RE: interviewing a creationist (painful)
June 21, 2012 at 2:52 pm
(This post was last modified: June 21, 2012 at 2:53 pm by liam.)
Let's look at her first point, because this seems to me to be the epitome of BS found in this.
'If we are made by a loving creator then we are more likely to be loving'
...really now?
Let's observe these massive mis-assertions individually
(1) First of all, the logic that a majority of human reasoning relies on is that if something isn't true, and you base your argument on it, your argument is not true. To say that IF god exists then we, being created in his image, are more likely to be like him (in this case, loving, which requires it's own analysis) then we will be 'more loving' and so, by implication better people. A'ight, well as soon as you first prove that god is an undisputable proof, he created the universe and we are his image then perhaps this bullshit untruth may warrant some consideration. Until such a time, shut the fuck up, your argument is bad and you should feel bad.
(2) The assumption that God, if we assume, as previously considered, him to exist, is loving is completely unfounded. If anyone has ever read the bible they would probably point out from the offset that God is a DICK. He initially creates man and loves him, also creating a devious serpent to tempt him for no reason, then punishes him for listening to the serpent (God creates evil serpent, God creates man, God punishes man for interacting with serpent. GENIUS.). From the offset we see that God is a vengeful douche, furthermore, there are the parables of Job, Moses, Lot, Sodom, Noah, Adam, etcetc that prove beyond doubt that god does not love anything or anyone and does whatever the fuck he likes. He is effectively playing a really real version of the sims. Furthermore, this relies on completely unfounded assertions and draws from them a conclusion that has no right to be drawn. Shut up.
(3) To say that God created everything is thoroughly ignorant, she criticises science for it's part in fabricating theory (despite a wealth of inductive evidence) yet her book has a bunch of stories and poems by people in 500 CE. I'm not sure if y'all are aware of this, but in 500 Ce people knew absolutely fuck all about anything. Fire was still magical so OBVIOUSLY the beginning of everything did, to some extent, confound them. Don't assume that because modern assumptions are shaky that your own theory is instantly correct.
(4) Well, let's say that we accept your premises, all of them, regardless of how illogical or unfounded they are. Then let us examine the idea that te existence of God would mean we are more loving people. Well, first of all, why? Because a man and woman make a child, and they are loving people, will the child necessarily be loving? fuck no, it'll probably be a spoilt brat. You can't say that because our creator is loving we would also be so. That's not even inductive, it's speculative and fucking stupid.
Secondly, let us accept even this, on top of all her other odious assumptions. Well, okay, but what about loving others makes any difference to evolution? oh, none? I'm assuming that her point is that if we believe in God and it is true then we will all be better, moral people? well that isn't true either. Love is completely unsuitable as the determinant and arbitrator of moral value, it's an ontological phenomenon that has no moral value and is used by christian fundies who love loving. If I were to propose that the exact opposite of love, hatred, was to be the determining factor you'd all think I was a fucking nut but this too is an ontological proposition, just as love is, and so promotes the same thing. Ontological positions have absolutely no use in morality so fuck you christian lady. Even if EVERYTHING else you said was right, your argument would still be so wrong it's un-fucking-believable, I could do this for every line of your dumbfuck video but I have books to read and revision to do. Fuck you.
that is all...for now.
'If we are made by a loving creator then we are more likely to be loving'
...really now?
Let's observe these massive mis-assertions individually
(1) First of all, the logic that a majority of human reasoning relies on is that if something isn't true, and you base your argument on it, your argument is not true. To say that IF god exists then we, being created in his image, are more likely to be like him (in this case, loving, which requires it's own analysis) then we will be 'more loving' and so, by implication better people. A'ight, well as soon as you first prove that god is an undisputable proof, he created the universe and we are his image then perhaps this bullshit untruth may warrant some consideration. Until such a time, shut the fuck up, your argument is bad and you should feel bad.
(2) The assumption that God, if we assume, as previously considered, him to exist, is loving is completely unfounded. If anyone has ever read the bible they would probably point out from the offset that God is a DICK. He initially creates man and loves him, also creating a devious serpent to tempt him for no reason, then punishes him for listening to the serpent (God creates evil serpent, God creates man, God punishes man for interacting with serpent. GENIUS.). From the offset we see that God is a vengeful douche, furthermore, there are the parables of Job, Moses, Lot, Sodom, Noah, Adam, etcetc that prove beyond doubt that god does not love anything or anyone and does whatever the fuck he likes. He is effectively playing a really real version of the sims. Furthermore, this relies on completely unfounded assertions and draws from them a conclusion that has no right to be drawn. Shut up.
(3) To say that God created everything is thoroughly ignorant, she criticises science for it's part in fabricating theory (despite a wealth of inductive evidence) yet her book has a bunch of stories and poems by people in 500 CE. I'm not sure if y'all are aware of this, but in 500 Ce people knew absolutely fuck all about anything. Fire was still magical so OBVIOUSLY the beginning of everything did, to some extent, confound them. Don't assume that because modern assumptions are shaky that your own theory is instantly correct.
(4) Well, let's say that we accept your premises, all of them, regardless of how illogical or unfounded they are. Then let us examine the idea that te existence of God would mean we are more loving people. Well, first of all, why? Because a man and woman make a child, and they are loving people, will the child necessarily be loving? fuck no, it'll probably be a spoilt brat. You can't say that because our creator is loving we would also be so. That's not even inductive, it's speculative and fucking stupid.
Secondly, let us accept even this, on top of all her other odious assumptions. Well, okay, but what about loving others makes any difference to evolution? oh, none? I'm assuming that her point is that if we believe in God and it is true then we will all be better, moral people? well that isn't true either. Love is completely unsuitable as the determinant and arbitrator of moral value, it's an ontological phenomenon that has no moral value and is used by christian fundies who love loving. If I were to propose that the exact opposite of love, hatred, was to be the determining factor you'd all think I was a fucking nut but this too is an ontological proposition, just as love is, and so promotes the same thing. Ontological positions have absolutely no use in morality so fuck you christian lady. Even if EVERYTHING else you said was right, your argument would still be so wrong it's un-fucking-believable, I could do this for every line of your dumbfuck video but I have books to read and revision to do. Fuck you.
that is all...for now.
Religion is an attempt to answer the philosophical questions of the unphilosophical man.
