| Deviant Login | Shop | Join deviantART for FREE  |
Take the Tour  |
#FFRFonDA
#dAtheist
#Secular-Human
#inDISPUTE
#BeholdersofBeauty
#Ex-Christians
| Digital Art / Typography / Conceptual | ©2012-2013 ~rationalhub |
The Journal Portal
Browse Journals |
Polls |
deviantART [dee·vee·un'nt·ART]
Keep in Touch!
|
Deviousness `ChewedKandi has certainly gone out of her way to keep the vector community on the right path. Always making sure that her talents are infinitely scalable, Sharon has put her bezier curves to excellent use, and firmly anchored herself as an inspirational leader. We're absolutely delighted to bestow the Deviousness Award for June 2013 to `ChewedKandi. Congratulations, Sharon! Read More
|
Sta.sh
She experiences joy at the prospect of being a part of something...
Which is totally different from the religious interest in belonging.
She likes the idea of having special designation...
But calls religious people 'selfish'
She feels that her race is noble...
But is angry at the idea of morals.
She says that she likes everlasting laws of the universe.
But is dismissive at divine laws.
So...yeah...
Oh and if that post was supposed to point out the hypocrisy or something, it's clear fail, BTW. One is about reality (well mostly, since considering the time she wrote this in and all that), and how she finds it elating. Other is faith based dogma/wishful thinking. So yeah, big difference.
Her race is a personal quality, so she is being selfish and arrogant.
Noble implies a desire for a certain moral order because with morality there would be no distinction between noble and anything else.
She also talks about some kind of 'cosmic law' which she does not in fact know about.
And ironically she and you call religion/dogma 'wishful thinking' when clearly both of you know little about it.
So yes. Shame to say, but I'll put it bluntly: a pseudo intellectual hypocrite.
"She also talks about some kind of 'cosmic law' which she does not in fact know about."
Uh, what are you talking about?
"And ironically she and you call religion/dogma 'wishful thinking' when clearly both of you know little about it."
And you know this how? Anyways I need not necessarily know theology to infer that belief in a deity and his 'holy book' is dogmatic and wishful thinking anyways, regardless of whether your inane assertion holds true or not.
"a pseudo intellectual hypocrite."
Yeah riiight.
So it's not the race that's noble it's their 'destination'.
Um...who says? Her? If so she's being arrogant and selfish.
If not her, who? If scientists or philosophers then she's following a moral dogma.
She's claiming the universe is 'secure in everlasting laws'.
This is not only untrue, it's nonsensical.
And look at you!
You call me 'inane' and that's good for you.
You won't bother to research, talk with people. It's good enough some woman agreed with you and you know that you're right.
Yeah. Right.
She had nothing to say that made any sense and was being a hypocrite into the bargain.
I think I've proved that here.
But then again you can just declare something inane and ignore it apparently.
Yes, reading the quote properly before jumping in might help. Also she says nobler THAN divine moral government, don't keep omitting portions as you wish.
"If so she's being arrogant and selfish."
No she isn't. To say that proposition X is nobler than Y, is not selfish, neither is it arrogant.
" If scientists or philosophers then she's following a moral dogma.
WTH? Not everything is 'dogma'. I could agree with evidence based research or certain philosophical position which is rational. Also stop positing such false dichotomies, BTW, if this was one.
"She's claiming the universe is 'secure in everlasting laws'.
Everlasting part is iffy, which is why I specified "well mostly, since considering the time she wrote this in".
"You won't bother to research, talk with people. It's good enough some woman agreed with you and you know that you're right."
More assertions, yeah right. Precisely why I called it 'inane' - you don't even know me and you were quick to make assertions about how much I know about religion.
"I think I've proved that here."
You've proved nothing except your judgmental mentality and inability to even properly read what's being posted before posting a response.
Okay...what the hell does that mean?
According to whom? Science? The universe? Herself?
'No she isn't. To say that proposition X is nobler than Y, is not selfish, neither is it arrogant.'
Stating that you're right and other people are wrong because you like it that way is both selfish and arrogant.
'WTH? Not everything is 'dogma'. I could agree with evidence based research or certain philosophical position which is rational.'
Okay. Then surely you accept the rational and evidence based facts about Christianity.
No, you dismiss it off hand.
Hence dogma: blind adherence to something without question.
'Also stop positing such false dichotomies, BTW, if this was one.'
There was because you proved that even atheists have dogmatic beliefs: namely religion is always irrational and false.
'Everlasting part is iffy, which is why I specified "well mostly, since considering the time she wrote this in".'
Ah, you're even cherry picking her own statements now and ignoring what she got wrong.
'More assertions, yeah right. Precisely why I called it 'inane' - you don't even know me and you were quick to make assertions about how much I know about religion.'
How much do you know? Dazzle me.
I'd be surprised if you don't give this up and leave because someone even questioned you.
'You've proved nothing except your judgmental mentality'
As opposed you calling things you disagree with 'inane' and 'false' without verification?
I've provided examples for every statement.
'and inability to even properly read what's being posted before posting a response.'
Nope, sorry. I've made clear that I did too.
Now I wonder if...
A: You won't respond
B: You'll respond by just saying 'Well, you're being a troll. I'm fed up. Bye.'
C: You'll respond to each statement just saying 'You didn't read the whole statement' and 'You're wrong!'
D: You'll actually read my comments and respond in kind with calm, deliberate counter arguments.
Here's hoping for D, but you never know.
Herself. And no, it doesn't mean "I'm right and you're wrong" - that would be a factual claim. It is her (informed) opinion - and what the heck has science got to do with that? If I say I find helping others without being afraid of eternal torment is NOBLER, that doesn't make me arrogant for instance.
"Okay. Then surely you accept the rational and evidence based facts about Christianity."
Which is none when it comes to the case of supernatural events or existence of a deity. And precisely my point.
"Ah, you're even cherry picking her own statements now and ignoring what she got wrong."
WTF? How is that cherrypicking? That's why I had SPECIFIED you have to take the historical aspect into account. She made an assertion that the laws are 'everlasting' which might not necessarily be true.
"How much do you know? Dazzle me."
I don't have to, because you clearly are not interested in any sort of rational discussion. Or else you'd have asked this INITIALLY before you blathered on about how I know little about it.
"As opposed you calling things you disagree with 'inane' and 'false' without verification?"
I called your JUDGMENTAL assertions inane. And I still do. Stop lying.
"Nope, sorry. I've made clear that I did too."
Um, you didn't. Either you were deliberately presenting a strawman or you didn't read the quote first up. I had to point that out to your multiple times.
"Here's hoping for D"
If you were actually a bit honest and stopped posting strawman arguments and not even showing the intellectual honesty to admit it. Lets see if you do that, or else it's A. as you clearly have demonstrated so far.