The "rugrat" and me, ca. 1957.
One has to ask this once more, since Pastor Perplex is at it again, asserting I "ignored" one of his "arguments" when I certainly didn't. This is in connection with him saying:
"if the atheist believes that suffering is bad or ought not to be , then he's making moral judgments that are possible ONLY if God exists !"
Absolutely not, and I noted this in the earlier blog:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/12/more-bible-based-idiocy-or-is-it.html
Excerpt:
"So no, we need to hear or see the arguments from the believers as to why God didn't come to the rescue of innocents like the Petit girls and instead chose...to do nothing! (NOTE HERE: Mikey is seriously mistaken if he believes it requires a "moral judgment" to recognize or acknowledge another's suffering, and hence one must indirectly accept a God - who can "only make moral judgments". NO! Any imbecile who has the brain capacity to google the two Petit girls' names will instantly bring up the court documents, including the scenes of their burned beds, etc. One can process their suffering merely via having basic human empathy! One does not need to acknowledge a moral judgment or God to see the extent to which they suffered. Again, we see he lacks the basic wherewithal to even argue coherently!)"
So, Mikey is essentially saying that -in order to ascertain that the two Petit girls (Michaela and Hayley)- ought not to have been tortured, raped and burned beyond recognition, one cannot rely on mere human empathy but must posit a deity to make their suffering understandable. In other words, he grants not even the most minuscule or minimum human feeling or empathy in ANYONE unless they have a god crutch - like him. It means (if we take him literally) that even seeing the horrific crime scene in Cheshire, Connecticut, would elicit not one ounce of feeling or sympathy from him, or appreciation of what they endured - unless he had his god belief in place.
He is, then, acknowledging he is NOT human! No, he can't be! How can he, if he depends on an external, invisible agency to appreciate the suffering of others? He's also saying that without his fairy tale being, since he'd lack the capacity for moral judgment, he'd have NO morals himself. That he'd then - lacking moral judgment - be just as likely to do any damned thing he wants, whether robbing, raping, torturing or murdering - if his god wasn't there to provide a moral "anchor" to prevent him from doing so. YES, this is effectively what he's admitting! That, minus his god we can't trust him to walk three steps out of his door on his own without committing some horrific crime. After all, no god = no moral compass(judgment), so one will then do anything!
But give him time, he will need to slowly process all this in order to painstakingly make the logical inferences from his words to his own putative actions (if those words are accepted at face value, as literally true).
He then squawks, in relation to my sister and myself:
"They're seeking inner peace , and since they are like the quintessential "spoiled brat" who has had a lifetime of parental indulgence all their lives from one or both parents ( whom , I'm sad to say , Phil and my sis Jo have had ) ,
What does seeking inner peace have to do with the rest? And btw, isn't inner peace worthy of being sought, however one chooses to do it? Besides, this rubbish is a laugh and a half, because I was the one that usually got saddled taking care of this bed-wetting little brat when my parents went out to this or that obligation. I had to cook up his soft oatmeal, spoon feed it to him, and then his Gerber's baby food and even change his nappies! And I was barely ten! Far from "indulgence", I was the one that had to indulge him while he was a rug rat - and this is how the slimey, bombastic little ingrate repays me!
He rants on:
"they simply cannot acquiesce to a "higher power" ( i.e., GOD ! )"
Errr...that's because I've seen NO evidence for such, MORON! And you - while you bloviate nonstop about "evidence", have never provided it. Like a coward, you also run from accounting for where this God (I'm supposed to "acquiesce" to) was, while those two Petit girls were being tortured and raped, then burned! What good did their acquiescing to a higher power do them? Huh? Come on and answer you mouthy, blustering bozo! Do it or have all of us (atheists) regard you as nothing but a clown.
"if the atheist believes that suffering is bad or ought not to be , then he's making moral judgments that are possible ONLY if God exists !"
Absolutely not, and I noted this in the earlier blog:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/12/more-bible-based-idiocy-or-is-it.html
Excerpt:
"So no, we need to hear or see the arguments from the believers as to why God didn't come to the rescue of innocents like the Petit girls and instead chose...to do nothing! (NOTE HERE: Mikey is seriously mistaken if he believes it requires a "moral judgment" to recognize or acknowledge another's suffering, and hence one must indirectly accept a God - who can "only make moral judgments". NO! Any imbecile who has the brain capacity to google the two Petit girls' names will instantly bring up the court documents, including the scenes of their burned beds, etc. One can process their suffering merely via having basic human empathy! One does not need to acknowledge a moral judgment or God to see the extent to which they suffered. Again, we see he lacks the basic wherewithal to even argue coherently!)"
So, Mikey is essentially saying that -in order to ascertain that the two Petit girls (Michaela and Hayley)- ought not to have been tortured, raped and burned beyond recognition, one cannot rely on mere human empathy but must posit a deity to make their suffering understandable. In other words, he grants not even the most minuscule or minimum human feeling or empathy in ANYONE unless they have a god crutch - like him. It means (if we take him literally) that even seeing the horrific crime scene in Cheshire, Connecticut, would elicit not one ounce of feeling or sympathy from him, or appreciation of what they endured - unless he had his god belief in place.
He is, then, acknowledging he is NOT human! No, he can't be! How can he, if he depends on an external, invisible agency to appreciate the suffering of others? He's also saying that without his fairy tale being, since he'd lack the capacity for moral judgment, he'd have NO morals himself. That he'd then - lacking moral judgment - be just as likely to do any damned thing he wants, whether robbing, raping, torturing or murdering - if his god wasn't there to provide a moral "anchor" to prevent him from doing so. YES, this is effectively what he's admitting! That, minus his god we can't trust him to walk three steps out of his door on his own without committing some horrific crime. After all, no god = no moral compass(judgment), so one will then do anything!
But give him time, he will need to slowly process all this in order to painstakingly make the logical inferences from his words to his own putative actions (if those words are accepted at face value, as literally true).
He then squawks, in relation to my sister and myself:
"They're seeking inner peace , and since they are like the quintessential "spoiled brat" who has had a lifetime of parental indulgence all their lives from one or both parents ( whom , I'm sad to say , Phil and my sis Jo have had ) ,
What does seeking inner peace have to do with the rest? And btw, isn't inner peace worthy of being sought, however one chooses to do it? Besides, this rubbish is a laugh and a half, because I was the one that usually got saddled taking care of this bed-wetting little brat when my parents went out to this or that obligation. I had to cook up his soft oatmeal, spoon feed it to him, and then his Gerber's baby food and even change his nappies! And I was barely ten! Far from "indulgence", I was the one that had to indulge him while he was a rug rat - and this is how the slimey, bombastic little ingrate repays me!
He rants on:
"they simply cannot acquiesce to a "higher power" ( i.e., GOD ! )"
Errr...that's because I've seen NO evidence for such, MORON! And you - while you bloviate nonstop about "evidence", have never provided it. Like a coward, you also run from accounting for where this God (I'm supposed to "acquiesce" to) was, while those two Petit girls were being tortured and raped, then burned! What good did their acquiescing to a higher power do them? Huh? Come on and answer you mouthy, blustering bozo! Do it or have all of us (atheists) regard you as nothing but a clown.
Well, let's not hold our collective breaths for Mikey's answers, he'll dodge them as usual, including dodging how he accepts the Catholic 4 principles for legit scriptures - which renders his own KJV unacceptable.
Happy New Year to you too, Mikey Mouse!
No comments:
Post a Comment