Store up for yourselves treasures in Heaven
where moth and rust cannot destroy and thieves cannot break in and steal

Thursday, May 6, 2010

The 1.6% Solution

1.6% of the population of North America says that something can be true for one person but not for another person. They say that something might be right for one person but not for another.

1.6% of the North American population are angry relativists. A very strange breed indeed. They live by the creed that right and wrong are relative to the situation; to the likes and dislikes of the individual. But when they encounter what they deem to be intolerance (never thinking that that person’s intolerance might be right or true for h/her) they get angry - and intolerant.

People like Hugo say they don’t mind if Christians try to change how cultures operate - as long as it’s not THEIR culture that’s being changed.

These kind of people say that they are against all forms of censorship, as long as what’s being shown of written doesn’t have anything to do with what they think shouldn’t be shown or written.

These people will spend their entire lives with this kind of convoluted, self-defeated thinking. It’s how they are. Their entire belief system is illogical, absurd and incoherent.

13 comments:

  1. Hugo - Congrats on being mentioned by name in a blog post. Well done. I worship the internet you write on.

    ReplyDelete
  2. not every atheist is the same.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, I know. Some who are even more philosophically illiterate that most think that on atheism ultimate truth can exist. They think that on atheisism objective right and wrong can exist. It’s pathetic, I know. But some atheists think like that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. atheistsnackbarMay 6, 2010 at 6:45 PM

    Very arrogant Mak. What makes YOUR morals any more objective than anyone elses?

    I can't wait to rip apart your answer.

    ReplyDelete
  5. *************************************************
    how about I believe in WHATEVER I want - even in the FLYING SPAGHETTI
    MONSTER! - and you have nothing to say!
    *******************************************************************

    let me show you the end results of this particular *ONE-DIMENSIONAL SCIENTIFIC MODE*
    of thinking that is called *CRITICAL THINKING*, which is completely divorced from
    any human objectives...

    this style has been perfected by dawkins, pz, randi and the other *NEW ATHEISTS*
    **
    THE BOOBQUAKE - 911!
    ***
    hey, atheists don't even BELIEVE IN BOOBIES!!!
    they thought BOOBIES had no effect... WRONG!

    see, I just want to make it clear to the rest of you:
    jen is unable to see that there is a CONFLICT BETWEEN EROS & SCIENCE....

    http://www.blaghag.com/2010/04/in-name-of-science-i-offer-my-boobs.html

    http://www.blaghag.com/2010/04/quick-clarification-about-boobquake.html

    see how we take a term and convert it into its AUTHENTIC POLITICAL DIMENSION - THAT
    OF LIBERATION - not just merely harmless expression...

    Visit for the BOOBQUAKE:

    http://dissidentphilosophy.lifediscussion.net/philosophy-f1/the-boobquake-911-t1310.htm


    why do you waste your time with such nonsense as *atheism*? Who are you trying to convince of your delusion?


    turn to MARXISM...

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Very arrogant Mak. What makes YOUR morals any more objective than anyone elses?"

    The objective morals, values and obligations under which I live are exactly the same as the ones under which you and everyone else lives. How does that make me arrogant?

    These objective morals, values and obligations are unchanging. Neither time, nor culture, nor race nor any other qualifier changes them.

    Whether you or I adhere to them does not change their objective nature.

    Whether you or I agree with them does not change their objective nature.

    When someone does something wrong to you, you know that it's wrong and you know it absolutely.

    Yet, on atheism you have no basis other than an arbitrary notion, an opinion and nothing more upon which to say you were wronged. Atheists try to live in two different world-views which shouldn't surprise since atheism is illogical to the core.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If morality is a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct, do the objective morals of Christianity come from the Bible or from some other source? If it's from the Bible, who decides which rules in the Bible are to be followed and which rules really don't apply in today's culture?

    ReplyDelete
  8. 1.6% of the population of North America says that something can be true for one person but not for another person.

    That's NOT something I would say, so I guess I am not in that 1.6%...

    Remember what I said about the Missionaries? Whether or not their beliefs are true, what they do is good. Don't you get how you can apply this you that false statement you just made?

    The truth of something is independent of the believers. It's the complete opposite of what you just wrote here, on that blog post.

    They say that something might be right for one person but not for another.

    YES, because right is not the same as true!!! I cannot believe that after all these posts, we still have to clarify to you what words mean; while you're the one calling people slow of mind...

    1.6% of the North American population are angry relativists. A very strange breed indeed. They live by the creed that right and wrong are relative to the situation; to the likes and dislikes of the individual.

    That's what you do too... do you grab your Bible every single time you have to make an opinion about some morality question? No, you use you perception of the situation and judge it accordingly...
    We are all relativists; I don't know why you attach the label angry to it though!

    But when they encounter what they deem to be intolerance (never thinking that that person’s intolerance might be right or true for h/her) they get angry - and intolerant.

    Intolerance is when someone cannot stand another person simply because of what they are, regardless of if it's their choice or not. Someone can be intolerant against religious people, and that would be a discrimination against people who can choose to be religious or not. Other people are intolerant agains black people, because they are white themselves obviously, and cannot understand that black people are no less equal as them. Intolerance has nothing to do with believing in a god, or the existence of a god, or atheism, or Christianity, nothing like that...

    People like Hugo say they don’t mind if Christians try to change how cultures operate - as long as it’s not THEIR culture that’s being changed.

    Never said that... I don't mind if Christians do good; but what is good? We'll have to discuss it case by case. Do they waste their time when preaching Christianity? Yes of course, because it's false. But I don't care too much if it's just a part of what they do. If they help people, great!!

    These kind of people say that they are against all forms of censorship, as long as what’s being shown of written doesn’t have anything to do with what they think shouldn’t be shown or written.

    I think what you are writing here shows that you confuse censorship vs freedom of speech and what's to be taught in schools.

    Personally, being an atheist, (but I don't know what this have to do with what's coming, but whatever...)
    I think that censorship is bad, because anybody should be allowed to say anything to anybody, anytime.

    When Rod says "as long as what’s being shown o[r] written doesn’t have anything to do with what they think shouldn’t be shown or written"; what he implies is that we are all for free speech, except when it's against what we think.

    What he is doing here is projection. He thinks it's fine for people to speak their minds, but there are some people who are clearly wrong according to him. Some of these people are Atheists like me, who simply do not believe in his god, and are accused of being immoral and in favour of some selective freedom of speech.

    The reality is that some people like me, who do not believe in a god, think that it's fine for people to speak about what they think, always. The "but" comes when we talk about what's being taught to children, in schools. That's where we need to be sure that we teach them about what we all agree to be true.

    ReplyDelete
  9. These people will spend their entire lives with this kind of convoluted, self-defeated thinking. It’s how they are. Their entire belief system is illogical, absurd and incoherent.

    If only you could explain what that system is........ we don't even know what you are talking about, or what you are fighting against. What you show as being "Atheistic thinking" is nothing but what I think, and I am an atheist, I think... because I do not believe in your god at least....

    Seriously Rod, come on, you even quoted my name in that post, and you still, over and over again, write about what I think, but it is not what I think. Please, let me know, do you do it on purpose, just to make fun of me and other atheists over here? Or do you really try to write down what we think?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'll ask you again...

    What makes christian morals objective?

    ReplyDelete
  11. When someone does something wrong to you, you know that it's wrong and you know it absolutely.

    LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Still LOLing that Rod thinks that that makes morals objective.

    ReplyDelete