Atheists, Fundimentalists: Two sides of the same coin.

This is a record of my first debate with an atheist after basically coming to the conclusion that there must be something outside reality that “breathes fire into equations and makes a universe for them to describe”.



This all came about as a result of a post I made (contained below) that was critical of the emerging trend for atheists to be just as annoying, dismissive, closed minded, and dare I say it even bigoted as the frothing fundamentalists they claim to despise.



Over time I have come to the conclusion that atheists of the modern American variety at least and possibly all from the modern era, and similarly modern fundamentalists, are two sides of the same coin and have come to define each other in a sort of self referencing polarizing recursion loop.



Or put more simply they merely look across the street and do the opposite of whatever the other guy is doing at the time. As an outsider I find this seriously amusing and can't help but hate the banal futility of it. And so with that concept in mind here was my response to a blog about some atheist being hassled by a door-to-door, and talking shit about him, quite inarticulately I might add.



I grow weary of the smugness of neo-atheists thinking they are clever for reposting ancient points of logic and evidence against a crowd that simply doesn't care. Coming up with these points may be clever, but really, with the nature of the Internet its not so clever to point this shit out anymore. The whole thing unless you're speaking from behind a press conference table or are doing it in your spare time between real acts of contribution smack of intellectual masturbation since you cant talk someone out of faith, and that only leaves people who already agree with you.



So without further delay here it is.

My post.

Atheists are just as much dickheads, just in a completely different way.



There is room for faith. What force enforces the physical law?



There may not be a catholic god or a personal god, and Jesus is obviously total bunk, but there is definitely something, and since whatever that something is keeps the universe and my brain running, it has my respect.



All this atheism shit is intellectual masturbation. Either people will figure it out on their own or they won't, other wise you're talking to a wall, or preaching to the choir. (pun intended)



A 5 year old knows there's no omnipotent all knowing all loving god, and a 12 year old can formulate the logical traps to prove it.

The ancient Greeks covered this back before god was a single entity.

You're not clever anymore. Get over yourselves and go do AI research or something if you wanna use your brain to help humanity.



Odds are the lot of you are as banal and worthless as the typical church goer.



Edit:

Parallaxblue made a good comment, which I hope he wont mind me reposting publicly.

"Some atheists may be as "banal and worthless as the typical church

goer", but at least they're not totally deluded... unlike most church

goers. =)"



To which I Reply.



Actually that's my point, they are. In that they think they have reality all figured out.



Sure they admit to ignorance of the details, which they secretly consider minor, but generally, they think they have a "good bead on things".



Theists are no different, they admit to ignorance of god's day to day activities but generally they think they too have a good picture of how reality works.



This confidence that internal limits equal external limits, and that perception equals reality, could just as easily be a delusion, that realization is pretty much what gave birth to Buddhism's fetish for emptiness.

Parallaxblue



I think you have to look at the underlying evidence supporting those beliefs, don't you? On one hand, we have atheists, who generally point to countless scientific theories supported by the available evidence. On the other hand, we have theists.. who usually point to an extremely old book written by men.. or they don't cite any evidence at all.



I think this sums it up quite nicely: http://stupidevilbastard.com/Images2/sciencevsfaith.png



Let me rephrase my initial comment: Some atheists may be as "banal and worthless as the typical church goer", but at least they don't rely on blind faith to support their beliefs... unlike most church goers.



And before you fall back on your belief that SOMETHING must have created the universe etc etc, whether it be God or Allah or whichever divine being you care to name, I should point out that that argument itself



1. cannot be proven or disproven,

2. there is no evidence to support it in any case,

3.to borrow from a book of mine, "it is a philosophical error enunciated by Shelley: 'We can only infer from effects causes exactly adequate to those effects.' The notion that God [or in your case, SOMEBODY/SOMETHING] produced evolution or the big bang (an unwitting reversion to the "clockmaker" analogy of eighteenth-century Deism) is supernumerary: since evolution and the big bang are themselves sufficient to explain the phenomena at hand, the addition of God becomes, logically, otiose."

You misunderstand completely and you've hidden that misunderstanding quite well.



I of course grant that atheists are more likely to have it right because of their reliance on evidence, but I only grant that because of past experience, and a level of faith in the fact that said experience is both real and a good indicator of the future. My point is that they reject exterior options as non existent merely because acceptance of them would invalidate their life's position, which is exactly the same as a theist reaction to scientific conclusions.



You misunderstand science in this context. It depends on the physical constants both being enforced and remaining constant. But what force does this? What ever it is, it cannot be described by science, by definition what else could it be then but supernatural or put another way outside nature?



Science is a description for what is, it can only answer 'how'.



Religion and philosophy answer 'why' and evidence does not come into play, as why is a purely subjective assessment. You can't prove a why, you can merely infer it strongly.



Our existence is proof that we exist, even if we are a causal, you may safely proceed to the second point. Physical law itself is proof.



No technology can alter the laws of physics themselves because they are based upon those laws. And since the laws don't change there can never be both an experimental and control group. Because even if you find a way to suspend the laws in a given area that technique would merely be included into our understanding or description of physical law. You cannot change the rules, you can merely work with and or around them.

From http://friendlyatheist.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/34UnconvincingArgumentsforGod.pdf



"Any physical 'law' is merely an observed regularity. It's not something handed down by a celestial tribunal. According to physics and astronomy professor Victor Stenger: 'It is commonly believed that the laws of physics lie outside physics. They are thought to be either imposed from outside the universe or built into its logical structure. Recent physics disputes this. The basic laws of physics are mathematical statements that have the form they do in an attempt to describe reality in an objective way. The laws of physics are just what they would be expected to be if they came from nothing.'"

Recent physics disputes this.

BS. I keep up with contemporary physics.

Any physical 'law' is merely an observed regularity

Yes a regularity that we have never seen a single variance of EVER. Regularity is defined by occasional irregularity to provide contrast, the laws of physics to our knowledge have never changed, if one did even slightly it would invalidate the entire concept of experimentation. Physical law is absolute.



That refutation of the point is sophist meandering crap and is just as silly and self serving as aged creation.



You draw a false dilemma fallacy from me, you keep trying to imply what I believe. Don't link me to atheist crap I've read it all probably before you did. I've been on the net since I was 16 and I've been an theist since I was about 12 and I grew up in the bible belt. Attacking faith was my chief activity as a teen.



But I got past it because there are questions no experimentation can answer. Godel has shown us that modeling the universe completely is not possible without including states that are both true and unprovable.



You need to read GEB, and something other than the oh so catchy atheist pages, which amount to choir preaching and as I said before intellectual masturbation.



The laws of physics cannot be changed or studied form inside them, that's basic logic.

The laws of physics are just what they would be expected to be if they came from nothing."

There is no basis to make that statement other than vested interest, and twisting facts to fit theory. One cannot have "nothing" in the lab and then inject new physical law into it. There is no experimental set for that sort of claim, it boils down to opinion and faith.



But it's ok, you'll get it eventually.



I'm done, if you want to continue challenge me on debate.com, you alone are not worth my time and I don't feel like turning our conversation up to this point into a public post.



At which point he responded. So rather than waste my time arguing with one person, I decided to make it a blog post since I don't think I've had cause to write about this topic yet. And hey PB, disproven isn't a word, It should be I agree, but it isn't.

"Yes a regularity that we have never seen a single variance of EVER. Regularity is defined by occasional irregularity to provide contrast, the laws of physics to our knowledge have never changed, if one did even slightly it would invalidate the entire concept of experimentation. Physical law is absolute."



As I just got through pointing out to you, physical laws are mathematical statements that humans have created, based on all human observations thus far. In essence, they are THEORIES about how the universe operates. If new evidence surfaces that contradicts them, it does not invalidate experimentation at all. Quite to the contrary... Did you even look at the flowchart I sent you?



http://stupidevilbastard.com/Images2/sciencevsfaith.png



Start from "Discover new evidence". Thus, the laws of physics are definitely NOT absolute, inasmuch as they are theories that fit the observed evidence so far. They can and in all probability will be revised in the future.



Thus, the laws of physics are definitely NOT absolute, inasmuch as they are theories that fit the observed evidence so far.

God does not play dice. I'm not talking about our written interpretation of those laws, I'm talking about the physical realities we model them after. Like atheists are so found of pointing out reality is that which when you stop believing in it remains. Electron is just a word and a concept I grasp that but it's also a descriptor that matches a physical reality. That physical reality doesn't change, something prevents that change, something forces it to exist.



You say an object moves because you've applied force to it but what is force? Force is just a word for a reality. Do you understand? Here's how I thought about it as a child. I would squeeze my thumb and finger together. What keeps my finger from passing through my thumb? So I looked it up in the library before there were search engines. I know the classical answer, electrostatic repulsion or the like. But what enforces that behavior? What makes electrons and such behave as they do?



What ever that is, effectively cannot be anything but a god. Even if you go the route of claiming that the laws support themselves in some sort of bootstrap paradox, that merely avoids the question and brings up a better one, why does existence exist? Or again as hawking stated, “Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?” And I don't mean in the 'first place', since I grasp the concept of acausality, I'm saying at all, at any point. And again whatever that answer is, must be godlike by inescapable logic. Regardless of its nature, even if I'm a simulation in a jar, or a dream, whatever is in a position to tap on the glass, or wake up from me, compared to me, is godlike.



It's really quite simple. So simple in fact that I missed it for a couple of decades.

Which brings me to your other point. Just because we have never seen a single variance of these physical laws, does not mean that there is no variance. Sadly, the absence of evidence does not equal proof.

Actually absence of evidence is evidence of absence that's actually a key requirement of the atheist position.

Indeed, it is very likely that there is a variance somewhere in the universe, as Earth is only a tiny speck in the universe. Our sphere of experimentation and observation is thus quite limited.

But you tried to use physics as a refutation of my point, which is it? Are physics reliable or not? Is our understanding reliable or not? If so, then as above. If not, then argument is futile and everything boils down to faith. You've painted yourself into a corner somewhat on that one.

"'The laws of physics are just what they would be expected to be if they came from nothing.'

There is no basis to make that statement other than vested interest, and twisting facts to fit theory. One cannot have 'nothing' in the lab and then inject new physical law into it. There is no experimental set for that sort of claim, it boils down to opinion and faith."

What that statement means is that it does not matter if you assume that there is a God or assume that there isn't, it is irrelevant in regards to the laws of physics. As I pointed out earlier:



"The notion that God produced evolution or the big bang [or, say, the laws of physics?] is supernumerary: since evolution and the big bang [and the laws of physics] are themselves sufficient to explain the phenomena at hand, the addition of God becomes, logically, otiose."

The big bang is not sufficient, the big bang is a predictive singularity, there is no physical reason for it or way to explain why it occurred or explain what existed before, if anything. As I said before I understand acausality, but my position stands as a matter of logic. Even if the big bang is merely a part of cyclic eternal loop, why does the loop bother existing? That is a question science, experimentation, and all forms of observation cannot answer.



And that's why we need (non institutional) religion (and science). Not to tell us what to eat or who to kill, but to help us answer for ourselves the greatest question of all, the mother of science.



Why?



And to share our answers with each other. Hopefully with our eyes open and in peace. The trouble begins when science pretends to know why or religion pretends to know how.



This is the real meaning of Einstein's statement. “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” - Albert Einstein

So we are indeed down to opinion and faith here. A divine being's hand in evolution, the big bang, etc etc. can be neither proven nor disproven, but so far there is no evidence to support it. And as lack of evidence does not equal proof, there is only probability.

I covered that above, lack of evidence is evidence of absence. The existence of existence is proof of my position. Like a person standing in front of you is proof they didn't explode last week.

Even if scientific truth is not quite as definitive as it was thought to be in the nineteenth century, some things are still far more likely to be true than others; religion is not one of them.

I'm not saying that because I can observe reality that one must therefor not eat pork, and Jesus was a white guy rather than a parable anthropomorphizing the procession of the equinoxes. I'm saying that there are questions beyond the scope of science to answer. And to reject that fact derived form evidence, is faith. I've just demonstrated the contrary. As did Godel and a thousand others in various ways.



And that's pretty much where Cryptarianism (the name I've given to my world view) comes from. :)

"Actually absence of evidence is evidence of absence that's actually a key requirement of the atheist position."



Ironically, the Wikipedia article you linked in your post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) says the argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. So no, it can't be used. Believers aren't the only ones to use common logical fallacies to back up their arguments.

Clearly you've not been paying attention. The fact that it is a logical fallacy was and is preciously my point. Since you totally misunderstood the wiki article, which I admit is a bit esoteric, I'll provide you with pretty much the same point, only explained from a probability theory perspective.



*links below*



The pertinent bits being...



“But in probability theory, absence of evidence is always evidence of absence. “



Since you brought up probability, this is particularly shattering to your main argument.



Further...



“...it is futile to trumpet the absence of a weakly permitted observation when many strong positive observations have already been recorded. But if there are no positive observations at all, it is time to worry; hence the Fermi Paradox.”



Hence you argument, that the laws of physics are probably unstable despite them having been stable for the entire history of science, falls apart as it is a fallacy much like the creationist argument of fossil gaps bring proof of God.

"But you tried to use physics as a refutation of my point, which is it? Are physics reliable or not? Is our understanding reliable or not? If so, then as above. If not, then argument is futile and everything boils down to faith. You've painted yourself into a corner somewhat on that one."



I guess you missed it, but -- I was attempting to point out that the laws of physics as currently formulated are really nothing more than theories describing how the universe works, from the experimentation and observation that we have been able to perform thus far. So far, yes, they are reliable. However, in the future, we may find that there are variances to the laws of physics. In that case, the laws will simply have to be modified to explain the variances, or reformulated altogether. That is the scientific method. In any case, they are definitely not absolute.

Are you intentionally ignoring the fact that I'm referring to the actuality of physical law and not our descriptors of it? How many more ways can I state my position? Obviously, our understanding and description of how an electron behaves changes with experimentation and time, but the actuality of that behavior does not. In fact it must not, or else the building of understanding via evidence and observation becomes impossible.

"As I said before I understand acausality, but my position stands as a matter of logic. Even if the big bang is merely a part of cyclic eternal loop, why does the loop bother existing? That is a question science, experimentation, and all forms of observation cannot answer."



Do you see the flaw in your logic there? You say you understand acausality, and I take that to mean you both understand and agree that not everything has to have a cause. That includes the loop itself, does it not? :) Thus, our argument is over: the loop does not have to have a cause to exist if you accept acausality.

No it doesn't because it's outside itself. You're basically arguing set theory. A set may be acausal, but my question is why are we here to observe the set? Why are sets in existence? To say that sets spawn themselves is a loop and boils down to a turtles all the way down argument. Look at the duality of existence and non existence. You act like reality is a blank sheet of paper on which events are drawn, I'm saying there is no answer we can prove to the question of why is there paper and a desk to begin with. It is generally granted that prior to the big bang space and time as we know it (or perhaps at all) did not exist. The question science cannot answer is why did this event occur?



Analogy: A child receives the plans for a time machine from a strange man along with a coded message. He decodes the message and finds that the strange man was himself and he is instructed to build a time machine and take the plans back to himself as a child along with the coded message.



The time machine is acausal, in that it has no definite starting point. However, the question remains, where did the time machine come from? There is no way to answer that from within the loop. Reality is exactly like this.

If you do NOT accept acausality, you must then take the position that some being had to create the universe etc. This is known as the First Cause Argument. An objection to it is simply who created the creator? and so on, and so forth. Creators ad infinitum. Quite a problem!

Now we arrive at the false dilemma again. I'm well aware of the First Cause Argument, and it is fallacious precisely because it is used as a stipulation of unrelated things. I am making no such stipulations. In fact I'll grant that perhaps physics as we know it in some way spawned this thing, but my point is, regardless of it's origin, it is our origin and we cannot understand it from where we are. I am not saying there are turtles all the way down, I'm merely saying we are clearly standing on something other then ourselves, even if what we are standing on is the result of ourselves. You straw man me by claiming that I claim a personal intelligent creator that cares who I sleep with, or what I eat on Sundays. I am not.



I am not saying that because this thing is unknowable, it must be anything other than unknowable.



I understand why you're not seeing this. And explaining it to you will help me explain it to others. What we're dealing with here is the 'living embodiment' if you will, of the incompleteness theorem. Since reality must be a complete set, it must therefor contain statements which are both true and unprovable(via experimentation or otherwise.) Its supports are one example, perhaps the only example, of such a statement(see link below). You must grant the existence of such things or you grant the incompleteness of reality itself which would be a paradox.



That unprovable truth, that physical underpinning to physical law itself, is the only room left for something in my opinion that it worthy of outright worship. In much the same way the ancient people's worshiped the sun, not out of fear, but out of reverence. I marvel at the mystery of it. And speaking as a scientist and a philosopher I am quite pleased that I've found a problem that I know I (nor anyone else bound by physical law) can never solve.

The only way you can get out of the dilemma of infinite creators is to argue that the creator itself is not subject to the rules of cause and effect, or any other rule in the universe. Very convenient for you, no? Unfortunately, that leads us right back to a simple question of faith: is there a creator who is not subject to the rules of the universe? You say yes, I say no. And we are at a stalemate.

Your fetish for it not A then B statements rivals my own. But again, I must cry straw man. I am not putting the choice to you: A. Reality popped (banged?) into existence without cause. Or B. A creator not subject to any laws willed it.



I'm offering up a third option, which is the source of my religion. A synthesis of the two. C. We can never know what enforces the laws and/or spawned our universe. Think of it as a sort of cosmological militant (strong?) agnosticism. I don't know where existence came from and neither do you.



Your claim of understanding from a perspective where it is impossible to gain that understanding, is as arrogant as the one made by creationists. You create a theory to fit the facts, just as fundamentalists do, you claim it to be flawless, just as fundamentalists do. The one and only difference is they lie about changing their theory up from time to time, you boldly admit your change and claim that because you change yours it is therefor correct.



This is not a wash. This simple, (but not easy) deduction.



http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/absence-of-evid.html



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything#With_reference_to_G.C3.B6del.27s_incompleteness_theorem

**Pastes of previous points removed due to redundancy.**

But you previously claimed that whatever force created and enforces those laws must be godlike, correct? Do you or do you not believe in some supreme being or force that created/enforces these laws and the universe? Are you going back on your own argument? Which I believe was the following:

**Pastes of previous points removed due to redundancy.**

Correct. Yes I do. No I'm not. But I must clarify. By being I meant merely “thing which is” or BE-ing. I do not pretend to have any knowledge of it beyond its existence/presence.

If you claim some godlike force created/enforces these laws and the entire universe, you are arguing for a supreme being based on the fact that we don't know for sure what caused the universe to come into being and what holds the universe together via the laws of nature.

No, but close. I argue based on the fact that we cannot know at all what caused the universe to come into being or what holds the universe together under any circumstances which are real and so long as logic remains constant.

I'll readily admit I don't know and neither does anyone else.

Good then answer me this. Do you have any reason other than faith to assume that we'll ever know?

But to then leap to the conclusion that a supreme being must have created/done it just because we lack any other explanation than "it just happened" is the time immemorial knee-jerk reaction that humans have always fallen prey to.

I've provided another explanation. A dualistic equation. I imagine the universe as a yin yang effectively. Our side is definable, stable, consistent, visible, and all the other traits associated with what we call reality. But it has inherent limits that even we can detect, and we're just microbes effectively. This is not a new cosmology, I don't pretend special knowledge. I'm merely saying that I know there must be something outside, or at least the universe has gone to great lengths to make it appear that way. I grant that it may have “just happened” but the question remains “Why?”. And Why cannot be answered ever via experimentation evidence or observation. It can only be answered via faith. You try to claim stalemate, or offer draw, and I appreciate the gesture, and normally would accept, but you've not even acknowledged my point, much less refuted it, and while that may be a failing that is ultimately my fault due to poor expression, it is a failing non the less.

The answer is out there, but I think we're not sufficiently advanced enough in our understanding of the universe to see or understand it just yet; perhaps we never will, as I also think there are definite limitations to our intelligence: We may not even be able to grasp the answer with our limited intellect.

Which suggests a sort of weak cosmological agnosticism. My position is that there is strong evidence that we can never know it, which in terms of my formal response is basically the incompleteness theorem and a general supposition that existence in and of itself is sufficient to prove some things. Which is of course up for debate thanks to solipsism and cognitive problems such as proof of exterior thought, and what is the nature of proof in the first place.

To conclude, then, your answer to the question of why existence bothers existing is "there must be some sort of force who did it!" (which, by the way, still locks you into the ad infinitum creators problem,) and my answer is that "it just happened" via the big bang. After all, not everything needs a cause.

That smacks mainly to me of the same sort of logical hoops theists jump through. “not everything needs a cause” is an axiom, and I'll point out, an unprovable one. Put another way what I think you are saying is not anything in existence needs a cause. Is that fair? Because my point is precisely that everything taken as a single whole, does need a cause even if that cause is itself. Which again merely catapults us firmly into Why country.

Especially the existence of the universe, because if you think about it there must have been some sort of "base" that depended on nothing but itself.

That's what I meant earlier by blank sheet of paper, it doesn't have to be that way, I don't want us to get stuck in a loop so I'll just say scroll up heheh. Think of it this way, what would an intelligent character in a video game be able to infer about our world? Almost nothing beyond the fact that there was something out there. That's pretty much where we stand. Will you grant that perhaps you are not seeing my point as a result of some sort of cognitive limitation? To make you feel better I'll even frame that limitation in flattering terms. Perhaps you don't understand because you're sane and therefor cannot understand?

I say that was the big bang. Religious people say it was God. In any case, we are back to opinion and faith once more. You have not really proved anything, and neither have I.

Nope, because my position is a positive assertion of a negative reality. You claim A they claim B, I make no claim, save that all claims in this context are unprovable and will remain so as long as our universe in this form exists. Which in and of itself is a strange loop.

I know that you look at faith with disgust because of the radical misuses of it. As well you should. Faith should not be used in place of reason. However, the reverse is also true. Reason in some instances is also inappropriate and applied to the wrong places and turn mathematics into numerology, and astronomy into astrology, and cosmology into a creation myth.

Science answers How, based on evidence. Religion answers Why, based on faith.

Both are integral to understanding. Both are crippled if taken as totalities.

P.S. I'm enjoying this immensely, I would never have been able to clarify my position so completely without someone else to ask the right questions or make the correct counter claims. I need the 'opposition' for lack of a better word, to be complete. Which is why I debate at all. It is an effort to know myself through others.

Thank you for your time and effort. :)

So, you are stating here that some entity does exist.

Yes but 'entity' has misleading connotations. I have no reason to think it takes action, is sentient, or is even connected to our physical system. Think of it as an event outside the universe, a secondary physical system. I know you desperately want me to give it a white beard but as much as you want that to be the case given how easy that position is to destroy, it isn't the case and I wish you'd quit trying.

But here, you are stating that we cannot know at all. Thus implying that you do not know whether or not some entity exists.

So which is it? Are you arguing that some entity does exist, or are you arguing that we cannot know at all? Later on, I think you clarify that "we cannot know at all" by suggesting faith as the only method to answer "why".

By ”know” I sometimes mean definitively and absolutely prove, which is why Godel is relevant. Sorry for the confusion, my vocabulary has limits just like the universe, and I refuse to qualify everything I say. The evidence can only be circumstantial. Much like a black hole and other indirectly observable phenomena.

If you argue that there is some entity that brought the universe into being etc. you are still caught in the ad infinitum creators dilemma.

Only if you demand a linear interpretation and claim to understand the physics and logic of this outside area, which you have no reason to do. As I've said the only thing I can know about it is that it is there. There is nothing else, which is why 99.999...% of organized religion is conjecture or outright lies.

On the other hand, if you argue that we cannot know at all, I respond that yes, there is a possibility that we may never know.. but that there is also a possibility that we will know, through future science.

No there isn't. See Godel. You are expressing faith in the face of reason. Which is my entire point.

Science has answered many unanswerable questions before this, and it will answer many more. Thus there is a possibility at least that it will answer "why" as well.

I'm sure you believe that, but you have no evidence. Why is a personal subjective. What are are claiming is akin to saying that some day science will be able to prove which color is best. Or claiming that there will be a technology one day capable of building square circles.

Here we get to the heart of your argument and the clarification I mentioned earlier:

Let's take apart your argument and examine it, then.

First of all, in your initial assumption that we cannot ever know, you seem to be leaping to conclusions about our future ability to answer "why" based on our present capabilities. At the present time, no.. we cannot answer "why". In the future.. there is a possibility that we will be able to. But you cannot take our present inability to answer "why" and assume that will always be the case. That is rather unrealistic in light of what science has accomplished so far.

See above.

For the sake of argument, let's assume your initial assumption, that we cannot ever know "why". In that case, you are correct: faith offers the only answer because it requires no evidence (and evidence for "why" is what we would not ever have.)

But the problem is, as I've pointed out, your initial assumption: that we will never be able to know by any other method. It is faulty because it seems to be based on extrapolating our current inability to answer "why" to the future as well. That is an unrealistic assumption to make, and furthermore, it is destructive to science and the pursuit of knowledge, which has flourished as a result of asking "why" even if it seems no one can find an answer. As I pointed out before, many such supposedly unanswerable questions have been answered throughout history using science and the scientific method.

Godel, square circles, see above. There are limits. The idea that your science has no limit is as childish as saying your god is all powerful. Which is basically an extension of 'my dad can beat up your dad', and its silly to me.

And so, we are again back to opinion and faith. I have "faith", if it can be called that, in science.. which has answered many supposedly unanswerable questions in human history; and you have faith in some unknowable entity who created the universe. In which case, who was its creator? ad infinitum etc etc etc. and the only solution to that ALSO requires faith.

No, I have reason to believe as I do, you don't. You are making property assumptions about the outside of reality, which is the intellectual equivalent of attempting to predict past a singularity.

By the way, I don't think you can cite Gödel's incompleteness theorem to prove that we can never know, because apparently it does have limitations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorem#Limitations_of__G.C3.B6del.27s_theorems

In particular: "The conclusions of Gödel's theorems only hold for the formal systems that satisfy the necessary hypotheses (which have not been fully described in this article)."

That's exactly like saying evolution is just a theory and therefor cannot be cited as evidence. Of course it has limits. Everything does except perhaps the application of limits. :) ...like the statement “There is an exception to every rule except this one.” That's a huge part of my primary point.

You'll notice I didn't answer many of your points in this post. Take that how you will. I'm tried of repeating myself. I am not trying to convince you but merely answer general questions about my view publicly. I've answered your points in previous statements but you refuse to apply those answers, or put another way you're simply not convinced so you merely repeat yourself.

I will not participate in a loop with you. If you fail to present new arguments this will mark the end of our exchange.

“A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” - Max Planck

Thank you for your help in forming this paper. If I am not going to edit the body of this post further I will inform you so that you may comment if you wish, I just wont be responding to old data.

---

I think you forgot to add in:



"One can trivially define a formal system in which it is possible to prove the existence of God, simply by having the existence of God stated as an axiom. (This is unlikely to be viewed by atheists as a convincing proof, however.)

No, I've just covered it before, like I said. The phrase “as an axiom” merely means taking it as a given truth rather than deducing it from evidence which goes right back to faith vs evidence and contributes to the argument, not one whit.

I've read every square centimeter of infidels.org. You keep pasting things at me like I'm some mind wiped door to door propaganda zombie that's just going to foam at the mouth and head asplode at the sight of logic. My entire point was that both groups are zombies as your deaf parroting of other's work amply shows.

It may be possible to succeed in producing a formal system built on axioms that both atheists and theists agree with. It may then be possible to show that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem holds for that system.

That's is as ridiculous as saying it make be able to craft a square circle so long as the laws of geometry can be placated. Institutionalized religion, and misunderstanding in general are caused in part by language's ability to express absurd contradictory concepts and have them appear reasonable at first glance. This is the nature of deception. 'Oh look a square without corners!' Just because you can say it doesn't mean it is so. Look up infidels page on ontological argument for a bit of data about just saying something to make it real.

However, that would still not demonstrate that it is impossible to prove that God exists within the system.

I say this with all possible respect but the previous sentence is literally non-sense to me. Isn't that a double negative? What is being argued here? That one ca prove god exists within the previously stated imposable system? Well, yea. But that's hardly a point since its the third floor on a building with no foundation.

Furthermore, it certainly wouldn't tell us anything about whether it is possible to prove the existence of God generally.

Still building castles in the sky, with the foundation of the argument shattered all subsequent points are meaningless. I don't feel its needed to even comment, but my reasoning for doing so will become clear shortly, Biff.

Note also that all of these hypothetical formal systems tell us nothing about the actual existence of God; the formal systems are just abstractions."

That's, as I said before, like saying evolution is just a theory. Every event in observable reality can be represented by numbers. Godel's work tells us something about the nature of numbers, and thus reality, which again is an argument I already explained. Once again, as small as I can make it.

I claim that math is like reality. Godel shows that math must contain unprovable statements if it is complete. Now, since math can be either complete or incomplete, because we made it, and are still making it, then yes, the argument that 'its just an abstraction' can hold. However, reality is complete, so there's no option, it must contain statements that are unprovable. Therefor the 'its just an abstraction' argument falls apart, since we're not talking about an abstraction. Now you may claim “Godel could be wrong, math might not be like reality.” and you may be right but that boils down again to a matter of faith. Which once again, for the cheap seats... Was My Entire Point From The Very Beginning.

From http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/arguments.html#godel



That is part of my argument. Add it in and provide a rebuttal to it or I will most certainly call you out on it in public.

No body calls me chicken, I better hurry up and do as I'm told to prove how manly I am.... *snicker* God forbid (pun intended) I should be 'called out in public' ...on the blog I've taken great pains to spread as far and wide as I possibly can. :P

But semi-seriously, the nation of Brandon does not negotiate with terrorists. I will here after no longer respond like Marty McFly, to what amounts to cries of 'chicken'.

I consider the matter closed, I've crushed your points of logic and presented my faith in opposition to yours. Any further argument would be akin to an “enterprise vs the death star” debate. ...I've clearly stated that the enterprise would win, and that's that. :)

Let history judge us both.

You may comment at your leisure. I will no longer be responding. The last word, is most likely yours.

From pedophilia to free speech in 5 petitions flat.

Archive of conversation stemming from this Stumbleupon review.

-------------------

So I'm a fascist for wanting this site of the net?

No you’re a fascist for wanting ideas that are damaging to the state to be illegal to talk about.

I really don't think so. Pedophilia is illegal, and endorsement of it is too.

So is drug use, I don’t see your petition to delete high times. Besides since when does legality dictate ethics? Have you personally decided that pedophilia is wrong, or are you letting the government do it for you? Is pedophilia a choice? Is homosexuality? It was illegal for a long time as well you know. You’re simply not being rational. You’re waving a torch and looking for a witch.

If pedophilia is not a legitimate sexual difference, then its merely mental illness, and should be censored about as much as pages about Elvis being an alien. Your reaction justifies their position. You've given the page FAR more attention than it would have otherwise and aided them in the enlistment of support they otherwise never would have had, like from people like me. You made it a free speech issue when you dragged in censorship. You've helped them more than they ever could have. Your desire for control has caused you to lose it.

You've become this guy.

I really don't understand how can you equate pedophilia with spanking.(I'm agaunst that too as you already know.)

That’s because you’re ignorant. I’d normally be happy to enlighten you, but if you don’t already know, I have my doubts about if you’re even capable. And since you don’t understand the spirit of free speech or the political and social reality of limiting it, how can I possibly expect you to understand equal protection under the law which is a far more esoteric concept, and is at the very heart of the spanking debate.

I agree that there are other horrible things that can befall children and this is one of them.

Some guy writing a page talking about something is a horrible thing happening to them? That's unimaginably insulting to all the children who actually have had horrible things happen to them. You think I made up the Ritalin thing?

This is a simple issue of a content being illegal.

No, it’s an issue of what’s right. This is where your fascism comes into play. Illegal is simply something the state does not want you to do, and now you want it ok to be illegal to even TALK about illegal things, that's fascist. Protesting can be disturbing the peace, outing misconduct of your leaders can be a threat to national security, treating your cancer with marijuana can be possession of narcotics. Legality is irrelevant.

They're not just thinking about having sex with children and no one wants them for a hate crime, they are actively promoting pedophilia.

Innocent until proven guilty doesn’t apply to sexual deviants eh? The only thing that page proves is that someone made a page that advocates an unpopular position. And as I said in my review, you don’t even know the intention of the author for sure, much less the crimes, if any, this mysterious ‘they’ you speak of, may or may not have committed.

As you know, open invitations to violence and illegal conduct are not protected by Freedom of speech.

Again, Fascism. Defense of the state is not why we have freedom of speech. We have freedom of speech because it’s a concession we implicitly force them to give us. IE, in exchange for their tolerance of whatever we have to say, we let them rule us.

Your position that simply because something is illegal it cannot be promoted is absurd. Look at the law, things that are currently illegal are promoted daily, it’s called lobbying and it’s a main point of the legislative process. But before that can begin you must talk about it. And the internet is the best tool for that ever built.

You’re straw manning their position. Sexual law and what defines an adult changes from state to state, and indeed from person to person if you ask me. Effectively what they’re advocating is civil rights issue. While I agree that their reasoning is detestable, again, I say, as American sentient humans they have the right to do so and if you don’t like it you can make a page of your own explaining it and no one (should) will censor you for it.

To ask the government to fight that battle for you is weak, disgusting, and dangerous.Are you so afraid of their view that you think it must be buried?

Face it, you’ve been taken in by hate mongering. And a fox news style vision of what free expression means.

---------

I don't recall giving you the liberty to publish parts of our private correspondence.

Heh, I don't recall asking, I'll publish what I please, if you don't like it petition me to be censored.

Nevertheless, you are mistaken. Calling me ignorant and fascist is not making your claims any more valid.

No it doesn't, hence the detailed logic I backed my claims up with that does. You apparently ignored those parts, I guess some people are equipped with internal censorship.

I am abhorred that you would equate homosexuality with pedophilia. Where one is a relation between two consenting adults, the other is ALWAYS abuse.

Why? Both are genetically driven sexual aberrations of dynamic social tolerance, no more a choice for the host than eye color. Pedophilia is no more a guarantee of child abuse than being heterosexual guarantee's you'll rape coeds. The only difference is pedophilia have an extremely limited outlet for their desire, since assholes like you make even drawings stories and fiction on the subject illegal dude to your delicate sensibility.

You're blinded by the ego boost of howling for blood with the crowd. You think yourself above animal hate, and that ignorance is dangerous. You're like the bigot trying to justify hatred with crime statistics.

Besides, it's circular. Of course its always abuse, you invalidate their consent by claiming that a child is not a person and can therefor not give consent. But the fact is, some children are smarter and wiser than some adults will ever be. Judging adulthood by chronological distance from birth is outmoded, lazy, and boils down to age discrimination. Don't pretend that consent is the issue. You simply want to make decisions for others. I sympathize believe me, but my freedom depends on their freedom and you're smart enough to recognize that. You're simply being an armchair hero, defending the poor innocent little princess doll baby in your mind from the big bad evil barbed cock monsters drolling and jerking off at her window in big black hats. It's intellectual masturbation pure and simple.

Some guy writing a page talking about something is a horrible thing happening to them? That's unimaginably insulting to all the children who actually have had horrible things happen to them.

I wasn't talking about that site per se; but about pedophilia in general.

But you're attacking the site using arguments that only apply to child rape. You've deliberately mixed your target to distract from the fact that your point is hopelessly flawed. You attack someone's free speech and then try to paint their speech as child rape when the point is speech is not rape, even if it's about, or in support of rape.

In short-- we have a site that promotes and glorifies not only illegal but morally unacceptable and violent, abusive behavior. The site needs to go down.

Others would disagree, and they have as much right as you do to speak, hence the 1^st amendment. The Internet is not Disney. And you simply don't have the right to demand that the world think as you do. Your rights end where other's begin, fail to grasp that at your own peril.

Aren't we all that guy?

No. Some of us fight for others, even when they are wrong in our opinion.

------

I'll be reporting you to StumbleUpon for TOS violation.



I don't need to "petition" you for anything.



Since our debate is a waste of time I will be blocking you now.

Good luck, since I didn't use your name. And I didn't mean petition me genius, I meant petition the government via your ineffectual little petition site. And the debate itself was not a waste of time, attempting to convince you personally of anything, is the waste of time.



Thank you for playing and admitting defeat gracefully :)

Wasted Opportunity: (name withheld by polite request)

This post is the first in a series that will archive my conversations with those whom I feel are wasting a golden opportunity to reach people, and instead spend it on self centered, futile and shallow pursuits.



Our first subject is a very attractive young lady, who for that reason and others has amassed nearly 1000 fans on the stumbleupon social networking site.



You'll notice that while I speak of society and ideas they will speak of me personally, this is a theme that will repeat itself I'm sure.



Her blog is one of a very common type, well formatted and very appealing to look at, that has a variety of font sizes and colors, something that's somewhat difficult to do on stumble without third party tools, or basic html skills.



And while I of course grant that everyone has the freedom to do as they wish so long as that action harms no one, I must express my distaste for those who have the power to help, but feel that aesthetically pleasing is sufficient.



Our conversation is on going and she still may prove me wrong... but here's what we have so far...



-----

My initial review.



As much as I love Klassy and feel physical pain in attacking someone she likes, I must speak out on yet another lifted art, poetry, lyrics, pretty girl with a thousand fans, blog.



It's so cheap!



Man I wish doing something productive for your species was as popular as selling this idea that we're justified in the pain and horror we cause, because some of us know how to smear dyes on canvas, string together meaningless emotional words, or sing.



I'm sorry, but I've just gotta say it. Artistic skill in a world where people still starve to death is decadent, wasteful, snobbish, and disgusting. And as a writer I recognize that I am equally useless. But at least i realize it, and try to do something for the rest of my species. At least what I write at least tries to be helpful, in the here and now practical sense.



If I had a 15th the following these people have I could have solved the power problem by now and laid the foundation for a colony on mars.



This inability to prioritize is what's going to kill us.

-----



Our resulting conversation, which starts at the bottom...

Innomen

3:53pm No, you came around, you stopped being all insulting and started to actually answer my claim.



:)



Thanks for post permission. I'll still leave your face and name out. If you grow proud of your words someday let me know, and I'll restore your identity :)

---

3:41pm Cute picture, but it doesn't really go with the aesthetics whore persona....



You can post what you want, of course.



You're coming around. See? I knew you would.



Art is the emanation that most closely approximately the spirit (I forget where that comes from, but it sounds like Plato, no? I suppose everything does). You just make me want to post Joan Baez singing All My Trials with a big field of wildflowers. :)

---

Innomen

3:19pm Well I removed overt identifiers, you're words are now anonymous, which makes me think of the following. I still want to post the ideas. If I have to I'll just remove your half of the conversation and make a huge gripe about the following link, and the absurdity of 'owning' data.



How far does this privacy of yours extend? I severely dislike this idea of you having rights over my memories.



anyway...



http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2004/20040319h.jpg

---

7:39am Taking PMs (private | personal messages) and posting them on the internet does violate a set of mores. I see you've added my name and avatar. I wish you wouldn't do that. I didn't give you permission to do that, and since I will not have a job in 10 weeks, I'd like to be able to get one without my name coming up in search engines in that matter.



I still strongly disgree with your posting personal messages, but what does having my name and avatar on your blogspot account do for you?



Your call, of course.

---

Innomen

Feb 22, 9:13pm P.S. i discovered that cat poster. I too hate the circus. Animals are not tools. I'd prefer to not require any external life to survive, but until the technology gets there we have no choice, which relates to my demand for purpose.

---

Innomen

Feb 22, 9:05pm I'm deeply worried about Klassy. She's possibly the most serene individual I've encountered. Whatever is hurting her must be atrociously bad. She's far stronger than I, and I can take a lot. Frankly if I could harm whatever harms her I would, with conviction. But knowing her, she would not approve.



Your experiment seems to be somewhat flawed as I'm sure people will still know what you look like, but, the attempt is a good thing. At least you're beginning to examine the impact your looks have on the reception of your work. Awareness all around was and is my goal.



Art without function is just noise, to me. Music is beautiful because it is an abstraction based on reality, and thus is a tool for pattern recognition, but logic is even more beautiful for the same reason, just like diagnostics and painting. Art gave birth to science, but to hold onto it now while dropping the rest is like burning books. We must move forward, no matter how much we loved the past.



"I don't believe that I would have the fan count that I have if I had the sort of blog you wish I had. "



I'm inclined to agree. And that is deeply sad. But, if you were to use that fan base to get something of practical value, anything, out there something people need to hear but cant get from conventional sources, something they wouldn't normally see without knowing where to look, something you feel passionately about that affects ALL humans, the ends in this context would justify the means, perhaps.



I think you've come to understand what I'm about, or at least have found what I wanted to hear.



"I still think you just like to hit pretty girls to get their attention. "



Yes, so that they will get everyone else's. You are the highest caste, and the most powerful organisms on the planet. You have have a profound responsibility as a result. But because of that unassailable position, you have the options of doing nothing and resting easy that you will only be harassed for your inaction by malcontents and outcasts such as myself.



My blog post and review will be pulled if you wish, as they have served their purpose. But I would very much like your permission to post the rest of it. In any case good luck on your experiment, I hope you learn something that you value.

---

Feb 22, 8:17pm I changed my avatar for the day. Poet girl will be back. I am conducting a little poorly-framed experiment to see if the response is to the blog or the avatar. If it's to the avatar, I won't have to work so hard.



I pulled the review because a) it seemed silly to get upset about the review of someone I don't know who only read one page of mine before writing it and b) arguing in public is unseemly.



Luce told me she wrote to you about the review but she misunderstood. She thought you were reviewing Klassy. Something bad happened to Klassy a few days ago and a scathing review would not be timely. She's planning to leave SU anyway, but I am hoping it will pass.



I disagree with you about what my blog should be, but not with your values. I did consider it. I don't believe that I would have the fan count that I have if I had the sort of blog you wish I had. But we have different views on art. There's no separate word for "art" in most African languages, a functionality that I agree with.



The princes would rather talk to me than to you, I am sure.



I still think you just like to hit pretty girls to get their attention. I'm not going to change my blog, at least not much. But I was going to use this as a cat of the day but of course, now I can't. After awhile, perhaps.

---

Innomen

Feb 22, 8:00pm Valid point on the surface, but I'm aware of her other projects and identities. She spends a great deal of time on the education of people regarding various issues of social importance. Or at least she did the last time I spoke to her with any regularity.



And once again for the record if that were the case with you a simple link would have been sufficient.



But really, even in the best case for you, would it matter?



Her actions don't impact yours in this context.



I see you changed your avatar photo, and pulled your review. Trying to make my comments appear nonsensical, or are you actually thinking about what I said, or some third option I'm unaware of?



P.S. The first of your defenders cropped up almost immediately. Interestingly enough it's a female with precisely the same sort of blog and fan count as you.



Frankly didn't expect that. I expected princes not other princesses :)

---

Feb 22, 7:42pm Socially responsible like this mutual friend of yours? http://morgaine.stumbleupon.com/



So I guess I don't understand why you object to my blog and not to hers.

---

Innomen

Feb 21, 5:56pm I went over the links you posted in your review of me. (which will never be removed BTW)



And just for the record, my opinion stands. Wanting the world to be better and writing poetry do not constitute useful action.



I mean really, are free backgrounds going to change the world? Hell, even if they did, you didn't make them.



And seriously, is a poem next to a painting, supposed to prove you aren't using your looks to shamelessly self promote?



Ask yourself, are you angry because I'm insane or because I have a point. If i am insane, what does it matter everyone will know the truth right? I mean I'm obviously wrong aren't i? Or can people be fooled? Will they begin to agree with me even if I am wrong.



Ultimately, does it even matter?



If what you say is true you should not be angry because we're both trying our level best to help humanity, aren't we?

---

Innomen

5:41pm Dear Pot,



You chose to live in poverty? Doubtful. You consider your child a burden? Doubtful. Did they pay you for this work? Probably. Would have taken a better job had it come around? One would hope so.



Pretty low to use your offspring as a bargaining chip in an Internet debate. Gotta love the ever played kid card. I just love how people treat children as property and act like they're justified, no wonder the bulk of us turn out to be such monstrous adults. I guess the implication is the usual, right? That I have to agree with you, who are wonderful for having children, and if not I must therefor hate children?



That's usually how people want it to work when they play the kid card. Just trying to illustrate the absurdity of your claim.



And, no it's not enough, not by a long shot. Hard times and doing what you have to do to survive is not a charitable act. Caring for your own children is something you're supposed to do by default, and in fact are extremely lucky to even have the opportunity to do so. Ask anyone who's lost a child. Grow some perspective.



I find it very interesting that you have this attitude of 'I do good because I failed to do evil' given that you worked in drug rehabilitation, which regularly applauds and rewards people for beating addiction. While I agree that beating addiction is a hard and worthy thing, I'd like to ask, where is my reward for never having been addicted?



Worth is the presence of something not the absence of it.



As a human with a mind I may pass judgment on whatever I please, as you do. Intelligence is judgment. The difference between us is that I recognize this as a human right we both have, where as you wish it to be yours alone. What makes you think you are anymore worthy? I know the answer, growing up a pretty female in America. It spoiled you. And yes you're still spoiled to me, because you have an aristocratic view of your own worth. I don't care how hard your adult life turned out, clearly you didn't learn anything from it.



In fact one could argue that you are double responsible to help the impoverished since you claim to ave been one yourself. Or do you subscribe to the Horatio Alger tough-love myth of life in America, where the poor are so because they are lazy and deserve it, and therefor just beating poverty some how absolved you of the responsibilities I claim we all posses?



Morality is simply a system of dogmatically inspired ethics. The terms in this context are interchangeable as rules of benevolent conduct. Their inspiration is irrelevant.



I don't feel that 'people' have to justify anything to me until they make a claim. But you alone are not people as a whole. I'm not judging your blog based on a single page, I gave you a chance (which still stands) to demonstrate my incorrectness and you chose to throw a tantrum instead shouting curses and questioning my sexuality as would be expected of a spoiled brat.



I'm judging you on your actions and ideas as you've expressed them. And yes I will post this communication without your permission because as a participant in the conversation my freedom so speech trumps your freedom of privacy. I have no need to modify your words, because to my mind they illustrate my points.



And as I said, the offer still stands, provide me some examples of you using your 1000 fans to help the world in a practical objective way, and you'll find my response quite favorable and fair.



Sincerely, Kettle.

---

5:03pm Dear Arrogant One,



I spent 10+ years of my life living below poverty line, with a university education and a child to support on my own, in order to work at a residential drug rehabilitation program in downtown Los Angeles. Is that enough?



Do you really feel you are in a position to pass judgment on what people do with their blogs? Or dictate what ethics are? Ethics, vs. morality, must be freely embraced.



Why do you feel that people have to justify their existence to you and that you are entitled to judge them based on one page of their blog?



I know you will post this personal communication to your blogspot account without my permission, but do try to include this line so that your many followers see just what you're like.

---

Innomen

4:33pm http://innomen.blogspot.com/2008/02/wasted-opportunity.html



Feel free to comment, I'd never censor anyone, unless they were cheating like spam, DOS attacks, or identity theft.

---

Innomen

4:15pm Couldn't find a link of value eh? Yea, must be frustrating for you. Perhaps you should try to create some, now that you've noticed the lack. There are plenty of things you can do to help your fellows. Ethically you're required to do so, but hey everyone else ignores their responsibilities, why not the pretty girl everyone wants to own.



Klassy is a wonderful person but also tolerant to an extreme degree. I am not. She is also very into art and emotional expression which explains how she could like you even if you are socially inert. But, (unlike you apparently since you can't find any examples) she balances it with a deep sense of social justice, and effort to correct injustices through political action and commentary.



You exhibit none of the latter, and you have a short temper. As far as justification goes, its not to me, its to society, my claim is that you're wasting your chance to actually help the world, if I'm wrong, then so be it, if I'm right then you should recognize that you have a serious problem, or you're oblivious and callous.



Either way, my opinion is irrelevant.



You're right, beauty is all some people have. Because they refuse to cultivate anything else.



Will beauty feed a person? You're a spoiled brat, in my (again irrelevant) opinion. Far too accustomed to having her buttocks kissed for having what the advertising world has told us for generations is an attractive shell.



P.S. My offer still stands, Demonstrate even the slightest concern for social welfare and I'll alter my review accordingly.



P.P.S. Feel free to block my review to preserve the illusion of universal respect, I would expect no less of an ego as large and unsupported as yours.



The link to the blog post archiving this conversation will arrive shortly.

---

4:03pm Too fucking late, your superficial summary stands as is. If you knew Klassy at all, you'd trust her judgment enough to look closely. I am not going to justify myself to you. Google is your friend if you give a damn. If not, I don't. Yes, there is a desperate need for beauty because beauty is redemptive and sometimes it's all we have.

---

Innomen

4:00pm Hmmmm, your reply begins to make me question my review.



In this case, seriously link me to something of social merit that you broadcast to your 1000 minions, and I'll remove/change it.



P.S. i understand that the "such as yourself" addition was meant to be insulting, but really, can you accuse me of being a would be prince charming when i just publicly blasted the princess?



P.P.S. Have i not wounded you? Is not being worthless to the species beyond physical attractiveness something you'd like to avoid? Or are you one of those deluded soul who thinks beauty has value in and of itself?

---

3:55pm No, you really can't tell me from my first page. I'm sure your review is worth the time you put into it.



But you're right. As the object of male projection far and wide, half a dozen men such as yourself will orgasm as they write me consoling notes because they are so sure you've wounded me.

---

Innomen

3:51pm I read your first page, is it not a decent indication of the rest of your work? I see nothing of social value beyond half baked mysticism and an advertisement for a neat bookshelf.



Which you as a person have every right to showcase. But there is a degree of social responsibility one acquires when they have an audience bigger than some towns.



P.S. I'm glad you liked my review. And I have no doubt that when you're done making fun of it, dozens of your fans will kiss your hind side ever more vigorously.



But seriously, which one of us has tried harder to save our collective life?

---

3:46pm Did you even read what I write?



But your review is my favorite ever and I will immortalize it on my blog.

Pot, Kettle, Black

Sicko "Marriage Contract" One For The Ages

Repulsive "Wifely Expectations" pact emerges in Iowa kidnap case

FEBRUARY 17--This country, as you know, is filled with the deranged. And then there's Travis Frey, a 33-year-old Iowa man who is facing charges that he tried to kidnap his own wife (not to mention a separate child pornography rap). Frey, prosecutors contend, apparently is a rather demanding guy. In fact, he actually drew up a bizarre four-page marriage document--a "Contract of Wifely Expectations"--that sought to establish guidelines for his spouse in terms of hygiene, clothing, and sexual activities. In return for fulfilling certain requirements, Frey (pictured right) offered "Good Behavior Days," or GBDs. Each GBD, Frey wrote, could be redeemed by his wife to "get out of doing the things" he requested daily. A copy of the proposed contract, which Frey's wife never signed and later provided to cops, can be found below. While we normally point out the highlights of most documents, there are so many in this demented, and very graphic, contract, we really can't do it justice. So set aside ten minutes--and prepare to be repulsed. (4 pages)

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0217062contract1.html

----------------------

While I obviously agree, as the bulk of you do, that these demands are unreasonable. I think pejoratives like sick and demented (based only on the contract) are unwarranted and stem directly from honesty about and disclosure of what should be a private matter.

Would you like every thing you've ever done or wanted sexually to be a matter of public record? Which I might add has become a euphemism for public ridicule.

Your ranting at this man is as mature as tossing apples at the village drunkard chained to the pillory. You're kicking a criminal because you can. Why don't you rant at what caused him to think this was reasonable behavior in the first place? Namely monogamy! And where is the vitriol for the women willing to marry a man like this?

Consider, you as a society tolerate just this sort of self centered madness daily. More than tolerate it, you subsidize it! Consider, he actually had a wife to present this contract to. So at least one woman subsidized this person with a relationship that culminated in marriage. Is she a 'sicko' too? If so where's the hate for her? For every 1 'sicko' like this there are at least 50 decent single men whom women in general would not touch with a ten foot poll.

Hell even the asshole that circumcised his son with a utility knife had multiple women, and 11 kids.

You're just mad about the contract because he is illustrating a fact that you guys love to hide. All relationships are exchanges. Granted, not this declared and not this unilateral. Consider the level of subservience demanded in many consensual D/s relationships, are they all sickos as well? Are we going to make this a sexual rights issue?

Honestly I don't see anything wrong with the attempt. Prenuptial agreements are pretty much this fucked up, just not as specific. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but legally speaking, a contract may contain any act that's legal. And I don't see any criminal behavior required of either party. Besides I don't see his duties listed, doesn't a contract also have to have duties for both parties in order to be a contract?

I think this contract is clearly a sex toy, not a realistic demand and it was given to the public out of anger (justified or not) and spite. If it were an actual demand would it be any different from the consequences of the traditional obey clause in the wedding vow? Could a husband in a traditional Christian setting not ask for all these things and expect them as a matter of spousal duty? So again, who are you really mad at?

You people are just angry because he's being unabashedly honest about the nature of what a marriage is, and most of you lie to your mates about what you want thinking that they don't know thinking that you'll make a profit form the deception while they simultaneously lie to you.

News flash, marriage and monogamy is mainly about sex people and it always has been. Its primarily a human ownership contract that confers sexual rights and limitations. The men hate this guy because they are making public what about 90% of them would take if they could get it. A sweet little sex slave. And the women are mad because they don't want to see open negotiation of spousal duties because of the huge advantage they currently posses due to ignorance on the part of men, that advantage being centered around sexual power.

And he's brutally honest about his own desires, something we as citizens are always humiliated for doing.

P.S. For the record, since people seem to fail to grasp this, I am not defending this individual person, merely the action of attempting to contractually bind a mate in sexual detail, because thats what the bulk of you do covertly. Had this been about money and instead of sex, it wouldn't even be on the net, which says something about your puritanical roots.

I don't know this person and neither do you. And I obviously do not condone kidnapping or child pornography. But I see nothing wrong with writing a contract and presenting it to someone so long as no force or other unethical acts are used to obtain a signature.

Miccola's Question

I was asked by a bright young girl, why I feel the way I do about relationships prior to sexual legality. The answer ended up being long winded and somewhat unique. So I've made it a post to share with the world.

Thank you Miccola.

“...why do you think this?“

The short answer would be observation and experience. But I know you want an answer with more substance.

The fact is I've written a book, a blog, and had many debates on the subject. So its hard to answer what I consider to be a huge and complex question with any degree of brevity. But I own you an attempt.

They can all be found from underlore.com

Our society tells women that the best thing about them is their 'beauty' or sex appeal. It tells them this with money, social order in the form of gender roles, and advertising primarily.

Young women, having no frame of reference, accept this because it's by and large the earliest thing they hear, even as infants for example, "Oooo she's so beautiful!". At this point it's innocent, but at some point it begins to take on a sexual connotation. Obviously this is going to begin on an individual level around puberty. So beautiful like a water fall starts to mean beautiful like a playboy model. All this at the same time as being told that a relationship is about 'love', which is not about, but paradoxically is related to, sex.

I say related to sex because if a 'relationship' were not about sex, if it were merely about companionship, similar interests, meaningful psychological connection, and all the other platonic traits ascribed, then why should the gender or the sexual orientation of the companion matter? Or said differently, how would it be different from a normal friendship? Obviously the difference is protestations of love and attraction. “You are so beautiful” “I love you so much” etc. but the obvious rule is you must say these things to someone you are willing to have sex with, now or in the future, or were willing to have sex with in the past, as expressed in elderly couples still having relationships well past sexual ability. That is the only real difference.

So, having established that every 'romantic' relationship, must be, by definition about sex, we can add in age and experience, and arrive at my initial claim; that a young attractive woman has almost no chance of developing what I would call a healthy understanding of what a relationship is.

A relationship is about sex, you have sexual value, it is illegal to openly pursue you for this reason, but people will desire to do so anyway since sexual development in America (thanks in part to our diet) occurs much earlier than the 18 year age limit. The consequences of this pursuit are monstrous if the 'goal' is reached, which as I've shown above, by definition, must be sexual in nature, or else its not a relationship, just a deep meaningful (and perfectly legal) friendship. And here's how I know your boyfriend is an idiot or a possessive liar. And where I get my feeling that relationships in general, especially for one who is young female and attractive, are a bad idea.

If he is willing to pursue you openly, and think that he's immune from prosecution because he's around your age, he's dangerously ignorant. If he's willing to risk being marked as a sex offender for life, and being raped in prison just for sex with a pretty girl, he's a moron. If he claims that sex is not a goal of his, then he is lying, and merely wishes to secure you for future sexual advances. This is unfair to you, because as a woman you are the chooser sex, and that choice, in order to be free, needs to be informed, and it can only be informed by exploring your options, and his action is designed expressly to limit those options to one, him. This is underhanded and not at all considerate of your life. It is also indicative of extreme insecurity. I've never understood why this behavior is lauded as a healthy gender norm for men.

Society is trying to turn you into a trophy. They encourage you to have relationships, when what a relationship really is in our society is a contract that no one should enter into.

When he expresses his care for you, ask him if he could feel this way about a person with whom he could never have sex, and have him explain why he must have you to himself, and listen for ownership ideas. Remember that true love is limitless, for example having another child doesn't mean you love your first one less. Granted there are different types of love, but thats a cop out because no matter what you call it, it has a definition, and if it's really a form of love, it has no limits. So if he speaks about love, and includes a limit, he's actually talking about lust.

The claims made here are in general, there will always be exceptions, but I'm talking about the majority, and the ideas, not the people.

I look forward to your reply.