Just lookin for good conversation, and fun times, and goofin off...and ...and...CHEESE!!!
Crash: Matt Walsh did a documentary on this, I'm sure most of you are aware, turns out no one could really give a definitive answer as to WHAT a "woman" actually was. Man, and Woman have really lost all their meaning.
So, when person "X" says they identify as a "woman" they aren't actually describing anything, as the term has lost all intrinsic meaning. It literally means "whatever you want it to mean."
One could be the most "masculine man" on the planet, beard , big muscles, etc....yet all that is required for him to "be a woman" is to CLAIM he is.....never changing ANYTHING about his physical appearance.
In that situation there is no actual difference between a "MAN" and a "WOMAN" as they both present EXACTLY the same. I'm sure ya'll can see why this is problematic.
It destroys the NEED to even USE those terms....as, essentially, they are both the same.
Honestly it kind of reminds me of the Borg from Star Trek, but in a weird way. Everyone seems to want to be SOOOOOO "special/different" to stand out in their own way....yet in doing so, they have literally DESTROYED the things that make us different....thus essentially making us all the same/interchangeable.....the Borg.
When ya'll take your emotions out of it, and think about it logically, you would come to this same conclusion.
Crash: Abortion is NOT "murder." Murder is a legal term, NOT a moral or philosophical term. Hence, if abortion is legal where it is being performed, it is literally, definitionally and demonstrably NOT "murder."
Crash: Theory: 50-60% of the "women" in the lesbian chat rooms are actually guys with fake accounts. So ....statistically speaking.....2 fellas...pretending to be girls....have a really good chance at talking to each other.
Just thought that was a bit funny.
C'est la vie!...Sugar
coolfiree: . there is a creator and you are still really bad at trying to convince me or anyone that there is not.jjust because you sit in front of your computer stating God is not real
doesn't make it so ! it proves nothing...so case closed!
Crash: //there is a creator//
That's a claim.....got any demonstrable evidence to back it up?
Furthermore, even if there WAS a "creator" It doesn't then follow that said "creator" is any supernatural entity....let alone a SPECIFIC supernatural entity. All your work is still ahead of you to demonstrate that.
//you are still really bad at trying to convince me or anyone that there is not.//
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.....that's your bag. I'm simply asking you and ppl like you to DEMONSTRATE your claims to be actually true.....not just SAY they are. So far.....you have failed to do this.
//jjust because you sit in front of your computer stating God is not real//
I have never said "god is not real." So...that's just a flat out lie. Thanks you for once again illustrating you're dishonest.
//it proves nothing..//
You know what ALSO proves nothing......claiming "god IS real." LOL
I do enjoy watching you constantly embarrass yourself little girl.
//so cased closed.//
Nope....case open. You claiming the "case is closed" and running from the conversation like the coward you are means nothing.
Good talk cupcake.
My new discord channel.
If anyone knows how to do discord....I would greatly appreciate the help!!!
Crash: The argument AGAINST design!
Have you ever thought about how “perfectly designed” the human body is? If you’re a theist, you probably have! And you’ve probably attributed the success of the human body to an intelligent creator. It’s an age-old argument, eyes for seeing, hands for grasping, it’s all so perfect it must have been created by a perfect being, right? Unfortunately, this perfect being must have preferred the Greenland Shark to the human being, because even in the supposed fallen world of animal death, this species has at least five times the natural human lifespan! If humans are the pinnacle of creation, then why are so many other animals BETTER designed than we are? In fact, if we presume an intelligent designer at all, then the human body in many ways isn’t just of lesser design quality – but it’s actually a poor design in general. Compare the so-called “designs” of some other species…
Eagles have the ability to fly (as do many other creatures in this world). Flight is a huge advantage in terms of survivability. The ability to traverse great distances in a relatively short amount of time is obvious considering our reliance on air travel these days. But just the ability to not fall to our death from a great height would seem to be a design component that you’d want to incorporate into your “greatest creation”.
How long does it take you to notice if there is a gas leak? What if you had the nose of your dog instead of your human nose? How much quicker would we be in detecting dangerous situations, or identifying helpful clues if we had a dog’s sense of smell? If you could detect chemicals (or cancer) or tell who has been in a room in the last 24 hours just my sniffing the air, that might be an ability that comes in quite handy.
What about your sense of hearing? What if we could hear frequencies high enough to warn us of seismic tremors much earlier than the earthquake hits? Or to use echolocation allowing us to navigate in complete darkness like bats? How about vision? The aforementioned eagle has eyes sharp enough to see fish swimming underwater from hundreds of feet above the air. Hummingbirds and bees can see ultraviolet light, while vipers can see in infrared. We can’t do any of that shit!
Have you ever choked while eating or drinking? Why is there a “wrong way” for food to do down? Maybe if our airway wasn’t shared at the terminus by our piehole we wouldn’t have that issue. Dolphins who have a blowhole on the back of their head don’t seem to have the choking problem that we do. That’s obviously a superior respiratory design compared to what we have. What about lizards can regenerate limbs? Why weren’t humans designed with that ability? Especially when accidental amputations, intentional amputations (cancer), and birth defects contribute to the loss of limbs which can never be replaced? How is that a good design? Oh, and why exactly are the “fun bits” collocated around the waste disposal area? What kind of idiot would intentionally design something that way other than for shits and giggles? (pun intended)
Some might argue that humans have compensated for most of these design flaws by utilizing our superior brain to take advantage of science and come up with inventions that allow us to match or surpass animals who have these abilities. After all, while we can’t run 60 miles per hour like a cheetah, we have cars that allow us to drive this speed to work every day. Airplanes allow us to fly, radar and sonar allows us to navigate in invisible conditions, and so-on. Some theists might be tempted to credit “God” for all of these things that we have today, but there’s a couple of major problems with this argument.
You see, necessity is the mother of invention! None of these things would have been needed but for our inability to do them naturally (due to our piss-poor design). Hey look, we have GPS so that we never get lost. Cool, but so does a fucking pigeon who can navigate by sensing magnetic fields! If God is to thank for all of the science and technology we are able to make use of today, then God is likewise to BLAME for the lack of all of these things in the majority of human civilizations throughout the history of mankind! God didn’t give us airplanes, cars, bionic limbs, or advanced technology. He certainly didn’t give any of that to the ancient Mayan or Egyptian civilizations. No - we gave that to ourselves! Humans discovered all of these things, after thousands of years of inquisitiveness, experimentation, and trial-and-error. And we had to figure all of that stuff out because “God” didn’t give us this shit in the first place!
If any god actually designed the human body (or any other animal’s body), then he designed it very poorly! And a poor design is an argument against “intelligent” design. If humans can come up with better designs than God, then why call him “God” or assert superior intelligence? God supposedly designed humans with wisdom teeth that they don’t need and foreskin that he wanted people to cut off. He also designed males to ejaculate regularly by the time they’re 13, and females to bleed regularly around the same time – yet simultaneously has rules against the natural biological act of coitus unless “married” – because…social/religious reasons? If any god designed these things this way on purpose, then he’s certainly not all “good”. So which one is it theists? Is he an evil trickster god having a laugh at our expense (like he does with the duckbilled platypus), or is he just an idiot who can’t properly design things?
None of the features exhibited in the animal kingdom are indicative of any “designer” (intelligent or otherwise). They are indicative of evolutionary adaptations that provided different survival advantages to different species living in a universe that is constantly trying to kill us! If the universe was actually “designed” intelligently, then astronauts wouldn’t need spacesuits to survive in space.
View all 5 posts
Crash: //One thing I have noticed about you over the years is that you are very determined to prove that God does not exist.//
Incorrect. I am asking theists to demonstrate that a "god" DOES exist. As this is their claim. Hence, the assume the burden of proof. I do not need to attempt to demonstrate something to be "not true" which has yet to be proven "true" in the first place.
//You also seem quite angry to me. I feel strongly you will deny this.//
LOL ....of course I'll deny I'm "angry." That is simply a common cop-out nonsensical assertion theists use to deflect from the argument. "Oh you're sooo angry....what happened that you hate god. blah blah blah."
That is nothing but a red herring / begging the question fallacy.
Ya'll cannot defend your assertions that a "god" exists....so you dishonestly attempt to switch the narrative to something completely irrelevant and fallacious.
It's transparent and sad.
BelgianStrider: That input is very interesting and quite correct.
Concerning the human eye, no engineer would conceive a (digital) camera as it is conceived for the human. The "software" needed to make all the necessary corrections will be too huge.
That is also a clear indication that I.D. can not be validated.
Crash: Why the argument from "design" FAILS!
Theist: "I have evidence of God. Just look at the order in the universe? Look at the trees! They are designed to clean the air. Look at birds! They are designed perfectly to fly. Look at the human eye, and compare it to a camera! Look at how complex it is; it's designed perfectly to allow for vision."
Any skeptic will invariably run into a theist offering similar logic for how things in nature are designed. They may even try to use the cliched (and many times debunked) watchmaker analogy.
Theist: "You can tell design just be looking at something. If you run into a watch on a sandy beach, you'll know it was designed just by looking at it! You can see the complexity, the order, the purpose."
What the theist usually doesn't realize when they make this argument is that cannibalizes itself because it presumes that one can distinguish between a designed thing and a non-designed, while at the same time beginning with a presupposition that there are no non-designed things! The argument destroys itself.
The next time someone tells you that something natural looks designed, ask them "what does a non-designed thing look like?" And when they inevitably fail to answer, that’s when both of you will realize the failure of their argument! 😉
The way we can tell that something looks designed is by contrasting it with that which occurs in nature. Rocks occur in nature; rocket ships do not. Sand occurs in nature; watches do not. Thus, we can presume that when we see these things, one is natural while the other is designed. But in a theistic worldview EVERYTHING "looks designed" because they begin with a presupposition that everything IS designed. Consequently, they have no frame of reference to distinguish between a designed thing and a non-designed thing. From that perspective, a rock would look just as "designed" as a rocket ship!
The other way the argument from design fails is that we can confirm design by demonstrating a designer. The designer of a watch for example can be demonstrated. We can see people designing and constructing watches. But theists cannot show any gods designing or constructing rocks. In fact, a god constructing a rock is the very thing they are trying to prove in the first place. But you don't prove that by showing us the rock, you prove that by showing us the rock-maker! If you can't show the rock-maker, then there is no reason for us to conclude that rocks had a maker, or that they are "designed" by anyone.
Crash: “God did X, Y, and Z for me” does not demonstrate evidence for a god. Not only does this fail as empirical evidence, but it doesn’t even count as anecdotal evidence, and therefore ought not be reasonably accepted as such.
The reasons for this are three:
1) Correlation does NOT imply causation. To reach a conclusion about a cause of something simply by observing an event is called a “post hoc ergo propter hoc” (this therefore that) fallacy! It occurs when people explain that a certain event happens because something else (which has not necessarily been demonstrated to be a cause, or even to exist) caused the event to happen.
2) The conclusion that God “did something” is based on an assumption that a god exists to do anything in the first place. If there is no god, then whatever happened cannot be explained by a god (something else must have been the cause). The fact that you don’t know what else could be the cause does not justify assuming that your presumption was the cause.
3) In order to demonstrate causation, one must conduct an experiment which establishes a link between the effect and the presumed cause. Even if a god existed, that doesn’t mean that any effect can be attributed to that god until the cause is tested, under specific controls, and yield repeatable and predictable results. That would give you the anecdotal evidence you need to reach a conclusion about a cause. When someone else using the same methods can independently validate the results, then it would graduate to empirical evidence.
Storytime: My cat “Crooks” has an automatic cat feeder that releases food twice a day. The first few times it went off while he was sitting next to it, it startled him and he jumped as a result. However he quickly realized that each time this happened food ended up in the dish. Now, when he gets hungry he has a habit of purposefully “jumping” next to the auto feeder, as if trying to trigger food to release. He has reasoned (in his cat brain) that because his jumping and the food being released occurred at the same time that his jump “caused” the food to come out. His reasoning is obviously flawed to us because as a cat he doesn’t understand how an automatic feeder actually works, we do! But in his mind he has “evidence” that jumping causes cat food to come out of the feeder.