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.
So we should get some coats ready huh Cynickal?
Wow.
He said something… right.
It always drives me nuts when people talk about the biblical Jesus being a hoopy frood who would “hang around with sinners and prostitutes”. The whole bit where he allegedly (and that word is appropriate here because even believers have doubts about the passage being accurate) stopped the stoning of the adulterous woman gets quoted a lot for the “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”, but often by people who forgot that it finishes off with him telling the woman to “go and sin no more.”
I think Christianity painted itself into a corner of having to be universally applicable.
I mean, Athena didn’t really give a shit about the Chinese or Africans, as long as they left her temples and clergy alone. So you could totally do things Athena did not approve of, as long as you didn’t do it in her temple or to her clergy.
But with Christianity, you have this teaching of ‘Jesus died to save you from your sins!’ If you join, you have to admit you’re sinful. Or that Jesus only died to save a certain tribe’s sins (which, as I understand it, was an early form of Christianity – that Jesus died only to redeem the sins of the Jews, and everyone else was either S.O.L. or had to find their own Messiah). The only way for Christianity to ‘work’ is to argue that everyone is sinful and therefore everyone needs Jesus (and by extension, to give stuff to Jesus’ church).
On standards of proof: The null hypothesis when faced with a statement with no evidence on either side is a lack of belief or disbelief. So, for a statement X, the null hypothesis is to neither accept nor reject X. While doing this though, the person lacks a belief in X. When X is the existence of gods, that gets you to what is known as “weak” atheism (more traditionally known as “negative atheism” at times). Theism is not a statement of “I don’t know or believe either way”, it is an affirmitive statement that this statement “some god exists” is true. So, if we did have no evidence on either side, weak atheism is the rational belief, the null hypothesis. However, we in fact do have a ton of belief about religious claims, that every single time religions make a testable claim about a deity, it is wrong, that the claimed attributes and activities of these deities directly contradict what we do know about the universe, not the mention being self contradictory in definition at times. In addition, the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim, here, the theist, but we do not give them the high burden they try to give the person making the strong negative claim. Because, %100 proving a negative is impossible in an empiricist system and requires a proof of logical impossibility in a rationalist one, but we are not ask the theist to prove logical necessity of their claim (%100 certainty), we only ask them to prove with a preponderance of the evidence, a much weaker burden of proof. It is the same reason we do not force a murder defendent to prove that they did not murder someone, it is an unworkable system. Therefore, until the theist meets their burden of proof and demonstrates that any of their claims are true, the only rational belief is atheism. This is what I am talking about with “special pleading”. Theists generally do not apply the standards of proof they want us to apply in religious debates to other questions of fact and knowledge. The fact is that we have no good evidence for the claim “god exists” and lots of good evidence against it (the contradictory definitions, routine disproofs, etc.). Ditto for dualism. Atheism is, therefore, the only rational belief.
Now, there is a seperate question of how to properly deal with people’s irrational beliefs. People are free to have irrational beliefs up until the point where they interfere with others due to them. And everyone else is free to mock them. I knew a girl who believed in unicorns, I mocked her plenty, but I did not and would not attempt to jail her for it, for example. Religion though, is worse than those random weird beliefs, because it actively encourages not having to support one’s positions, which makes it super easy to build in arbitrary heirarchies and distinctions. No, religion isn’t the only source of that sort of bullshit, but it is a major one, and one that offers no social concrete benefits. But the fact that totalitarian or colonial systems can at times manage to mimic religious indoctrination does not prove religion is morally neutral anymore than demonstrating that there is more than one way to commit murder makes it okay to murder people with knives and guns. If you accept that atheist do not in fact commit more violence, and the countries with higher percentages of atheists are not on average any worse off, and you acknowledge the very real historical and ongoing damage religion has created, it is pretty hard to support the position that religion is worth keeping around. Unless you think that some theists are just too weak to learn alternative ways to deal with problems, which I think is crap. In some ways, it seems to me that harsher atheists in fact respect religious individuals more as people, because those accomodationist lines about how pathetic certain people are that they can’t be expected to deal with reality look far more insulting to me.
That is why I want to look into the early Church-I think that there was a reason and it had to do with the reasons for the persecution of the earliest believers which I have always wondered why were they persecuted?
Did they invite it because Jesus mentioned being persecuted?
There is so much I do not know.
@Victoria von Syrus
If you want to play the rhetorical question game, go all the way.
Is rape wrong? Is it a sin? How about murder?
Just because you say there wrong, who are you?
@Pecunium
You’ve given nothing but theories.
All over the world there are salt flats of which they supposedly date these salt flats at millions of years old. Unfortunately they keep finding bacteria fossils. A clear impossibility considering nothing can survive that long in salt. Ta boot they’ve identified the bacteria as around, you guessed it 6000 years old. They then come up with a new “theory” of how it got there.
Everytime one of these damn anamolies in anything pops up. Well they got a theory.
Heres the math on human population growth .4% a year. They know this. This is a fact. They trace it all the way back and the numbers work out perfect. Too perfect in fact. Because the numbers if ya actually go from the flood to now works out to about 7 billion peeps. If ya use the same math since lucy the number works out to be more peeps than the galaxy can hold shoulder to shoulder.
DNA, count the fucking dots. We know this and it’s discounted. They have a theory as to why it doesn’t match their theory.
Why is it every time something doesn’t fit the “theory” it’s either discounted or they have another “theory?”
The intersection of religion and morality is interesting to me. I didn’t grow up with religion, so it’s pretty obvious to me that you don’t need god to be a good person. But many people seem to believe otherwise. When I interrogate them about it, it turns out we share certain obvious basics, like not killing or stealing. But then they have another set of “morals” that really have nothing to do with hurting/helping others, but everything to do with reinforcing in-group loyalty. Examples: not taking the Lord’s name in vain, working on the Sabbath, covering women’s heads, etc.
Jonathan Haidt has an interesting TED talk on his findings about various types of moralities.
For some people, “loyalty to the group” and “respect for authority” are positive moral values. I don’t see them that way. I also see that religion exists in part to promote these values, and that these values were useful for human communities during the days of antiquity before we understood that we are all in this fucked-up world together and that everything we do affects everything else. Since we’ve discovered that we all share an ecosphere, though, it’s becoming increasingly clear that unless the “in-group” is defined as “all living beings”, these beliefs are going to end up being an obstacle to humanity’s long-term survival. And “respect for authority” — well, we all need to recognize that this is a value that is sometimes positive and sometimes negative, and that it can be easily exploited if relied on too heavily for social stability.
Gotta go, more later (maybe)…
That is called the scientific process NWOaf. It explains elephants-why do you persist in not admitting your problem with elephants?
“All over the world there are salt flats of which they supposedly date these salt flats at millions of years old. Unfortunately they keep finding bacteria fossils. A clear impossibility considering nothing can survive that long in salt. Ta boot they’ve identified the bacteria as around, you guessed it 6000 years old. They then come up with a new “theory” of how it got there.”
[citation needed]
“Heres the math on human population growth .4% a year. They know this. This is a fact. They trace it all the way back and the numbers work out perfect. Too perfect in fact. Because the numbers if ya actually go from the flood to now works out to about 7 billion peeps. If ya use the same math since lucy the number works out to be more peeps than the galaxy can hold shoulder to shoulder.”
[citation needed]
“DNA, count the fucking dots. We know this and it’s discounted. They have a theory as to why it doesn’t match their theory.”
[citation needed]
“Why is it every time something doesn’t fit the “theory” it’s either discounted or they have another “theory?””
When something doesn’t fit the theory the theory is often either modified or overturned entirely in favor of a better theory. This is how we get…better theories.
(why did I check back in…leaving for real now. *headdesk*)
The funny part is, scientists understand evolution much better than they do gravity.
Now you’re being silly, scientists are just indoctrinated and incapable of independent thinking.
engineers, on the other hand, are clear-eyed realists.
Oh, NWO, if brains were dynamite, you couldn’t even blow your nose.
@PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
I go by science, you don’t.
Science is my friend. You discount it when your theories are threatened.
You run from the truth, I don’t.
@PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth I have a trench coat, will that be enough? It’s a little greasy, and it in the back of my white windowless van, but it’s … uhm… ah… can we just pretend I didn’t say any of the above?
@theLaplaceDemon
What the fuck is the point of citations.
I give em all the time.
Yesterday clear proof of brain differences.
Discounted, didn’t fit liberal agenda.
Do your own research, maybe you’ll learn something.
SCIENCE!!!
(as I completely fail to understand it)
Also, too – Fuckin’ magnets! How do they work!?
Darksidecate said:
Then Slavey said this:
Darkside, you’re psychic! Oh wait no, you don’t need to be psychic to predict that Slavey will demand evidence for theories while simultaneously proposing more outrageous theories that have even less evidence to back them up.
Who knows this? Scientists. Which scientists? Oh, some scientists. It doesn’t matter. Slavey will accept and co-opt scientific authority when it suits him, and reject it as “farcical” when it doesn’t. He has no internal consistency, just like his chosen belief system. What’s amusing is that he seems to recognize, at least on a subliminal level, that internal consistency is a desirable thing to have if you want people to take you seriously. Which is why he looks to “scientific” “facts” to back up his completely anti-scientific viewpoint.
Why is it every time something doesn’t fit the “theory” it’s either discounted or they have another “theory?”
It’s the scientific method, dude. Science doesn’t mind being proven wrong. I mean, some scientists might take it personally if you publish a paper disproving their Grand Widget Theory, but eventually, if you’re right, or more right than the Grand Widget Theory, your theory will become the accepted standard. ‘Theory’ means ‘we don’t think we’re totally right, but this works within the models we’ve constructed.’
Things which cause harm are wrong. I believe that, because I am a human being, I have a right to bodily autonomy. Things which violate this autonomy – such as rape, assault and murder – are therefore wrong. If I have a right to bodily autonomy, then I must therefore accept that other human beings have the same right. I believe that I have the right to dictate the course of my own life. Because I am a human being who has this right, I must accept that other people also have this right. Things which are arbitrary obstacles to living my life as I wish (such as racism or sexism) are wrong and must be dismantled. That’s the basic core of my philosophy, but I already know you give less than two shits about it, and couldn’t come up with an intelligent response to it if you did.
“Why is it every time something doesn’t fit the “theory” it’s either discounted or they have another “theory?””
p-formerlyknown answered this one pretty well.
I would suspect all the redirects to Pharyngula are useless for Slaver. Look, if he’s been banned from Spearhead, how likely is it that he hasn’t been banned from PZ Myers’ joint?
Although he could still read it for the articles, I suppose.
Slaver is a cretin who is not incapable of understanding the actual definitions of scientific theory and evolution, but his circular self-referential worldview is dependent on his MIS-understanding them….
Okay based on NWOaf’s last post, I think he is actually a group of people either as posters or people living inside his head.
If it is the latter, I am very sorry about whatever trauma you suffered to cause your personality to split like that. 🙁
If it is the former, try talking to one another once in a while-your fellow NWOaf told us all yesterday or the day before that science is a farce. So no takesies backsies.
Also, science allows for modification of theories as needed-so if you start with the hypothesis that NWOaf is one person, you change as his behavior changes show that he is in fact a group of people with two new theories that he is either a multiple personality sufferer or a group of people with one faux internet identity.
Haha, now I’m psychic!
Do you have fuzzy ears Cynickal? Heehee…
Yesterday clear proof of brain differences.
Today, clear proof of poor grammar and writing skills.
I post at Pharyngula on the regular, for a couple of years now, and I’m fairly confident that no one similar to Slavey has been thrown in the dungeon during that time. There is a dungeon roll, though: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/plonk.php
You can check it if you like. I’d seriously enjoy seeing Slavey torn apart by the Horde there. They’d have a field day with him. The designated name for trolls as uneducated and ignorant as Slavey is “chewtoy.” Meaning we chew on trolls like him to keep our teeth sharp. It’s fun, AND you learn a lot about evolution and scientific theory in the process.
That is why I think that NWOaf is either a person with multiple personalities or a group of people (men) who are not communicating very well.
Guys! I go to the grocery store and find, like, a hundred billion comments to catch up on. Geeze!
Argh! This is something that drives me nuts! The word, theory, in scientific parlance means something different then in the vernacular. A scientific theory is something that has a lot of evidence to back it up! A hypothesis has insufficient evidence. To become a theory it must be tests many times, by independent people. And THEN we have a theory! Yay! Science!
And, Slavie! I only have a high school education. I work as a cashier. So, yeah. My ivory tower. Nice and strong, to keep me away from the unwashed giraffes.
Now tell me please, Slavie, why do you hate elephants so much? All of this hate mongering is really getting to me! Did one trample on your mother?
@Sally: “But, I will point out again that Christianity, like pretty much every other religion in the world, sets up obstacles to people realizing that they are holding false beliefs, by teaching them that it’s a positive virtue to resist examining your beliefs and asking whether there’s any physical evidence to back them up.”
Not all religions and spirituality encourage a lack of introspection and examining your own thoughts. And it’s sadly ignorant of you to espouse otherwise.
“All protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, all scientific evidence so far points to a universe which is not dualist, that is, there is no “non-physical” aspect to reality. This is really all there is.”
I’m really, really not sure how physical science can prove or disprove this.
@Ami: I think your Magyc: The Gendering cards are hilarious.
And that Buddhist zen garden thing was really creepy.