you belittle me for qualifying my thought with 'i think'... You're a difficult man to please. Show me how I am supposed to provide a kid over the net evidence that I think people are more perverse today than 20 years ago? How is it possible. Oh wait. I promise you that I do in fact hold that view. There, proof of my opinion. Arguing with you is tiring. You asked if I though people were more perverse, I answered you query. In my answer you have decided that I went from intellectual dishonesty (either I'm stupid or I'm lying) to willful ignorance. So I shouldn't have answered you question? It was a trick question? Do you disagree, are people less perverse now than 20 years ago?

Please show me where I said that if something makes money, it can't be bad.

Instead why don't you tell me whatever you meant if in fact I misunderstood you. I said 'Porn is bad' one of your responses was that 'porn makes a ton of money'. I assumed that you meant porn can't be bad, look at the money it's making. You arrogantly disavowed that point. And then made it again for McDonald's. But this whole time, if you do not mean that making profit holds or changes moral value, I don't know what you DID mean. Instead of me showing you again when you said that, tell me how I misheard you so we can carry on with the actual conversation.

They also provide nutritional information for their consumers on demand, so you know what you're eating. It can be unhealthy, but so can anything if you practice it in excess.

They lie to their customers. Look up McLibel, that was a very telling case. They got in a ton of trouble for telling vegetarians that the fries were absolutely not made with beef stock, and the whole time they were. They redid their chicken nuggets to all white meat after getting sued, not because they wanted to improve their product. I could make the argument that eating one bid mac is unhealthy. I hate McDonald's for their business, social and environmental practices. But if you choose you eat fast food, and get sick, and lower you overall quality and length of life, and get taken advantage of, and make some crooked motherfuckers a little more wealthy, don't pretend there is something wrong with me.

The picture you're trying to paint is that porn, like McDonald's, is some kind of wolf in sheep's clothing that pretends to be a shining beacon of moral value. I'm saying you have a seriously skewed view.

It is a wolf on sheeps clothing. Oatmeal and rat pretending to be a hamburger. Pictures of degradation and shame pretending to be harmless entertainment. The picture you seems to be painting in response is that McDonald's is not guilty of the crimes I have pinned upon it's greasy bib. Evidence of you counter opinion? Please don't enlighten me about what you think of my world view, this is coming from someone who sees nothing wrong with porn.

I may well be done, unless you start making more sense, or less sense. But if it is more of this (what others here have calles) charecter assassination (hahahahahahahaha), I may be done arguing with you. You've made a couple interesting points, but got a little hung up demanding evidence for things that cannot be proven over the internet. I still appreciate you input, although less now that most of what you have to say is seemingly irrelevant slander.

Thank you.

[Autumnlicious]

Do you have evidence to support your claim that humans are more perverse than 20 years ago?

What is with you people? Are you Kyu in diguise? There is no such thing as evidence for an opinion. I hold the thought that people are more perverse nowadays. Can I provide evidence? No. What evidence did I make my idea upon? The world I live in... One track minds, evidence evidence evidence...

Nya nya! I can say whatever I want and you can't catch me on it, 'cause it is an OPINION! XDD

[tavarish]

Nope. I think god made the world. We have been over my ability to provide someone like yourself with "evidence" over the internet. Me having to make my own site, and cite the site... But I can prove that when you declare the world inefficient that you define efficiency by proxy, and that the world cannot be as inefficient as you purport. All the animals that went extinct are not a sign of an inefficient world unless an efficient world includes all animals at once...

So you can't back up your claim with anything. Great.

When I said inefficient, it was meant to reflect the outlook common in the Christian account of creation, or even theistic evolution. To get to our stage in development, which by religious doctrine, is what God apparently had in mind initially, why did he need all the extra steps? If he could will us into existence, why did he not do such a thing?

Why take 100 steps instead of taking one?

Evolution is inefficient only if you view it as possessing an ultimate purpose, something akin to what theists propose. In any other case, efficiency would be irrelevant, as there would be nothing it was working towards.

Do you understand?

Oh, I see. Well irreducible complexity is about the best point, that is why I was laughing when you told me I couldn't use it. Please tell me why you disapprove of god, but you cannot mention christians or the bible or creationists. Go.

Yes, irreducible complexity was the best point that creationists had in the Dover trial, and it got literally laughed out of court. I told you not to use it because it takes a little research to realize it has been conclusively refuted and debunked. I wanted you to use something that was legitimate in its approach and information.

What is with you people? Are you Kyu in diguise? There is no such thing as evidence for an opinion. I hold the thought that people are more perverse nowadays. Can I provide evidence? No. What evidence did I make my idea upon? The world I live in... One track minds, evidence evidence evidence...

An opinion statement can start with "I think" or "I believe". You said:

"I would make the point that there is more perversion now than there was 20 years ago."

That is a claim, in which you bear burden of proof.

I know what I said, thank you. It was in response to your argument that 'McDonald's makes money' when I said they were immoral. You maintain that you weren't arguing that making money was a moral quialifier, but I am not sure what you did mean.

I meant exactly what I said.

"I was making the point that Big Macs don't come with inherent moral values. Neither does porn."

By Merriam-Webster's definition, morality is:

1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>

and the definition of pornography is:

the portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography


What in porn necessarily deals with morality?

I also said that Child Slavery makes more money, and you also asked me to prove that. I told you it was an impossible estimate to make. First, I make an assumption without (gasp) backing up my claims. I made an assumption because to all appearances you best argument was that McDonald's can't be bad since it makes all that money, and I was trying to show that bad things make a ton of money by their nature.

You misunderstood my argument, tried to rebut a non-existent argument with a claim you couldn't back up, and now contend that evidence for your claims is somehow unreasonable?

It is not 'invalidated' by this precious 'evidence', it is a statement of opinion.

"Illegal narcotics make more money than guns, food, precious metals, real drugs, houses, cats, and pornography."

How the HELL is that an opinion statement? Is there anything in that sentence which signifies that notion?

It is a claim. Also, why would you think that an opinion wouldn't need evidence to support it?

And I asked if you disagreed with me, if you would take the best that that was an untrue statement. And then, with the best 'evidence' we can produce on the internet, I googled it and posted some sentences. That is evidence. It is fallable, could be written by a monkey, could be untrue, but it's the best numbers we got. So I went, after you chose not to take the bet, and looked it up.

You looked it up and got numbers that didn't back up your claim. What did we learn?

Shifting the burden of proof? It is an opinion. You burdens or proof and evidence get old fast, this is a conversation not a public debate.

Whether it's a conversation or public debate is irrelevant, burden of proof still works in all contexts, and if you make a claim, you better be able to back it up. Personal incredulity is not evidence of anything relevant to the conversation.

And in my first point I added that drugs make more money than anything if you count the drugs the ar elegal but just as destructive. SSRI's for one. I;m not here to cater to your assumptions of what you think should be illegal" ROFL man, you take this too seriously.

First you make a statement, then latch on extra crap that wasn't attributed to the initial claim, changing the claim completely. It's serious dishonesty to think that I wouldn't call you out on that. Think a while before you make a statement.

I'm not here to pander to whatever the fuck you think is not bad for us. Then I say the number for narcotics is low, based on my knowledge of the size and scale of narcotics trafficking. Again, a wild and untamed opinion. I think up my own thoughts, they don't come out with teir own 'evidence' I can send over the internet.

Again you're making 2 errors:

1. You confuse opinion for claim.
2. You think opinions are somehow exempt from burden of proof.

You say 'evidence' like nothing legitimate can be presented on the internet. Am I reading this correctly, or are you being facetious?

Fucking evidence. I made an assumption, you did not get involved in it, I looked it up, as per the numbers I found food made more money, but it was in different years. I still think drugs makes more money, now am I denying evidence? Don't worry about the stupid fucking drugs opinion. Fuck.

LOL WUT?

Argue the point or don't See in other parts you lambaste me for not qualifying what I say with 'i think' and in others you belittle me for qualifying my thought with 'i think'... You're a difficult man to please.

When you make an argument, and justify it by saying "I can't see X being any other way, so that's why it X this way", that is an argument from personal incredulity and ignorance. It's a logical fallacy.

This is different from saying "I think X is this way, here is the evidence to support my assertion".

You have to understand the difference. If you don't care, then don't make the argument. If you care enough to make a claim, be prepared to back it up.

Show me how I am supposed to provide a kid over the net evidence that I think people are more perverse today than 20 years ago? How is it possible. Oh wait. I promise you that I do in fact hold that view. There, proof of my opinion.
Arguing with you is tiring. You asked if I though people were more perverse, I answered you query. In my answer you have decided that I went from intellectual dishonesty (either I'm stupid or I'm lying) to willful ignorance. So I shouldn't have answered you question? It was a trick question? Do you disagree, are people less perverse now than 20 years ago?

It is IRRELEVANT what I think. I asked YOU to provide evidence, as YOU have burden of proof for making the claim. It's not my issue of how you choose to present it. Be able to back up shit you write about. I'm not calling you names just for the sake of it, you are establishing yourself to be extremely dishonest in your execution of establishing and analyzing truth claims.

Instead why don't you tell me whatever you meant if in fact I misunderstood you. I said 'Porn is bad' one of your responses was that 'porn makes a ton of money'.

Wrong. You said the porn was "designed to do as much damage to the minds of young people as possible". I said it was designed to make money, and did not inherently have any stance on morality.

I assumed that you meant porn can't be bad, look at the money it's making. You arrogantly disavowed that point.

No, you misunderstood the point, then made a straw man argument afterwards.

And then made it again for McDonald's. But this whole time, if you do not mean that making profit holds or changes moral value, I don't know what you DID mean.

I just told you. I said they're in the business of making money, not instilling moral values.

Instead of me showing you again when you said that, tell me how I misheard you so we can carry on with the actual conversation.

OK.

They lie to their customers. Look up McLibel, that was a very telling case. They got in a ton of trouble for telling vegetarians that the fries were absolutely not made with beef stock, and the whole time they were. They redid their chicken nuggets to all white meat after getting sued, not because they wanted to improve their product. I could make the argument that eating one bid mac is unhealthy.

Alright, let's take this one apart.

What exactly did you refute? I said they were in the business of making money, and inherently amoral.

Here's McDonald's mission statement:

McDonald's brand mission is to "be our customers' favorite place and way to eat." Our worldwide operations have been aligned around a global strategy called the Plan to Win centering on the five basics of an exceptional customer experience – People, Products, Place, Price and Promotion. We are committed to improving our operations and enhancing our customers' experience.

http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/our_co...rch.html#1

The 5 P's are the integral components of a marketing strategy - utilized for the sole purpose of increasing market share and maximizing profits.

What exactly in that corporate mission statement said anything about being moral?

I hate McDonald's for their business, social and environmental practices. But if you choose you eat fast food, and get sick, and lower you overall quality and length of life, and get taken advantage of, and make some crooked motherfuckers a little more wealthy, don't pretend there is something wrong with me.

Okie dokie.

It is a wolf on sheeps clothing. Oatmeal and rat pretending to be a hamburger. Pictures of degradation and shame pretending to be harmless entertainment. The picture you seems to be painting in response is that McDonald's is not guilty of the crimes I have pinned upon it's greasy bib. Evidence of you counter opinion? Please don't enlighten me about what you think of my world view, this is coming from someone who sees nothing wrong with porn.

Did I say that McDonald's was a beacon of health? NO.

Did I say it didn't engage in shady practices? NO.

I said it was in the business of making money, and I backed up my claim with the mission statement from McDonald's. My argument is that you're assigning properties to McDonald's (and porn) that aren't integral to their operations.

If I say the automobile is immoral and was designed to do as much destruction to people as possible, and I cite examples of car accidents and pollution, would that be a fair statement?

Of course not, because cars were designed primarily as a mode of transportation. They have no moral stance. Much like McDonald's and pornography. You're essentially adding your own characteristics to something, then making conclusions about the object using your skewed logic.

If I bought a juice maker, then called it a bad product because it couldn't fry my eggs, I'd be making your argument. .

Honestly, I don't give a flying fuck what you think. You can abhor porn all you want. I just find fault in your reasoning, and I write about it because it allows me to further my skills in analyzing and deciphering logical fallacies and truth statements.

I may well be done, unless you start making more sense, or less sense. But if it is more of this (what others here have calles) charecter assassination (hahahahahahahaha), I may be done arguing with you. You've made a couple interesting points, but got a little hung up demanding evidence for things that cannot be proven over the internet. I still appreciate you input, although less now that most of what you have to say is seemingly irrelevant slander.

Thank you.

I'll bite. What can't be proven over the internet that can be proven otherwise and fits the subject of our discussion?

[Pippy]

So you can't back up your claim with anything. Great.

If I try to post web sites that would prove the existence of god to an avowed atheist, what could I possibly accomplish. I can tell you why I am moved to believe, but I can honestly see no way I can even present evidence over the internet to you proving god. Is that an example of me bowing out of the argument? No, in my opinion it is a waste of time to try to prove god to you. That would mean that I thought I was objectively right and that you were objectively wrong. You are as allowed to disbelieve as I am to believe, and I feel no compunction, or ability, to prove god to you. I hope I can make this point clear, and not come across as avoiding the subject. It is a stance I have held for my entire time here, that I like to debate god, but not prove her.

When I said inefficient, it was meant to reflect the outlook common in the Christian account of creation, or even theistic evolution. To get to our stage in development, which by religious doctrine, is what God apparently had in mind initially, why did he need all the extra steps? If he could will us into existence, why did he not do such a thing?

I agree, and of course understand. The was the basis of my disagreement earlier. That evolution is a process defined by time and matter, but not a goal oriented thing. I do not think of evolution as (an old flaw) having an end point, certinaly not the present as an end point.
I know you were arguing against the common christian outlook, but I am not a christian. I don't hold the views you were disagreeing with.

Evolution is inefficient only if you view it as possessing an ultimate purpose, something akin to what theists propose. In any other case, efficiency would be irrelevant, as there would be nothing it was working towards.
Do you understand?

Again, yes of course. The statement of efficiency is irrelevant. But saying the earth, or evolution is inefficient, in my opinion, is worse than saying that if efficiency applied it would have to be fantastically efficient. Tomato, tomatoe...

Yes, irreducible complexity was the best point that creationists had in the Dover trial, and it got literally laughed out of court. I told you not to use it because it takes a little research to realize it has been conclusively refuted and debunked. I wanted you to use something that was legitimate in its approach and information.

I will have to look up the concept of irreducible complexity getting laughed out of court in the Dover trials. Whether something gets laughed out of court isn't very important to me though, a lot of terribly stupid things do no get laughed out of western courts... If some past trial somehow debunked the concept of ID based on excessive complexity of the systems we see, that doesn't affect my base for belief much. I will add it to the pile, but the level of complexity is such that it wins. Interesting reading material though. I will try to find it being conclusively refuted, but I may not be moved. Remember, I find Dawkins idiotic rather than life altering.

An opinion statement can start with "I think" or "I believe". You said:
"I would make the point that there is more perversion now than there was 20 years ago."
That is a claim, in which you bear burden of proof.

I disagree. If I had worded the sentance "There is more perversion..." then yes, claim. But "I would make the point..." is a personal qualifier, and I assure you that when I wrote it I meant it as a loose opinion to make a vague point. It was an answer to your previous question. I apologize if there was misunderstanding from my language.

I meant exactly what I said.
"I was making the point that Big Macs don't come with inherent moral values. Neither does porn."

Yes, that as a business they are amoral. That there is an angle that they can make no claim to morality from. But as soon as their product reaches other people, as soon as they do anything that in any way affects another person (and may be even themselves) there is a whole cacophony of shades of morality. You can say that a big mac is not a moral item, but that would be a big mac in a vacuum. A big mac is in the human world, part of a human interaction, and as such has to have some moral value. It is subjective and debatable, but certainly existent.

What in porn necessarily deals with morality?

The human element. If you take pictures of one human to show to other humans, hopefully for a profit, you have entered a very moral realm. Human interaction with self, environment, and especially other humans is by necessity where I find a moral value of porn and big macs. Oh, and please if you would refrain from posting definition of words. I know what words mean, and if I don't I certainly know how to look them up. It is pointless and rude, and not all too charming. At least you didn't post a wiki link.

You misunderstood my argument, tried to rebut a non-existent argument with a claim you couldn't back up, and now contend that evidence for your claims is somehow unreasonable?

I made a point to counter an argument I had though you made, later realizing that you did not make that point. Touche, my apologies. Do you contend that the evidence made a fool of me? It is like I was talking to myself and now you're trying to sneak in edgewise and make some claim of victory on that point. I did the whole "I think drugs make more money" all by myself, you said you did not want to rebut it further than a base disagreement. Either way though. Got told by... Myself?

You looked it up and got numbers that didn't back up your claim. What did we learn?

Well either my 30 seconds of research is flawed, or my opinion... You decide.

Personal incredulity is not evidence of anything relevant to the conversation.

Never did I argue fro person incredulity. I got tangled up trying to qualify everything I said about sexual mores and whether or not porn is just following customer demand. Never, and at no time did I intend to make the point 'I don't know how it can be, so it is not'. I meant to add that I as a young human have some personal points of view, and that I did not thing of ass-to-mouth before I saw it. I did not think of foot fetish before I ever heard of it. It was trying to argue that the porn industry cannot claim to be 100% driven by customer wants if the customers don't know they want extreme porn before they see it. Do you think you thought of every perversion before you saw it or heard about it? It is an honest question. I apologize again, but I get it mixed up between the opinion I hold that porn pushes people to want to see more and more extreme things, and that I know in personal experience I did not think of all the perversions first. And I spend a lot of time thinking of stuff.

Again you're making 2 errors:
1. You confuse opinion for claim.
2. You think opinions are somehow exempt from burden of proof.
You say 'evidence' like nothing legitimate can be presented on the internet. Am I reading this correctly, or are you being facetious?

But any claim I make is an opinion, and any opinion a claim. I don't feel confused. I am personally exempt from burden of proof. So are you as long as you talk to me. I do feel like it is impossible to prove complex ideas by posting web links. Impossible, and not the best way for us to learn or process and evaluate information. We should discuss what we know, what we think, and the crutch of endless information should get drug out after we have exercised our neurons for a while. I can claim; In Ottawa there is very little snow left. I can post a sat pic, a weather report, a picture I took, or you can take my word on it. I can't, however prove as easily that porn does or does not make more money than food and guns and stuff. Should I then not make the claim, that I think it is as such? If I can't make any claim that cannot be proven with a google search, I will have much less to say...

If I asked you to "prove" to me that god didn't exist with verifiable "evidence", what would you do? It would be a long, long debate where you would say 'here is a dawkins book I liked' and I would say 'bullshit, I am not convinced' and then we could argue for a while on the side about who is and is not denying what should be infallible evidence. What seems solid to me may not seem so to you. Do you see why I try to avoid that one debate? That and my prior point about how I could be wrong about god, and thinking I am right and you are just stupid is the first step towards fanaticism. By all means, please don't beleive in god. Please allow me to, and let's try to not get bogged down in a self righteous pissing match...

I just told you. I said they're in the business of making money, not instilling moral values.

But in the business of making money, there cannot be a moral black hole. If you are buying and selling, advertising and competing, you are very much involved in the world of human morality. They are not in the business of instilling moral vales, but that they are in business at all instills a moral dimension to their actions.

you are establishing yourself to be extremely dishonest in your execution of establishing and analyzing truth claims.

I dislike being called dishonest, as that entails an intent I do not carry. I have better things to do with my time then intentionally deceive some one halfway around the world. You are proving to be very difficult to make sensationalist and over the top claims about shit too.

It's not as much that I can prove things to you in real life that I cannot over the internet. I like to think I would have a better chance of being taken seriously if I was in person, as communication through text alone is very limiting. It is more that I don't know where to start to "prove" stuff to you. Learn on your own, if you disagree, then prove me wrong. I know that goes against you while burden of proof theory, but that is more how I operate. How am I supposed to prove that god exists? I can make an argument for McDonalds being immoral in it's actions as a co operation. Is posting the 5 P's from McDonalds proof? May be this is easier than I thought. You should not ask the fox how many chickens are left though...

I am sorry if I came off more upset than I wanted. I again feel the need to say that I appreciate you opinions, and enjoy discussing for what it's worth.

Thank you again,
-Pip

[fr0d0]

What in porn necessarily deals with morality?

The human element. If you take pictures of one human to show to other humans, hopefully for a profit, you have entered a very moral realm. Human interaction with self, environment, and especially other humans is by necessity where I find a moral value of porn and big macs.

I think photographic pornography is always bad. If you share intimacy beyond the boundaries of that intimacy, Isn't that what perversion is? ..taking it too far? Porn actors do a bad job of hiding it too. It looks like they're trying so hard to protect their image for a partner or prospective partner. Even those that do seem very much into it and enjoy it, in my opinion are like anyone who fully embraces grossness. I don't believe any human being is that/ completely insensitive. Sex is great and pornography spoils it.

[Thor]

If I try to post web sites that would prove the existence of god to an avowed atheist, what could I possibly accomplish.

Oh, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE post these web sites that "prove the existence of God". We all could use a good laugh. I can give you two of them off the bat! Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute. Got any more?

[Pippy]

"Sex is great and pornography spoils it" Very good point. That desensitization to sexual stimuli leads to porn addicts having less fun in the sack... Thank you Frodo.

"Oh, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE post these web sites that 'prove the existence of God'"
Thor, god of thunder, I don't think you've been listening fully. I made the point repetedly that I did not garnish my opinion of belief in god from reading a website or a book. I made the point that the only way I could find a website to link to as "proof" would be to make my own. I said multiple times that in my opinion, that I know of, there are no web sites I can link to to prove god. Are there any you can link to to disprove her? Are your opinions availble in full on the web?

Long and short, there are no such sites. Thank you.

-Pip

Oh yeah, and I looked at that trial Tavarish. That is a load. It took about a minute to find the part where the opening statements were, and the guy said that a definition of ID is that fish were created with their scales on already. I am not on board with that. There is no way for that to be the case. I don't know if this is like homeopathy, that the word means far different things to different people... Or if this is that I misunderstood ID... If I did, then I redefine my own interpretation of ID theory (as if I already hadn't). But fish with scales already, not a chance. ID, to me, means that god started the top spinning, and stepped back and calmly watched it spin. That the systems are designed, but that god doesn't like to reach down and make miracles. That the real miracle is the creation of this material world. Fish with scales, I would have laughed them out of court as well...

[Thor]

I said multiple times that in my opinion, that I know of, there are no web sites I can link to to prove god. Are there any you can link to to disprove her?

Why do believers insist on using the silly argument that we can't disprove your god? I can't disprove leprechauns. Does this mean that when you see a rainbow you try to find the end of it so you can get that pot o' gold?

It is not my responsibility to disprove your claim. It is your responsibility to provide evidence that supports your claim. If you can't, then it is perfectly reasonable to dismiss your claim as unfounded. Why is this so difficult to understand?

[Pippy]

Can I just hold my tounge in hopes that you claim there is no god before I claim there is, thereby shifting the burden of proof onto you? If my belief is a claim, then I think non-belief (better defined in the belief in non) is also a claim. So now we are in a philosophical mexican standoff. I think it is silly to ask me to prove god to you by posting web links, or expounding the dharma, and admonishing me for failing to do so when I decline.

So I repeat, could you post links that would dissuade me from belief? Could you prove your side oft he argument by recommending a documentary? I think not, and reasonably so. Why deride me for failing to do the same?

Thanks,
Cat Stevens went all Muslim on us,
-Pip

[downbeatplumb]

Pippy

I shall just stick my oar in here for a second.

At the moment there is no need for a divine explanation for anything that happens in the whole sphere of scienctific discovery.

god has nowhere left to hide, you could probably make a case for a being started the universe then buggered off, although this is so unlikely as to be laughable but one thing that I am 100% certain of is that there is no case that can be effectively made for the micro-managing, genocidal evil bastard portayed in the bible.

Hers a link to some good documentaries.

http://atheistdocumentaries.blogspot.com/

And look at the 'why do people laugh at creationists' series on you tube they are all good. (curse my poor linking skills.)

I dont think this will dissuade you from your belief, you will probably assimilate any information received and either reject it out of hand or rework it somehow so that it supports your belief, that is how these things work and it is so sad.

---

Pippy

I shall just stick my oar in here for a second.

At the moment there is no need for a divine explanation for anything that happens in the whole sphere of scienctific discovery.

god has nowhere left to hide, you could probably make a case for a being started the universe then buggered off, although this is so unlikely as to be laughable but one thing that I am 100% certain of is that there is no case that can be effectively made for the micro-managing, genocidal evil bastard portayed in the bible.

Hers a link to some good documentaries.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BS5vid4GkEY&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BS5vid4GkEY&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

http://atheistdocumentaries.blogspot.com/

I dont think this will dissuade you from your belief, you will probably assimilate any information received and either reject it out of hand or rework it somehow so that it supports your belief, that is how these things work and it is so sad.