Let us prey
Also, nuns totally put out.
When the dudes at the Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology blog aren’t wistfully looking forward to the days in which sexbots and artificial wombs make mere flesh-and-blood ladies obsolete, they’re pondering the crucial spiritual questions of our age, like how to pick up hot sluts at church. Any church, really, so long as it’s full of hot sluts. The blogger there – who doesn’t give his name, so let’s just call him Anti – recently highlighted this observation, from commenter The Fifth Horseman:
[C]hurch would be a great place for a PUA to run Game …
1) There is a built-in structure to meet women that takes out the difficulty of doing a cold approach.
2) All other men there are so pedestalizing, that the competition to a man who actually runs moderate Game is nil.
3) Sunday morning = where else would you Game at that time?
4) Once you have slept with a couple women in that church, simply move on to another church. Who cares if one is Baptist and the other is Episcopalian and the third is Lutheran? Just use up the desirable women and move on.
Jesus wept.
But Anti didn’t, and added his two cents to the discussion:
All you need to do to use the “Sunday Morning Nightclub” is find a church with single women. Some churches are pretty much all families so avoid them. Other churches are supertraditional where everyone gets married before 20. … I would also avoid Eastern Orthodox churches. …
When it comes to meeting the women there, you already have built in openers to use such as how “you have been looking for a church”. These women will put out for you. You aren’t going to find any virgins waiting for marriage (with the exception of a few outliers with very unusual issues). The women there are better described as “sluts for Jesus”.
Absolutely. All you need to do, fellas, is to approach them calmly and confidently, look quickly down at your crotch, then directly into their eyes, and ask them: “Would you like to meet … Little Jesus”
Verily, I say unto you, it works every time.
Posted on June 20, 2011, in antifeminism, misogyny, PUA, sex, sexy robot ladies, sluts, white knights. Bookmark the permalink. 488 Comments.
sallystrange: I have to say, from a significant study of religions, that you are wrong. I’d even go so far as to say it’s an article of faith, based on pattern matching, which doesn’t map to the evidence.
Are religions based on “faith”? Depends on the religion. Some are, some aren’t,
Do they, as a rule, happen to be based on lies, it teaches that it’s not only okay, it’s a positive character trait to believe in something for which there is no evidence, or even something that is actively contradicted by the evidence. ? No.
Are most of them about things which can’t be proven? Yes. Then again, so to is atheism (and no, I don’t hold that it’s a “religion”, I just hold that it’s based on the principle of assuming a negative has been proven; hense is a faith-based belief; as a matter of logic).
The measure of a person is the the things the person does. Are there sects of faiths which are hateful, scornful and foul? You betcha.
But the same is true of any group activity, be it baseball fans, feminists, or stamp collectors.
I will wager there are posters here, who are here; defending equality, because of their faith.
on a semi-related note… okay.. mostly un-related… has nebody else noticed that elephants are rly in lately? o_O Like in terms of necklaces, earrings, pendants… in stores that sell stuff to the teen-20 something crowd… I’ve seen it in Forever 21, I think H&M and accessory stores like Ardene and Claires… o_O Like every so often different things seem to pop up in these things… like hearts are always in, for a while angel wings was and that was awesome (for me) :3 But now it’s elephants which seems kinda weird to me xD
I guess it’s the elephant conspiracy/lobby/agenda at work xD
Elizabeth,
Yeah, I like the non-hierarchical approach of the Friends. I’d join them, if I wasn’t an atheist.
Pecunium,
It takes a while to get past the vow of celibacy, but I’m working on it.
Sally, I agree with Holly on this point. It’s not ok to harshly mock religions for the sake of their religiousosity. Some people do do terrible things (like mock elephants!) in the name of religion, but religion is not inherently bad. Nor can it be proven or disproven. And it’s something that very many people hold as very important parts of themselves. And that’s ok! It dosen’t make then better people, per say, but it dosen’t make them stupid, gullible or worse in any way.
And I’m not saying that religion is some scared elephant that we can’t critique or even make fun of, if we do it in a kind and thoughtful way, but it’s not inherently bad. And accepting people’s religious beliefs is part of accepting a person’s whole person.
And I am a true, blue agnostic who spends a lot of time wondering about the true nature of spirituality. The best answer I have is that the true answer is ultimately unknowable.
It wouldn’t surprise me if Slavey hated elephants; he seems like the type. His failure to address the Elephant Issue is really quite telling.
I think saying “there’s no God, because there’s no physical evidence for God” is a bit like saying “there’s no elephant in the living room, because I checked the bathroom carefully for elephants.”
That is, you can’t disprove a non-physical concept physically. (Can you disprove it non-physically? I really don’t know what that would entail.) You can prove that God did not create the world in six days, and you can prove that God did not part the Red Sea–but you cannot prove that God does not exist as a consciousness.
@ Tabby Lavalamp “Either there is a single god, multiple gods, or no god/s. They can’t all be real and true. ”
I actually don’t believe this. Because of the nature of spiritual and religious belief, I think what makes something true is a person’s belief in it. So multiple, contradictory theistic systems can coexist and still all be very true and valid.
I know it’s kind of a weird belief system, and it’s hard to explain to others, but it works very well for me. *shrugs*
OH MY GOD AMI WHY DO YOU HATE ELEPHANTS!?!?
I’m not trying to say that atheists are wrong and god must exist, understand. Only that we don’t–probably can’t–know who’s wrong and who’s right, and thus we should respect each other as fellow people who are probably wrong.
“I’m not trying to say that atheists are wrong and god must exist, understand. Only that we don’t–probably can’t–know who’s wrong and who’s right, and thus we should respect each other as fellow people who are probably wrong.”
QFT
@Sarah You think just b/c I’m a Giraffe Rights Activist (GRA) I hate Elephants!? Typical of you elephantists! Somebody doesn’t toe the company line and cares about the other species, and you flip out and accuse us of hate!
Point of Information: I (for reasons of fairness) am not considering myself in that wager. I suspect I am, in some ways, the most; and least, religious person here.
I considered taking orders; that is, I considered becoming a priest in the Roman Catholic Church, specifically a member of the Society of Jesus, more commonly known as the Jesuits. I suspect I would have been a good Jesuit, but I digress. For reasons of internal consistency I wasn’t able to move past consideration; I never even entered the preliminary phase (it’s called Formation, and lasts 3-10 years… the Jesuits are serious).
Why? Because of the Bull, “Ex cathedra; which says that, in matters of Doctrine, the Pope is infallible. (it doesn’t, as many misunderstand it, say that the Pope is never wrong on matters of faith, much less practice; it requires that he make s specific pronouncement. It has only been done once). I looked at it and (after a lot of thought) realised that being elected Pope doesn’t put the Holy Spirit on retainer. If I couldn’t vow to be obedient to that (even if it was never to be invoked in my lifetime), I couldn’t become a priest.
I am, in my way, still affiliated witht he RC, and disaffected, when I need the solace of The Mass (which is a joint exercise in shared meditation, at least for me) I attend Episcopal Services, and add the few phrases they leave out.
In the main I attend, when I just want some shared worship, Quaker meetings.
In general… I am more spiritual than religious. My fiancée is a Conservative Jew, who keeps a pretty Orthodox Kosher (her father is a Rabbi, and she attended Jewish Theological Seminary, and Columbia). I am a walking testimony to ecumenicalism (my former fiancée is a sincere Quaker, who spent 10 years with me, while I was still a soldier).
I’ve done a lot of study on religion. My housemate is an ordained minister, though not presently in practice (she is also a lawyer, not presently in practice).
Which is why the bleatings of NWO on the subject of the oppressions of his faith fall on rocky soil with me.
I’ve been called an idolator, a heretic. I know people who have been arrested for having religious beliefs in opposition to war, and nuclear weapons and in being in favor of civil rights (for blacks, hispanics and gays). I will have relatives who are missing chunks of their families, because they didn’t catch the right boat (one of my fiancées relatives was on the last boat out of their part of Poland in 1939… all of his friends were dead before 1944 rolled around).
Lots of evil has been done in the name of religions, but a lot more has just been done because people can be shits.
Feminist War Elephant 3G
Creature – Elephant
Trample
3/3
I respect individual religious people because I recognize that intelligent people can and do hold false beliefs, myself included.
But I don’t respect their beliefs, because they are obviously false. There are many beliefs in the world for which the evidence is not conclusive, but the existence of a deity as proposed by the world’s major religions and their “holy” books are not among them. And no, “you can’t prove a negative” is not a sufficient response. The set of things which MIGHT exist, but whose non-existence is unprovable, is quite literally infinite. I can’t prove god does not exist. I also can’t prove that leprechauns don’t exist. Then there’s the undefinable new-agey god/gods. Nobody can say what they really are, so it’s hard to take them seriously when they insist that I should consider the possibility that they really exist.
I also think that the religious tendency of holding up “faith,” that is, “belief in something for which there is no proof” as a virtue to be encouraged rather than a human flaw to be discouraged is extremely toxic.
If there were no people pushing religion in the government and in public, I probably would not be as outspoken as I am about religion. It should be like a hobby. Keep it to yourself, unless you’re at a meeting with your fellow hobbyists. It works well here, you see: all the people here who are nice wonderful people who are religious are still nice and wonderful, they’re just wrong about the whole god thing. It’s unusual to talk about it so normally everyone gets along, no problem.
CB: I know a fair number of atheistic folks who attend meetings. I even know a few Members who are (so far as I can tell) actually atheists. Quakerism is a big tent.
MRA Tactical Giraffe 3G
Creature – Giraffe
MRA Tactical Giraffe can block creatures with flying
1/5
MGTOW Crocodile Scouts 2G
Creature – Crocodile
First Strike
3/2
SallyStrange: You can’t prove there is no God.
That doesn’t make Pascal’s Wager right, and I agree with you that religion as a function of “public” (i.e. governmental) life is anathema.
But it’s not mockworthy just because you think it daft. Personally, I think Adult Babies are a bit daft. It makes no sense to me, and is objectively false. But they believe it. It works for them, and for some it’s a psychological need.
I would no more mock them than I would a Shintoist who tells me that if the rope which ties two rocks together fails, dire things will happen. It neither takes money from my pocket, nor imposes obligation on my life.
Deeds, not beliefs. It’s NWOs deeds which are risible, and his inability to understand the meanest of concepts which is deserving of mockery, not what he believes. It’s that he wishes to impose.
I’ll second what SallyStrange said. Also, if you have no evidence or support for your belief, it is irrational by definition. Valid beliefs are those supported by at least some evidence. Making whatever ridiculous ass claims you want (the world is 6000 years old, bats are birds) doesn’t suddenly become valid when the word religion is slapped on it. “Acting like your belief system is obviously and transparently the only real one…” Except you have just admitted it is, because every other position, Holly, by your definition, is not based on evidence, proof, or reason. You are trying to persuade us with the logical fallacy of special pleading here. If we are forming our belief in what is considered the best and proper way to form beliefs (based on evidence and reason), why should we make one single exception here for religious claims?
Though, as I have linked to Pharyngula, it should be obvious that I am pretty equal opportunity with mocking religion. The problem that comes up around Islam and Judaism is that instead of just critiquing religious beliefs or practices, racism, ethnocentricity, colonialism, and anti-immigrant sentiment get wrapped up in the mix and that many people apply a double standard (white Christian flies a plane into a building, he is assumed a lone radical, brown Muslim does it, not so much). Shit, I have seen people try to blame Islam for stuff done by the governments of some of the most heavily Christian majority nations in the world (newsflash ignoramuses, most of Subsaharan Africa is heavily Christian). I actually think “would you make a similar statement about a white christian doing the same behavior” is an excellent way to check if what you are saying is about religion rather than about race or nationality. I am pretty damned harsh towards all religion in general, but I have not once been called Islamaphobic or Anti-Semetic, because in general, all you need to do is not treat those groups differently for criticism than one would a white Christian to get by just fine.
SallyStrange – The set of things which MIGHT exist, but whose non-existence is unprovable, is quite literally infinite. I can’t prove god does not exist. I also can’t prove that leprechauns don’t exist.
Yeah. That’s the point. I haven’t ruled out leprechauns either, at least not with great “it’s so obvious it’s silly!” certainty.
I also think that the religious tendency of holding up “faith,” that is, “belief in something for which there is no proof” as a virtue to be encouraged rather than a human flaw to be discouraged is extremely toxic.
Belief in something contrary to proof–believing that two and two is five–is toxic. But belief in something subjective or unknowable–believing that two and two is poetry–is not.
I don’t like it when people try to apply religion to physical reality, by denying science or by trying to put their beliefs into laws. I don’t like it when people use religion to justify hatred. But neither of these things are inevitable parts of believing in something other than physical reality.
It’s, as I’ve been saying, okay not to believe in a God. But it’s not okay to act like it’s so super obvious that everyone else must be either stupid or lying. Some concepts of God are a lot more complicated than “I looked up and there wasn’t a big white beardy guy in the clouds, so I guess he doesn’t exist!”
Radical Feminist Beavers of War 4G
Creature – Beavers
Radical Feminist Beavers of War cannot be blocked by walls.
If you paid all of Radical Feminist Beavers of War’s casting cost with Green mana, put a +1/+1 token on Radical Feminist Beavers of War when it comes into play.
4/4
Atheists are everywhere — even in the pulpit!
“It’s NWOs deeds which are risible, and his inability to understand the meanest of concepts which is deserving of mockery, not what he believes.”
Aw crap. I find Subby’s beliefs pretty ridiculous too. And what that one guy believed about “Lolita” — that made me laugh for a good long while. Then again, I’m kind of a bad person.
Trans Feminist Platypus Peacekeeper 3G
Creature – Platypus
First Strike
Trans Feminist Platypus Peacekeeper cannot be the target of spells or effects
4/2
re Pharyngula: I like the posts. I can’t stand the comments. The level of reactionary vitriol, and casual abuse I see on them is (though in a different vein) reminiscent to me of the MRA comments sections. A fair number of posters are actively, even cruelly, hostile to those who aren’t atheists.
It’s a persistent subtext, and it’s expression there feels as offensive as the ways in which overtly religious sites abuse those who are atheists. As an inclusivist, it offends me.
Alright, Slavey. You’re making my life difficult here. Finding pictures of sexy nuns is as easy as finding pictures of sexy nurses or sexy Japanese schoolgirls. Protip: lots of people fetishize people in uniforms.
But doing a search for “sexy Jews” gives you lots of pictures of Natalie Portman and Andy Samberg and various other celebrities, not pictures of some sexy Jewish archetype. But after a bit of brainstorming, I came up with this:
“Hey, baby, I’d love to annex your territories!
And while I’m at it, paganism:
“Hey, girls, you want to dance around my pole?”
“Hey, pretty lady, let’s you and me get skyclad.”
Ami, I know you only gave the giraffe better stats than the elephant because you’re a rotten, bigoted GRA.
To me, it is painfully obvious that there is no such thing as the deities that are described in the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the Bhagavad-Gita, or any other religious text.
I don’t say, and haven’t said, that anyone who believes in them must be stupid or lying. I do believe that “stupid or lying” covers a lot of ground there, but that’s not all there is to it. Other alternatives include: “intelligent and lying,” and “intelligent and mistaken.”
Religion is, in my mind, a very toxic influence on society and the feelings of individual believers doesn’t mitigate the need to push back against this toxicity. In fact the very fact that people have been vocal about the way they see religion — i.e. as obviously false — is part of what has created the situation today, where it is possible to say that you don’t believe in god, and that’s okay. Because for a long time, it was totally NOT okay, and it’s still that way for a lot of people.
Christian privilege anyone?
Wait, wait, wait. Footslave’s been banned from The Spearhead? But, that means MRA’s are intolerant of dissent within their ranks. THAT’S UNPOSSIBLE!
(but it does explain why he spends so much time here.)
Bee: I find his beliefs more than a little ridiculous. If he didn’t espouse them as 1: Plain truth, and 2: Something we all know but refuse to admit and 3: pretend his non-answers refuted us… I’d ignore him.
I tried that for awhile, but his actions were just too much.
That, and his outright lying.
Dave, all I’m asking is that everyone admit that it’s “in” for a lack of better term to mock Christianity. No one every feels bad about putting down Christianity. Even the MSM. It’s accepted to be and OK thing to do.
@David has NGZ admitted that he’s Eoghan yet? Cuz he trolled up a storm on the post about Ozy and Holly’s posts xD
SallyStrange – I’m not Christian. I’m a culturally Jewish pantheist.
I think that any claim of a God who affects the physical world is subject to testing. If you say “God made the world 6000 years ago,” you’re going to have to explain a lot of old rocks. But if you say “God loves you,” what am I going to do–say it’s not true because he didn’t send a Valentine’s Day card?
I also think it’s important to remember that reality itself is subjective. All scientific, physical hard data still has to come to you through the filters of your senses and your mind. I don’t think this means it isn’t internally consistent–when I want to decide whether to cross the street, I trust my senses about the oncoming cars to tell me whether I’m about to sense a big whump–but internal consistency is not the same thing as absolute truth.
If I perceive the results of a rigorous scientific study with my subjective consciousness, and I perceive an awareness of the Divine with my subjective consciousness, deciding that only one of those is “real” is… more arbitrary than you’d like to admit, I think.
Again–not trying to prove any one religion is true, or even that any of them are. Only that it’s not obvious.
Dave, all I’m asking is that everyone admit that it’s “in” for a lack of better term to mock elephants. No one every feels bad about putting down elephants. Even the MSM. It’s accepted to be and OK thing to do.
Radical Feminist Elder 4GG
Creature – Radical Feminist
G: Regenerate Radical Feminist Elder
6/5
I second Sally’s suggestion that NWO try Pharyngula out. The troll policy there is similarto the one here: it isn’t “don’t feed the trolls,” it’s “feed them UNTIL THEY EXPLODE!”
Anyway, not wading into the atheism/believer war here…
…Ami, next Toronto meetup we should play your game. MagicBoobz: The Gathering?
SallyStrange: Not to be (overly) contentious but To me, it is painfully obvious that there is no such thing as the deities that are described in the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the Bhagavad-Gita, or any other religious text.
I don’t say, and haven’t said, that anyone who believes in them must be stupid or lying. I do believe that “stupid or lying” covers a lot of ground there, but that’s not all there is to it. Other alternatives include: “intelligent and lying,” and “intelligent and mistaken.” can, and has been said with the roles reversed (just insert the religion of choice for, “It’s painfully obvious that, (insert Diety here) is true” and carry on with the second graf, as is.
I’ve actually done a lot of arguing against the idea that one can “prove” anything as being “true” with a reference to a sacred text (this is, btw, perfectly consistent with being a jesuit). Brother Guy Conselmo (The Vatican Astronomer, or perhaps just one, I’ve never asked if he has coworkers) has argued the same things (and much more clearly than I, when it come to Cosmology).
Is there Privilege? Yes. Do I advocate against it? Yep. Do I understand why Atheists are as militant as many seem to be? Yep. They get treated terribly. They are giggled at, marginalised, lied about, said to be immoral; because without the fear of Hell(s) why wouldn’t they go out and kill people for fun, etc. It’s, in many ways (and more so about 10 years ago) to be a Muslim than an Atheist.
But you know what… I don’t go around mocking them because I think they are clueless either. Hillel would have said that was Morally wrong.
@Holly I know you’re going to dismiss this as “what about the giraffz?!?” but you do know that hatred of giraffes is what’s “in”. If an elephant escaped from a zoo, and rampage through a city, it would be seen as acting on its own, but if it were a giraffe, it’d be the fault of all giraffes!
Giraffes = bad. Elephants = good.
@Kristin Magyc: The Gendering
NWO – I agree that it is considered more okay, in general, to mock Christianity than other religions. I strongly suspect that this is because Christianity is the dominant religion in the US (and I imagine Canada and some of Europe, though I haven’t seen stats). With most Americans identifying as some type of Christian, it doesn’t have the same connotations as mocking a minority religion. Dare I say it…because of the power dynamic.
Re: Religion debate
I’m an atheist but not a passionate one. I don’t have a place for a god in my own belief structure, and I find myself very skeptical about a human-esque or personal god (it sounds too good to be true, and a bit anthropocentric).
But when you get into debates about the creation of the universe/why is there something and not nothing…it all gets very fuzzy. It seems like we basically have three options about the whole creation of the universe thing.
1) The casual universe was started by a agent outside of the causal universe (a god, for all intents and purposes)
2) Causation is infinite and had no start
3) Causation is an illusion.
I find all of those to be intuitively really wacky. And to set up a testable hypothesis a causal agent outside of the causal universe…how would you ever do that? If something is outside of the causal universe, it’s outside of the testable universe. So really, I don’t feel like I’m in a position to act like any kind of authority on the big questions like that.
Oh as far as the “theory” of evolution. That each generation “evolves.”
Well if thats the case the most evolved would be those creatures that reproduced the fastest. Kinda puts peeps at the bottom of the evolutionary ladder. Try a just a smidge of independent thought here folks.
A virus mutates, (evolves) so fast no one could ever have an immune system fast enough to resist any disease. If after millions of years of human “evolution” humans finally evolved an immune system to resist any particular virus, that virus would mutate in about a week to overcome our immune system. We wouldn’t stand a chance.
If the evolution of survival of the fittest were true, a living planet would never consist of more than a few viruses/plants, each competeing for “food” canabalizing each other and themselves until the planet was dead and devoid of all nourishment.
Nice theory, but it’s self defeating.
NWO: Asking us to admit it’s “in” to mock Christianity, when it’s not possible for people seeking public office to not be Christian without facing abuse (or if they are the wrong kind of Christian, look at Hunstman and Pawlenty), is sort of asking us to admit that 2+2 =22, or Vanilla is made from Mustard Seeds, and Gravity only works because the Earth gets in the way of the pressure of sunlight (at night it blocks the sunlight from getting to us, and pushing us into space, and in the day it’s underneath us and the sunlight shoves us into the ground. That’s why you feel so heavy on a hot day… all the extra pushing. In the winter you have to wear more clothes, because the sunlight is weaker, and you need the extra surface area to get enough pushing).
In short… you are, as usual, wrong.
David, think outside the box.
Uh oh NWO showed us xD You know what, you’re absolutely correct.
I think you should go http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ there and thwomp them w/ your amazing science knowledge xD
Ami, I’m completely with you, although the echo chamber here would tear us to shreds. They just don’t understand that the very nature of the elephant dictates discrimination, while the majestic giraffe – well, there’s a reason there’s something called a phallic symbol.
Men Going Their Own Way 0
Creature – Men’s Rights Activist
Trample
When Men Going Their Own Way comes into play, remove it from the game.
10/10
Okay, NWO: Re: Evolution.
You do not understand how evolution works at all. I do not have the energy to school you on it. Go to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ or some other site addressing creationist criticisms.
But a couple things, first (because I can’t help it):
1. “most evolved” is a meaningless term you will never see primary literature on evolution
2. Evolution is not goal-directed. Think of it simply as cause and effect.
3. The Immune System: Like the nervous system, the immune system is highly plastic. It “learns” from the pathogens it is exposed to. This is how vaccinations work. Virus mutates, immune systems produces new antibodies to match it.
Than ask youself Pecunium.
Would you “check” your language before mocking the Jewish or Islamic faith as oppossed to the Christian faith?
If so, you’ve been indoctrinated.
XD, Symbol of Ami RUWBG
Legendary Artifact
Each ability of XD, Symbol of Ami can only be used once per turn
RRR: Symbol of Ami deals 3 damage to target creature or player
UUU: Counter target spell
WWW: Prevent all damage from a single source
BBB: Destroy target creature
GGG: Target creature gains +3/+3 until end of turn
and…uhg
“If the evolution of survival of the fittest were true, a living planet would never consist of more than a few viruses/plants, each competeing for “food” canabalizing each other and themselves until the planet was dead and devoid of all nourishment.”
No…survival of one organism (or species) does not necessarily come at expense of another. Many species are actually mutalistic, or at the very least not greatly effected by the presence of another. Learn ecology and then we’ll talk.
NWO – A virus mutates, (evolves) so fast no one could ever have an immune system fast enough to resist any disease. If after millions of years of human “evolution” humans finally evolved an immune system to resist any particular virus, that virus would mutate in about a week to overcome our immune system. We wouldn’t stand a chance.
But viruses don’t “want” to kill people. (Viruses don’t want anything, of course, but take “want” to mean “are successful if they.”) Viruses only “want” to reproduce. And you can’t do that if you kill all your hosts. The most successful viruses are the ones that hardly make you sick at all–they get to breed and spread instead of killing off their food.
Not that this matters if you believe in creationism, anyway. God could create virulent viruses or not, just as he pleased. Trying to prove something non-physical with physical evidence is a wild goose chase.
I always liked what Terry Pratchett said about miracles: “Just because you know how it is done does not mean it is any less miraculous.” I guess today is my day to remember Pratchett quotes.
NWOslave – as opposed to the belief that man (and if we are to go by Genesis, then yes, man) was created in God’s image? It was a pretty sloppy job that God character did, giving people spines that aren’t perfectly set up for a bipedal lifestyle, and oh the appendix…
But I’m sorry, I just can’t take you seriously, even if you weren’t a young earth creationist.
NWO: Ah… the misunderstanding of evolution.
I see the “directional fallacy”
I see some confusion about how competition for resources works.
I see a failure to comprehend how systems deal with individuals.
Take the “viruses” mutate issue. Most viruses are lethal. That would be counter-survival. They manage to cause the host to reproduce them (they having no means of reproducing themselves).
That means they need the host to live long enough to pass them on. They also need a means to move from one host to the next. If they have a 100 percent lethality… they lose the ability to move from host to host.
We are all of us host to unknown viruses and bacteria, some of which can, when our immune system fails, make us sick. Some of those diseases are even capable of being lethal.
But, for the reason above, the lethality falls off rapidly. Or it runs in a cyclical pattern, lying dormant in a population until the number people who weren’t exposed is large enough to make it possible for rapid transmission. Then there is another die-off, and the disease goes dormant.
The portion of the population more resistant is also less likely to die, and therefore more likely to reproduce. They are likely to have more resistant offspring.
When a disease vulnerable population (esp. a “virgin” one) is exposed to new diseases, they tend to die off at rate much higer than the group which has had previous exposure. Europeans in the tropics suffer more from Yellow Fever, Dengue Fever, and I know not what all. Native Americans (and Autralians, and Polynesians) all suffered from European diseases. With exposure the remaining populations are closer to the populations for which those diseases were endemic.
It’s all a lot simpler than you make it out to be.
Sometimes I think NWO is actually Michael Coren, they share a lot of the same views (as you know Pecunium, from Coren’s whole thing about female soldiers and war) xDDD
NWO: Than ask youself Pecunium.
Would you “check” your language before mocking the Jewish or Islamic faith as oppossed to the Christian faith?
No. Next.
Bee, ha! I was just looking for a good Hindu one. Here’s the best I’ve got so far:
“Hey, girls, wanna come back to my place and rub colored powder on each other (as is done in the Hindu festival of Holi, which you are celebrating here)?”
(I felt I sort of needed to add a little exposition there.)
Also, elephants:
“Hey, sexy elephant lady, I’ve got some nuts for you. In my pants!”:
Also, um: do you believe in genes? DNA? The general principle that babies tend to look like their parents?
Then you don’t just have to “believe” in survival of the fittest, you can make it happen!
Buy a bunch of mice, white and black. Let them breed at random for a few generations–you’ll still have a mi of white ones and black ones. Then kill all the white mice. The next generation will be all black–the fittest ones in an environment where being white was lethal. (The fact that this “environment” consisted of human intervention is beside the point–predators or diseases or changes in the food supply can do the same sort of thing in nature.) You have just seen survival of the fittest.
Whether you think this goes back to the beginning of life is a bit more complicated, but survival of the fittest really is pretty obvious.
Also, that rock garden thing is … interesting.
What happens if someone farts?
theLaplaceDemon
When the theory of the laws of nature, are based on the theory of evolution, which is based on the theory of the big bang, which is based on the theory that the matter of the entire universe consisted of the size of a pea, which is based on the theory that that matter was somehow “there” and they’re working on a theory of what was before that.
Theories are being used to support theories. Pretty presumptious.
Ok…. I have to sharpen some knives and get to a client, I’ll be back later. Have fun.
Actually, evolution does not depend upon the Big Bang theory. A universe that came about in other ways could still have had life evolve in it.
Besides, to turn that argument back on you, where did God come from?
Any cosmology faces the problem of the first cause, not just natural ones.
Could be, Ami. Personally I think NWO is the bastard offspring of Henry Makow and Barbara Amiel.
(Canadian joke!)
Also “Majyc: The Gendering” is PERFECT. I don’t actually know how to play Magic, but I’m sure I’ll figure it out.
NWO, that doesn’t actually address anything I said.
Theory of evolution is based on observations of variation, genetics, and reproduction. Do Holly’s experiment, and you’ll see it in action. It’s not theory on top of theory, unless you count the existence of consistent natural law as a theory.
Maybe we should just post Coren videos and articles and talk about those xD It’d be the same thing.. but cheaper and not dependent on sleep and work schedules xD
Typical female thinking… replace a real man, w/ a recording, or some sort of synthetic replacement! xD Of course, the joke’s on me, Michael Coren is actually a real man too and he’s not just some creation on the screen! *gasp* but my little blonde female brain can’t understand that XDDD (actually who needs trolls at all when you’ve got me! :3 )
Haha, I’ll just wait for someone else to tell NWOSlave why he totally misunderstands the ACTUAL theory of evolution because I’m typing on my blackberry, about to board a plane. As far as I can tell noone who argues against evolution understands the basic principle of how it actually works.
Have a safe and good flight! :3
Not having to get up early on Sunday morning is the best part of being an atheist. That these guys are willing to inflict it on themselves when they don’t even follow the faith is proof of their madness.
Did you have to research that too?
Science is usually theories because we have no real way of knowing for sure sure.
I mean it is pretty obvious that gravity exists but how do we know know?
You mean you have not found the videos of the experiments on Youporn yet Cynickal?