FSTDT Forums
Community => Religion and Philosophy => Topic started by: Mister Pine on August 12, 2015, 09:24:06 am
-
This thread may just be me talking to myself and trying to sort out the issues of a few of these fundies, but that's probably OK - we all need a place to organize our thoughts. Let's just call it:
MR. PINE'S GUIDE TO CHRISTIAN NEWS NETWORK FUNDIES
WorldGoneCrazy is an interesting one. Often talks about his various "science degrees" but keeps it deliberately vague apart from that. Talks about having been an atheist for many years (I imagine him to be in his fifties). Seems to take any argument you want to throw at him, whether it's same sex marriage or evolution, and turn it into an argument about "moral objectivity". He's really bad at making philosophical arguments, and posts the same ones over and over (here's an example):
1. Every natural innate human desire has a corresponding satisfying object in reality. (e.g., thirst has the object of water, hunger has the object of food, etc)
2. All humans possess a natural innate desire for objective moral justice to be satisfied.
3. Therefore, objective moral justice exists.
4. In some cases, objective moral justice is not satisfied in this lifetime. (e.g., Hitler, Stalin, Mao, unrepentant abortion "doctors," abortuary deathscorts, etc)
5. Therefore, objective moral justice is achieved in an afterlife.
6. Therefore, Hell exists.
He is very fond of telling atheists that every time they make a moral judgement they are in fact borrowing from God. One of those guys who thinks that if we are atheists there is no such thing as being moral. A direct quote - "gassing Jews in concentration camps and keeping slaves, they're all just flavors of ice cream to you." (He uses the ice cream comparison ENDLESSLY, and it's earned him my nickname The Ice Cream Man).
If you tangle with him, expect your two-sentence responses to eventually grow into multi-paragraph nightmares that no one in their right mind would take time to read.
-
He is also fond of quoting famous ATHEISTS to back up his statements. Problem is, he misunderstands the point they are making. Including this quote from Dawkins:
“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995))
This is a perfectly good quote and I understand what Dawkins means. Unfortunately, our friend here takes this to mean that since the universe doesn't care about things like justice, neither do its inhabitants, which is crazy. He's essentially using Dawkins' quote to support his little ice cream statement above, that Dawkins, since he's an atheist, would have no moral issues whatsoever about gassing Jews or keeping slaves.
-
More statements from WorldGoneCrazy:
"Moral Argument for the Existence of God:
Premise 1: If there is no God, then objective moral values do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective evil exists.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, objective moral values DO exist.
Conclusion 2: Therefore, God exists."
-
He also has a VERY annoying habit: He will NOT say "atheist". For some reason, he has to say "a-theist" with a dash. Every. Single. Time.
Likewise, he has his pet expressions he loves, like Gaystapo, which he'll use authoritatively, trying to make it sound factual, as though such a group really exists.
-
This is an area to discuss the world class thinker WorldGoneCrazy.
http://www.fstdt.com/Search.aspx?Fundie=WorldGoneCrazy
(Will edit this post later after the mods move the discussion in progress on him to this thread)
-
Alright, moved the relevant posts to this thread.
-
Alright, moved the relevant posts to this thread.
They don't pay you enough.
-
The warm glow of knowing I can go mad with power and ban y'all at any moment is all the pay I need.
I mean, uh, the satisfaction of a job well done. Yeah, that's the one.
On topic!
1. Every natural innate human desire has a corresponding satisfying object in reality. (e.g., thirst has the object of water, hunger has the object of food, etc)
2. All humans possess a natural innate desire for objective moral justice to be satisfied.
3. Therefore, objective moral justice exists.
4. In some cases, objective moral justice is not satisfied in this lifetime. (e.g., Hitler, Stalin, Mao, unrepentant abortion "doctors," abortuary deathscorts, etc)
5. Therefore, objective moral justice is achieved in an afterlife.
6. Therefore, Hell exists.
Is this guy Catholic? For some reason it's usually Catholics that want to play Aquinas and prove God through shitty philosophy.
-
Is this guy Catholic? For some reason it's usually Catholics that want to play Aquinas and prove God through shitty philosophy.
I can state equivocally that NO, he's not Catholic, nor are too many people there. That place is as to the far right of Catholicism as atheism, practically. In fact, I think they'd rather a person was atheist than Catholic. Blows my mind, frankly.
-
That place is as to the far right of Catholicism as atheism, practically.
That jab at all atheists perplexes me. How is atheism more right-wing than the Roman Catholic Church? How is anything more right-wing than the RCC?
-
That place is as to the far right of Catholicism as atheism, practically.
That jab at all atheists perplexes me. How is atheism more right-wing than the Roman Catholic Church? How is anything more right-wing than the RCC?
I think he means that from where the members of the board in question are sitting, Catholicism and atheism are equally "too liberal".
-
I think he means that from where the members of the board in question are sitting, Catholicism and atheism are equally "too liberal".
Precisely what I meant. Sorry for the confusion. I have no loyalty to the Catholics but feel bad for them when it comes to the abuse they take from arrogant fundamentalists who try to "out-Christian" them.
-
Hot off the presses - a new baffling response from WorldGoneCrazy in which he manages to be offensive and clueless in equal measure. After I told him he should probably stop fighting the SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage:
"You are missing the point here: your argument was that because SCOTUS had ruled that SSM is legal, that we should just get over it and not fight anymore. My reply was regarding how awful that would have been for black people if abolitionists had just rolled over following the heinous Dred Scott decision and said "OK, we must just get over it and not fight anymore." Do you see?
"In SSM, there is no punished/damaged party"
The individuals themselves are damaged - diapers at 30, AIDS at 45, etc, plus tons of psychological afflictions. Children who get adopted by gay "couples" are damaged AND treated as show piece pawns, and, of course, society is damaged with respect to religious freedoms. Here is an overview supporting my assertions - using secular data:
http://winteryknight.com/2012/05/08/a-secular-case-against-same-sex-marriage/
"No one "escapes" the homosexual "lifestyle"
That is easy to refute - Joe Dallas is one example amongst many:
http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/churchandministry/daugostine_gaygospel_dallas.aspx "
Quite, quite unbelievable.
-
you might not want to highlight your posts in red, that's the mod's color if they have to amend or censor your post.
likewise, blue is for sarcasm.
that guy, however is a piece of work. diapers at 30? most gays prefer oral over anal sex. mostly because anal takes a lot of preparation to do correctly.
aids at 45? yeah, not buying it either.
-
you might not want to highlight your posts in red, that's the mod's color if they have to amend or censor your post.
likewise, blue is for sarcasm.
that guy, however is a piece of work. diapers at 30? most gays prefer oral over anal sex. mostly because anal takes a lot of preparation to do correctly.
aids at 45? yeah, not buying it either.
Sorry for the newbie mistakes. I actually changed it to blue before I saw your note about sarcasm, and it almost worked that way because you can't believe this guy is serious.
The diaper thing was the most offensive, I mean statistically more straight couples probably do that and you don't see too many women who wear them. I tried to source where such a belief would come from and all signs point to one guy who said something stupid on a right wing radio show.
-
Why diapers when a soft butt plug would do the job so much better...and be tingly, too?/snark...but, yeah.
-
I found a couple different websites that refer to Diapergate here.
Not one single other reference to it, so you can direct all scorn to Mr. Patrick Wooden.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/18/patrick-wooden-north-carolina-pastor-gay-men-diaper_n_1212929.html
http://shadowproof.com/2013/06/11/revisiting-anti-gay-pastor-patrick-wooden-and-his-gay-men-wear-diapers-claim/
Oh, nice, he won the Daily Dickhead for it too:
http://www.fredhystere.com/2012/01/20/daily-dickhead-patrick-gay-sex-causing-diaper-wearing-wooden/
-
I discovered that WorldGoneCrazy is little more than a human drinking game.
He says the same thing over and over, trying out his theories on different people, but always using the same cut-and-pasted stuff.
Take a drink every time he mentions ice cream. ("You don't get to borrow the existence of objective moral values and duties from some unknown "god" - they do not exist to you - they are merely flavors of ice cream.")
Take a drink every time he posts the SAME EXACT THREE quotes by Richard Dawkins, William Provine and Michael Ruse, each one NOT SAYING what he claims they are saying (that there are no morals without God).
Take a drink every time he says "Gaystapo."
Take a drink every time he spells atheist "a-theist".
Take a drink every time he accuses an atheist of "stealing from God" every time they point out any moral issue.
Take a drink every time he compares homosexuality or same-sex marriage to slavery or "gassing Jews".
This realization either makes WorldGoneCrazy more fun to deal with, or less fun. I haven't figured out which yet. Calling him on it will be enjoyable though.
-
I discovered that WorldGoneCrazy is little more than a human drinking game.
Just be careful about that. With this loon, there's a definite risk of alcohol poisoning. Actually, with WGC, there's a risk of drinking yourself to death even if you used water.
-
That place is as to the far right of Catholicism as atheism, practically.
That jab at all atheists perplexes me. How is atheism more right-wing than the Roman Catholic Church? How is anything more right-wing than the RCC?
How is the Catholic Church right-wing?
-
That place is as to the far right of Catholicism as atheism, practically.
That jab at all atheists perplexes me. How is atheism more right-wing than the Roman Catholic Church? How is anything more right-wing than the RCC?
How is the Catholic Church right-wing?
If you can't tell how an organization that's perpetually at least 200 years behind the rest of society is right-wing, well, you've been slamming the I-like-this-new-pope kool-aid.
-
Sorry, I thought I'd already clarified what I meant about that.
All I meant to say was that the fundies like to bash Catholics just as much as they like to bash atheists. Probably more.
I'm not sure what "wing" that makes Catholics. But it puts the fundies at considerably right of it.
-
Sorry, I thought I'd already clarified what I meant about that.
All I meant to say was that the fundies like to bash Catholics just as much as they like to bash atheists. Probably more.
I'm not sure what "wing" that makes Catholics. But it puts the fundies at considerably right of it.
There's heavy overlap between fundies and Catholics -- especially the Catholics that control government policy in numerous countries.
In the United States, you need look no further than our conservative SCOTUS justices, particularly Scalia, for powerful Catholics that push their church's mandates on the rest of us.
-
Sorry, I thought I'd already clarified what I meant about that.
All I meant to say was that the fundies like to bash Catholics just as much as they like to bash atheists. Probably more.
I'm not sure what "wing" that makes Catholics. But it puts the fundies at considerably right of it.
There's heavy overlap between fundies and Catholics -- especially the Catholics that control government policy in numerous countries.
In the United States, you need look no further than our conservative SCOTUS justices, particularly Scalia, for powerful Catholics that push their church's mandates on the rest of us.
True.
However, I don't see Catholics fighting against evolution. I don't see them proselytizing hate against atheists and other Christians. GENERALLY speaking, along with Lutherans and Episcopalians and Methodists (and possibly a couple others), they tend to be a little bit more reasonable.
Which is NOT to say that I agree with them...for the most part, I don't.
-
That place is as to the far right of Catholicism as atheism, practically.
That jab at all atheists perplexes me. How is atheism more right-wing than the Roman Catholic Church? How is anything more right-wing than the RCC?
How is the Catholic Church right-wing?
Opposed to same-sex marriage, opposed to abortion, opposed to equal rights for women, opposed to recognising trans people's gender identity... it's certainly not left wing, socially speaking at least.
If you view right vs left as an economic distinction then that's more complicated.
-
We have a sarcasm colour? Neat!
-
We have a sarcasm colour? Neat!
I'm gonna have to remember to use that.
-
We have a sarcasm colour? Neat!
I'm gonna have to remember to use that.
all it took was me using it and explaining it three times to the newbies, too.
-
You never explained it IIRC, you just started using blue text out of the blue.
-
you might not want to highlight your posts in red, that's the mod's color if they have to amend or censor your post.
likewise, blue is for sarcasm.
from this very thread, also, it's in the rules or some such thread.
-
Also used on various other online communities.
-
This guy's seriously got issues. He's gone completely apoplectic over this Kim Davis thing.
A few of his bon mots (I will make his comments an unfortunate shade of brown, mine will be green)
Her beliefs may not trump the law, but her religious freedom IS guaranteed. If we must have foot baths in airports for Muslims, how come she cannot keep her job and her religious freedom? It is easy for atheists to give up the religious freedoms of Christians.
It is simply not true that her religious freedom must be set aside if she offends or inconveniences someone. Accommodations can be made for all. What this judge has said is that a true Christian cannot hold this sort of job - which is anathema to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers intent too, I might add.
I think that, like the gay cakes and flowers and all, this is really going to backfire on gay advocates. They have always claimed to be the "tolerant" ones, but death threats and jail time do not sound very "tolerant" to me. I think that is why you are seeing, on this page, a lot of reluctance on gay advocates to celebrate this - and this to their credit. They have always claimed their movement is not heavy-handed, that is wasn't about forcing people to affirm their beliefs, which is laughable just with the florist in Washington case, and now even they are getting creeped out by this.
It's not good for gays and not good for America.
Another one...he's got a problem understanding "religious freedom".
"Kim doesn't get religious freedom. " - atheist
I'm just laughing my head off here. :-) Her beliefs are sincerely held and completely in line with 2000 years of Christian orthodoxy and orthopraxy. You are the one who just...does...not...get...it.
It is clear that you either did not read my post or are incapable of understanding it. But, it is YOU who does not get religious freedom. And it is going to backfire on the wrong people. Which is why they are silent on this story. They have claimed there is no Gaystapo, and now the evidence is too clear for even them to deny it.
"They are beliefs. They have nothing to do with the law. "
What you keep forgetting is that the law includes religious freedoms, which are clearly based on religious beliefs. Remember the foot baths? :-)
"No matter how sincerely she holds them it doesn't give her the right to force them on those who DON'T follow them"
She never forced her beliefs on anyone. The gays who want to marry are free to believe in Baal if they want to.
But, speaking of force, she was forced into jail. Doesn't that creep you out the least?!? Really?!? The main gay advocate players are not on this page tonight for that very reason. They have finally been creeped out - they don't want to have to argue that there is no Gaystapo now that someone has been jailed.
"Your rant about the Gaystapo was cute, but ultimately irrelevant to the issue here."
Not at all. It shows the lengths to which you folks will go to force your beliefs on us. All in the name of "tolerance." Pity you are one of the very few to recognize this.
"Your religious freedoms don't extend to telling other people what they can or can't do. "
My religious freedoms place limits on what I can do. I should not be fired or jailed for my religious freedoms, which are Constitutionally protected. It would seem you like the Constitution when it can be used to invent "rights" out of thin air, but dislike it when those rights are clearly spelled out. That seems backwards.
"Oh, WHAT are you talking about? Yes, she DID! She denied several gay and lesbian couples their RIGHT to get married. Over and over!"
Nope, she never once forced them to believe in traditional marriage.
"Why should it bother me that someone who broke the law went to jail? What else do you expect?"
Thank you for admitting to me where you would have been when Dr. MLK, Jr went to jail. :-)
I asked him:
Ask yourself if you'd be supporting a Muslim county clerk in the United States who refused to issue a marriage certificate to a woman who wasn't wearing a hijab. If the answer is "no," then you're not fighting for religious freedom. Instead, you're a hypocrite and a bigot who is fighting for Christian privilege.
His response:
A better analogy would be this: Suppose the county clerk had to sign a marriage certificate that read "I spit on Allah and urinate on Mohammed." I would 100% support the Muslim declining that - and so would you. And that is what you are asking the Christian to do - sign a document that spits on Jesus.
"bigot"
Can't you hateful, intolerant, Christ-phobes come up with something new?!? Go burn down a church tonight like you did last night or vandalize Chik-Fil-A.
Me:
Are you seriously telling me that's a GOOD analogy? We're talking about a marriage license. It doesn't spit or urinate on anyone, it unites two people in love. If your religion teaches you that they are the same thing, no wonder there are so many people out there annoyed at you.
Him:
"Are you seriously telling me that's a GOOD analogy? "
Yes!
"It doesn't spit or urinate on anyone"
A gay "marriage" certificate spits on the Christian God, it spits on the Jewish God, and it spits on Allah - yes it does! #LogicWins :-)
"no wonder there are so many people out there annoyed at you."
Oh, they are more than "annoyed," Christ-phobe: they are foaming at the mouth rabid with death threats and praising the Gaystapo state police. :-)
And I ended here (for now):
"A gay "marriage" certificate spits on the Christian God, it spits on the Jewish God, and it spits on Allah - yes it does! #LogicWins :-)"
And where in the law are we bound by what hurts the feelings of the Christian or Jewish God? Logic - really? Once again you seem to make no distinction between what would be a law in your fundamentalist church and what is the law in a county court.
"Oh, they are more than "annoyed," Christ-phobe: they are foaming at the mouth rabid with death threats and praising the Gaystapo state police. :-)"
And there we have it. You are demanding a Christian theocracy where we are ruled by your narrow understanding of the Bible. What a shame the rest of us live in the real world.