Bulletin Boards are fun.

Over the years I have posted on chat-boards. Here is a sampling of some of my better retorts (most are about atheism v theism, so read at your own risk:

This first post is a response to the typical- god is a mystical "force" that is my "higher power" argument.

Subject: Re: My definition of God
Date: Jun 22 13:29
Author: Happy_Heretic
Mail Address:
Which cosmic force are you alluding to? Gravity, weak nuclear force, Electro-magnetic? Or are you just making up a new force (invisible, untestable, unverifiable, non-existent) that explains to your satisfaction why the universe exists at all (read question-begging, and argument-from-ignorance to the nth degree).

I think my invisible birds did it. They collectively and consciously produced the universe, life, and all things. They did it with a spell book they found hidden under a supernatural rock. They decoded it using the urin and thummim they found taped to the back of a tapir. They had a huge war with the invisible supernatural crystal people. IT was a huge war with lots of pecking. The birds won and their plan to create the universe was set into motion. They require that you chant oogie noogie I like to boogie 3 times a day while facing south as worhip and gratitude. They like checks too. They don't hanlde money well, so they ask you, via me, to make the checks out for as large amounts as possible. You can make them out to:
Happy_Heretic
P.O. box 666
Goofytown, South Dakota,
zip 42.

They don't ask much and they don't give much, (just the privilege of adhering to earth's surface). Pay or fly away- thats our article of faith.



HH

This one is in response to somone who stated that god is some "ineffible" force that mankind can't understand. This is supposedly why we have to accept the concept on faith.

Subject: Wrong.
Date: Jun 22 13:08
Author: Happy_Heretic
Mail Address:
When you assert there is a god then you have to accept that the term god has meaning. You are asserting that god can be differentiated from not-god. Therefore god has qualities, and thus definition. When you believe in god then you are accepting all those qualities and corollaries that come with that definition. However, when the atheist refrains from accepting a god belief then nothing further can be inferred from their rejection. If you reject my invisible bird belief, what does that entail for you? NOTHING. Same with atheism.

If you infer that god belief carries no baggage then argue your claims. Otherwise what you use the term god it is a meaningless term, like perfnick. I believe in perfinick. It doesn't mean anything therefore I am just babbling (like you about god).
I am asking you to articulate what YOU mean when you use the term god. Define it so it has some meaning other than your vacuous support for believing in it. I will wait here.

HH =)

This post was in response to an assertion that god is equivalent, in probability, with "universe."
Subject: Re: Fair enough.
Date: Jun 21 22:17
Author: Happy_Heretic
Mail Address:
You wrote: I agree. For me Universe is clearly the better term than God because it is more neutral. Perhaps, there is an even better word. Regardless of our actual beliefs, a good theoretical mindset would be for everyone to treat the other side as if there was a 50%-50% chance of god(s)/no god(s). (Not necessarily in books, forums of debate, discussion, etc. - although even then in terms of civility of treatment.)

HH responds:
Lets put your thoughts into a non-emotionally evoking equivocation. Let's pretend that you say that gravity keeps us from flying off the earth into outer space. I will say that invisible all-knowing birds attach themselves to each object and flap their invisible wings (which make no sound and dont disturb the air) and hold us to the earth.

Now, based on your argument we should treat each possibility (so as not to hurt each other's tender graces) with a 50/50 probability. Forget facts, physics, experimentation, replicability, and data (and the fact that one is absolutly falsifiable)... just give each theory (invisible omniscient birds hold us down) a 50% change of being true. If you agreed to this you would have no credibility and even less integrity. IF I could get you to agree with this then I have already proven that you are unworthy of debate at all since you would be willing to throw logic and reason right out the old window.

This is where I am, as an atheist, with the god issue. I would have to be completely medicated (very heavily) and borderline psychotic before I would assent to the possibility that god is a significant finding at the .50 level.

YOu wrote: You're right, atheism is not defined by the behavior of its accepters. However, I do not agree that theism presupposes any specific behavioral requirements any more than being an atheist does. You have to look at what is claimed by the specific theist believer. Everyone, including atheists, absolutely should be defined by their behaviors and moral codes. Their beliefs are irrelevant. For that matter, in the spirit of Dennett, society should absolutely care about what being a theist or an atheist (or a whatever) does to behavior. Everybody's interpersonal interactions are fair game for judgment, regardless of their beliefs. We need one standard for everyone.

HH responds: We agree that we, as humans, make judgments about people's moral/ethical behavior all the time. Does it effect the veracity of their claims? NO. A complete turd could be completely correct, and a peachy gal may be completely wrong. You seem to disagree. We actually agree that religions differ in their moral codes. We should listen to a fellows claims about which particular religious moral code he /she professes before measuring him against them (looking for hypocrisy). I agree with Dennett on how one's beliefs effect their behavior. But Deists (Christian, Muslim, etc.) have holy writs. Given to them by god, which tell them how to act. And all I am suggesting is that when a Christian argues his claims, that his moral behavior with respect to these moral dictates can be adjudicated as to integrity, and hypocrisy. On the other hand, there is no such thing as and Atheist bible/Koran, etc. So it is to be expected that atheists will differ in their morality from on another, as much as they will differ from their thiestic counterparts.

Finally, we should avoid judging the veracity of either belief system. Athiesm has no system of belief. Atheism is the answer to one question, and one question only, Does/Do god/gods exist. No. That is atheism. If you claim there is more then argue your case. Theism has baggage, Atheism travels with a smile and thats all.

Best,

HH

This one speaks for itself:
Crystal Song wrote:
> If we could drop the idea that God and the Universe are different things, and civilly discuss our ideas about the characteristics of this unnamed entity, we could reduce the fighting.

>


God and the Universe are different things. Denying this does NOT make it true.


> God has emotion attached. And...although you may not be >aware of it, universe also has emotion attached. The >word implies that there is no possibility that it is a >conscious entity.


I am quite aware of many things. I attach emotions to things and ideas, and am aware when I do so. Since I am a part of the universe and I am conscious entity there is a grain of truth to your wishful thinking. But, I don't think that the term universe implies anything other than the vastness of the physical space, energy, and matter (which is energy) that we can access. If you wish to suggest there is more then I am delighted to hear you argue for your claims. But, until you justify that the universe is a conscious entity then you won't mind if I honestly refrain from belief I hope?.

> I believe in the possibility that a different word could >start the thinking fresh. Then each side could civilly >approach with ideas untainted by old thinking and >semantics.


I know this is not going to go over well, but my thinking is quite clear and fresh. Civility is part of an honest exchange and I know few who post on this board who are not honest in portraying their thoughts and ideas. I read responses that seem emotionally driven, but that is the writers issue, not the readers.
I also think that semantics are important. After all semantics is about meaning. If our writings convey no agreed meaning then there is nothing of cognitive value exchanged at all. We might as well be writing gibberish. I am arguing that the only context in which information may be exchanged is within a common nomenclature.

In the end, I am becoming more and more convinced that as some peoples arguments fail time and time again, that the only way to hold onto belief is to change the definitions of terms to eventually mean the same thing as the oppositions. That is just plain dishonest. If GOD = Universe then there is no argument to be had. There is no consistent meaning to those terms. We might as well call the universe the Invisible Pink Unicorn and dispense with either old term. Is entropy a part of the Invisible Pink Unicorn?? This could lead to a whole new field of Para-Physics. You may be on to something.... Perhaps not.

HH


This post is about the fallacy that being emotional is equal to being wrong.
Subject: Close but not quite...
Date: Jun 20 23:49
Author: Happy_Heretic
Mail Address:
I wrote of the exceptions (about my own jerkiness). There are times when it is better to act nicely, rather than to be right.

What Dagny, (if I am wrong here just butt in) and I see is that we control our own behavior. We don't control others. IF the interaction with another person is about anything other than establishing a relationship, then it is irrelevant as long as they can perform their purpose with skill and integrity (for example see onundagus' response to me in this Joseph Smith is NOT a pedophile thread). I really appreciated his facts and arguments. Even though he was rude and personal at the end. I was rude and personal in my response as well. So what??? I learned from him. Good for me. If I drop dead tomorrow he shouldn't give a tinker's damn, he isn't here looking for a personal relationship with me. And good for him IF i passed him on the street I wouldn't know it. Cyberspace is impersonal. That is its benefit and its weakness. Anyone who gets weepy over a strangers comment in here is really a little irrational. For all we know half of us are psychotic, and the other half are criminals.

HH

This response is in the same vein.
Subject: Tell me the truth. Be a complete... (swearing)
Date: Jun 20 21:39
Author: Happy_Heretic
Mail Address:
jerk. Just, demonstrate competency and I could care less if you have aspergers, refuse to make eye contact, act grumpy, and answer my questions in a condescending manner. Just give me the truth. You know why people act like assholes? Because people pay them off for it. If a physician cures the painful sinus infection that three other physicians couldn't touch. He is allowed to be a complete prick Just as long as he is a competent prick. IF anyone could make a rational case for a deity, that person may use all the profanity he/she wants, and smell like a shit-covered stocking. I would thank that person for entering my life

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The search for truth shouldn't give a shit about your personal need for warm fuzzies. I perceive a person giving me the truth as the ultimate gift of kindness. I am indifferent as to how that gift is wrapped.

Are there times when being right is not as important as being happy? I think so. But I have yet to have happiness outweigh correctness at any time other than with my beloved family (the wife and kids have a way of making themselves a priority over truth... YOu know what I mean.).

HH

This was in response to someone who tried to make the "its just a theory" argument. Like non-theories are valid by simple contrast.
Subject: A short retort and then a nap.
Date: Jun 18 12:05
Author: Happy_Heretic
Mail Address:
Steve,
You cite theories (e.g., Newtonian Gravity) that have been discredited as an argument that science is limited. Funny how those theories were replaced by other scientific theories. Science progresses by replacement. You have only cited theories which have been discredited by scientists. Perhaps you provide ONE example of a theory which was discredited by non-scientists.

Your fear over annihilation is driving your belief system for an afterlife. I have read many of the works you cited. You share the same logical fallacies that they do. In short you straw-man the opposition (e.g., HH is a nihilist) and then argue your parody of your own fallacies. Sad really.

I am open for public debate any time. If you would like to schedule a public debate over the merits of science I would be happy to make time for a face-to-face discourse. Would be fun. Just let me know when and where (I will pay my own expenses to make it easy for you).
Regarding epistemology and metaphysics... my epistemology is reason , and my metaphysics follows as scientific realism (empiricism) . Is that articulate enough for you?

By the way you refer to non-physical perception. Would you please articulate how this is possible? Thanks. If there is something outside the natural universe (that we can see, measure, etc., then you have the onus propandi to justify that assertion. Just because something can be imagined (mostly by you and other wishful thinkers) doesn't make it probable or even possible.

You are the one who comes off as sad and angry. You can't accept the truth with peace and understanding. I am quite content with my current understanding, no matter how wrong (in the end) I may be. It seems that you are the one loaded with fear of death, annihilation (another of your straw-men about my understanding-- how dishonest of you), etc. It seems to me that you are making your world-view fit your fears. Therefore, I conclude that I am NOT the one who has an underdeveloped epistemology.
I wish you peace and knowledge my fellow homo-sapien.

HH =)

This is a response to a person who wrote that the term "god" did not have to have definition.

Subject: Wrong. God IS the assertion being made.
Date: Jul 11 15:53
Author: Happy_Heretic
Mail Address:
God can't be considered before it is an assertion. Just like you never considered AGNEHAHA before I just asserted it. Now it is open to debate. Now that AGNEHAHA is out there you may say you believe, don't have a belief, or disbelieve. Is AGNEHAHA knowable?

1. If not, there is no reason to believe and you refrain from belief (agnostic& negative a-AGNEHAHA-ist).
2. If reasons are given to believe you may adopt a belief and be a AGNEHAHA-ist.

3. If you deny the existence of the almighty AGNEHAHA (which I don't recommend because in the next life he will turn you into a donut and put you in front of Dan Peterson) you are a positive A-AGNEHAHA-ist.

4. If you don't know but believe anyway you are an agnostic & AGNEHAHA-ist (buying in to pascal's wager just to play it safe).

Best,

HH


"you can't prove god doesn't exist." "You can't prove a negative." What a canard.
Subject: Zeke, I agree with you... kind of.
Date: Jul 11 16:27
Author: Happy_Heretic
Mail Address:
I don't claim that god doesn't exist because it is silly (although it is). I claim that the Christian god can NOT exist.

I have one axiom: The law of identity (a thing is itself). Given this axiom there are two corollaries: Law of non-contradiction (a thing can not be itself and not-itself w/caveats), and the law of excluded middle (a thing can not be kind-of-itself and kind-of-not-itself /w caveats).

Given this one axiom I assert that the Christian God concept(and Mormon god concept as well) require inherent contradictions. Contradictions can not exist (see above) based upon my accepted axiom. Therefore since God is contradictory it can NOT exist.

My argument is much more loaded than this because it would take me quite a lot of writing to articulate/explain why the God described by the bible, BOM, PoGP, etc. is self-contradictory. But this is the gist of proving a negative.

As a simple lay example of proving a negative I could assert that, I am , rightnow, swinging on a swingset.
Since I am typing at my computer located on my table, My assertion is not true. But, I go one step further and state that it is, in fact false. In other words, it may be denied that I am swinging on my swingset. We logically prove negatives all the time.

Best,

HH =)

This sums up my education.

Subject: I am with you.
Date: Jul 12 08:59
Author: Happy_Heretic
Mail Address:
Religion taught me what to think. Primary and secondary education did the same. It was when I learned how to think that real independent thought and curiosity began. It was like breathing for the first time.


HH =)


This was just today. I used a different Name, but I hope the humor and irony are clear.
Subject: FOA's Thor. Duh! ;)
Date: Jan 10 15:58
Author: FoA
Mail Address:
I am his representative on earth. He speaks through me. I am transcribing his book right now. Just ignore the parts that appear to be copied right out of the Koran, Bible, and Bhagavad Gita. He condemns all those who use condoms, drink mulberry juice, use the word "awesome", and worship other gods! He doesn't much care for people who eat quiche either, but he says he could go either way on them.

You must wear a horn-adorned helmet and meet at a bar every Wednesday after sundown. You must partake in his sacred sacraments (beer and buffalo wings (spicy... none of that honey lemon BBQ shit)).

You must live your life with honor by defeating terrorists and lowering taxes. You must take the life of any who deny Thor's existence! For they are fooled by false prophets and the "secularists." It is not demanded, but if you want to be a Thorist you should vote Libertarian. We agree that Thorists may vote for whom they wish, but Anyone who does not vote for Michael Badnerick is probably sinning, passing social diseased, using IV drugs, or dancing on Saturday before sunrise (a big sin in Thorism).

We demand that you support our beliefs or, at least, don't question them in public! For if you do you are being a meanie meanie bo beanie! Its just bad manners!

Thor is all knowing and all-kind! HE forgives you right after he bashes you with his hammer. You can have his forgiveness for just 199.99 a month! That's 45% of the regular tithing price! Just imagine an eternity in Valhalla (white sandy beaches, in their eternal presence of God!, all the ale you can pound, half naked chicks by the dozens worshipping you, etc)!

But wait... if you start paying your tithing by credit card immediately you will get a free bonus gift! You get an amazing "koosh ball!" You have seen them on TV! You have seen mentally disabled people, and people with Autism having hours of fun squishing them in their hands, and Dangling them for hours! All this for just 199.99 a month! NO other religion is even willing to come close to such a bargain! How do we do it, you ask? Easy! We co-opt our dogma from other sources! We pay nothing for biblical statements. Zero is our overhead cost!

Sound too good to be true? Here is your payment information:

Thor Special Offer
c/o FoA
666 Heretic (under the bridge)
SLC, Utah 85564

Or, you can visit our website ministry:
ThorIsGod.com
We accept Paypal! ;)

So... save your soul today by joining the fastest growing religion in the world (I joined today and that is a daily increase of 100 %)! Know any religion that can make that claim?! Its all true!!

FoA (HH) =)