This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

TrumpetPower!'s Profile

TrumpetPower!'s Avatar Joined over 6 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by TrumpetPower!

The Naked Faery Tale - last commented 04 August 2010 09:59 PM

More Discussions by TrumpetPower!

Latest Comments by TrumpetPower!

Go to: Using reason in an argument/discussion

TrumpetPower!'s Avatar Jump to comment 13 by TrumpetPower!

Rich Wiltshir, while it’s true that the defining characteristic that separates theists from atheists is the belief that one or more gods exist, that difference is inevitably concluded from a more fundamental epistemological difference, and it’s that which fearlessgoddess2 is addressing.

To wit, which is superior: a body of knowledge that presupposes the reliability of a particular revelatory tradition, or a body of knowledge that instead continually reevaluates proposed truths based upon logical analysis of an iterative collection of experimental results?

Your answer to that question will almost inevitably lead you to your answers on pretty much every other question of substance.

Never mind that all proposed definitions of a deity contain their own ultimate invalidating contradiction; if you start with the premise that the Bible is ultimately trustworthy, you cannot help but conclude that a magic spell will turn stale bread into the flesh of an ancient Jewish zombie and that eating said zombie bread will turn you, too, into an immortal zombie (and that’s somehow a good thing). But, if you instead adopt the Missouri “show me” motto, not one lick of credible evidence of the existence of any gods of any flavor has ever been discovered. (Or, to be fair, any standards for evaluating evidence that support the existence of one particular god would also demand the existence of all other gods if applied equally; contrarily, any standard of evidence that dismisses one particular god also dismisses all the others.)

Cheers,

b&

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:56:38 UTC | #504310

Go to: Are we phalluses?

TrumpetPower!'s Avatar Jump to comment 89 by TrumpetPower!

Comment Removed by Author

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:32:43 UTC | #504292

Go to: Are we phalluses?

TrumpetPower!'s Avatar Jump to comment 88 by TrumpetPower!

BoltzmannBrain wrote:

Actually, no. I too thought it was funny.

Bullshit. You dismissed them as “utterly self-indulgent tirades.” It was only after I rubbed your nose in the fact that you are, indeed, a humorless twit that you decided it might not be such a good move, strategically, to let everybody know that you are, indeed, a humorless twit.

My proof? The rest of your post:

My problem is that on Pharyngula, they can't take even a highly diluted dose of the medicine they so freely dish out. They silence naysayers with the most vicious outpourings of bile. They are the ones with the "hyperactive sense of righteous indignation", even if they might not be humourless.

If you thought that Richard and PZ were funny, you would have also laughed at the Pharyngulites who sprayed you with the same hose. Instead, all you can do is clutch at your pearls.

It’s kinda like how you claim you aren’t a deist, but at the same time you vigorously defend deism — and with the same tired old arguments from design and First Cause as we get from young-Earth Creationists, no less!

No wonder everybody is laughing at you. You’re a joke, and not exactly a funny one.

Cheers,

b&

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:31:56 UTC | #504291

Go to: Are we phalluses?

TrumpetPower!'s Avatar Jump to comment 81 by TrumpetPower!

BoltzmannBrain wrote:

TrumpetPower! wrote:
Personally, I found [both Richard’s and PZ’s tirades] absolutely hilarious, obviously intended as humorous, and absolutely spot-on.
Of course you did, and this is exactly what Phil Plait is talking about. You think it's "absolutely hilarious", and even productive, to engage in utterly self-indulgent tirades.

So…you’re an absolutely humorless twit with a hyperactive sense of righteous indignation.

But don’t worry. We’re prepared for you. Just to your right you’ll find a fainting couch, complete with plenty of pearls for you to clutch. We even have a nice Sousa march for you to listen to. Everybody likes Sousa marches, right? So, please take a moment to lay down on it, and pay no attention to the giant foot poised over it. I assure you, it will absolutely not stomp on you — and, even if it did, it most certainly would not make a farting sound as it obliterated you.

Cheers,

b&

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:52:54 UTC | #504261

Go to: Using reason in an argument/discussion

TrumpetPower!'s Avatar Jump to comment 8 by TrumpetPower!

FEARLESSGODDESS2 wondered:

But if we were to say, "I base my worldview on reason," and he asks why we want to do that, if we give him a reason, if we use reason to defend it, we're in a way flipping open our own bible.

Ultimately, it’s an argument from utility. Science builds skyscrapers and jumbo jets. Religion destroys the former with the latter.

A religious person might claim that no true religion would condone, let alone command, such destruction, but that’s as irrelevant as it is fallacious. Even if a particular holy text just happens to not be inconsistent with, say quantum mechanics, it won’t even pretend to tell you how to build a nanometer-scale integrated circuit that properly deals with electrons jumping connectors via quantum tunneling.

At this point, a Christian will almost certainly attempt to claim morality as the sole domain of Christianity. If so, just ask for an explication of Numbers 31.

Cheers,

b&

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:16:16 UTC | #504248

More Comments by TrumpetPower!