If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   Dick Mourdock clarifies his comments: "I didn't say God intended rape, he just intended the babies born out of rape. Got that?"   (usatoday.com) divider line 388
    More: Followup, Richard Mourdock, human beings, Indiana Senate, Susan B. Anthony List, Jennifer Psaki, American Bridge, Claire McCaskill, U.S. Senate  
•       •       •

2178 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Oct 2012 at 5:45 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



388 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
jvl
2012-10-24 07:34:23 PM  

Tamater: This proves that one cannot be both omniscient AND omnipotent at the same time.


You're attempting to reason through a belief system? I'm pretty sure that's not going to work. Particularly when dealing with a system which *nowhere* touches on the subject of where God came from.

Remind me again where the universe came from? This too suffers from the "limit on the observable evidence" problem.
 
2012-10-24 07:34:55 PM  

Tamater: A thought experiment (paraphrased from Hitchens)

If God is all powerful, then he must be able to create another god with its own universe with every ability and power he himself posesses except for the ability to know that the first God exists.

In this case, how can God be sure he wasn't created in just this fashion?

If he can't be sure, then he isn't omniscient.

If he can't create another god with these conditions, then he isn't omnipotent.

This proves that one cannot be both omniscient AND omnipotent at the same time.

The god-as-omnipotent/omniscient worldview is incoherent and corrupt. These people deserve neither respect nor tolerance.


Except that these monkeypoo-slinging morons are only attesting to what they THINK God can do, not what he actually is able to do, if such an entity exists. Meta explanations are not actually explanations in a house of cards called faith.
 
2012-10-24 07:35:06 PM  
I'm glad we have people like Dick to tell us what God thinks and how that should drive public policy.
 
2012-10-24 07:37:31 PM  

jvl: Tamater: This proves that one cannot be both omniscient AND omnipotent at the same time.

You're attempting to reason through a belief system? I'm pretty sure that's not going to work. Particularly when dealing with a system which *nowhere* touches on the subject of where God came from.

Remind me again where the universe came from? This too suffers from the "limit on the observable evidence" problem.


I agree. And yet, the answer to where the universe came from is not required to understand the universe in which we find ourselves and certainly does not suggest that we require a mythical story to explain it. Unless of course we are feeble-minded enough to require just that.
 
2012-10-24 07:37:53 PM  

jvl: Ah, that's better! It's always nice to know even a mere discussion of schools of Philosophy on Fark will lead to accusations of gibberish and women-hating. Well done!


...so would you care then to answer my allegation, founded in Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy, how an intrinsic good or more perfect outcome can result from an act of evil and/or imperfection? Creation is inherently a subtractive process.
 
2012-10-24 07:38:12 PM  

Tamater: This proves that one cannot be both omniscient AND omnipotent at the same time.


There's nothing in the Bible that suggests that God is either. Quite the opposite actually.
 
2012-10-24 07:38:37 PM  

Tamater: A thought experiment (paraphrased from Hitchens)

If God is all powerful, then he must be able to create another god with its own universe with every ability and power he himself posesses except for the ability to know that the first God exists.

In this case, how can God be sure he wasn't created in just this fashion?

If he can't be sure, then he isn't omniscient.

If he can't create another god with these conditions, then he isn't omnipotent.

This proves that one cannot be both omniscient AND omnipotent at the same time.

The god-as-omnipotent/omniscient worldview is incoherent and corrupt. These people deserve neither respect nor tolerance.


This is frighteningly close to the same reasoning one would employ to "prove" that something cannot be both a wave and a particle.

Seriously, I slept through all my philosophy classes and yet I still retained enough to understand that the Aristotelian logic you're using is not the only internally consistent system of logic one can postulate.
 
2012-10-24 07:40:11 PM  

coeyagi: Tamater: A thought experiment (paraphrased from Hitchens)

If God is all powerful, then he must be able to create another god with its own universe with every ability and power he himself posesses except for the ability to know that the first God exists.

In this case, how can God be sure he wasn't created in just this fashion?

If he can't be sure, then he isn't omniscient.

If he can't create another god with these conditions, then he isn't omnipotent.

This proves that one cannot be both omniscient AND omnipotent at the same time.

The god-as-omnipotent/omniscient worldview is incoherent and corrupt. These people deserve neither respect nor tolerance.

Except that these monkeypoo-slinging morons are only attesting to what they THINK God can do, not what he actually is able to do, if such an entity exists. Meta explanations are not actually explanations in a house of cards called faith.


Faith in and of itself is bankrupt. These people need to be stopped or the rest of us will never survive.

It's simply evolution in action.
 
jvl
2012-10-24 07:40:29 PM  

Corvus: Well then if it's part of God's plan, just like the rape, then the whole argument is wrong.


I just want you to know, my brain hurts every time you make me try to explain Calvinist Philosophy. My round brain just doesn't fit in that square hole.

In the Calvinist view, wildly evil acts like the Holocaust are part of the plan. The plan takes you to the predestined outcome. It doesn't make the acts good. It doesn't mean you don't try to stop the acts since, if you stop them, then that too was part of the destiny.

It's the old philosophical question: if you had a time machine and a gun, should you kill Hitler? Would we still get to the moon? Would democracy eventually triumph over fascism and communist totalitarianism? Would we still get Jersey Shore?

/ ow ow ow
 
2012-10-24 07:41:19 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Gosh darn it, you're just so cute. Yep, the rules Jesus laid out have no relevance for our lives..


I don't need "rules" to live a moral life. the "rules" Jesus "laid out" were stolen from MUCH older religions, and just regurgitated.

And when did the entire Bible cease being the "word of God"? Why the need to cherry pick, if it is all "the word of God"?

You a la carte Christians who get in SUCH a tizzy when someone uses logic against you are SO CUTE!!!
 
2012-10-24 07:42:18 PM  

Mugato: Tamater: This proves that one cannot be both omniscient AND omnipotent at the same time.


There's nothing in the Bible that suggests that God is either. Quite the opposite actually.


And yet, these people will defend that idea with their lives.
 
jvl
2012-10-24 07:42:53 PM  

that bosnian sniper: ...so would you care then to answer my allegation, founded in Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy, how an intrinsic good or more perfect outcome can result from an act of evil and/or imperfection? Creation is inherently a subtractive process.


Since Calvin lived after Boethius, I'll let him explain it his own damn lazy self, as it was meant to be.
 
2012-10-24 07:44:23 PM  

BMulligan: Tamater: A thought experiment (paraphrased from Hitchens)

If God is all powerful, then he must be able to create another god with its own universe with every ability and power he himself posesses except for the ability to know that the first God exists.

In this case, how can God be sure he wasn't created in just this fashion?

If he can't be sure, then he isn't omniscient.

If he can't create another god with these conditions, then he isn't omnipotent.

This proves that one cannot be both omniscient AND omnipotent at the same time.

The god-as-omnipotent/omniscient worldview is incoherent and corrupt. These people deserve neither respect nor tolerance.

This is frighteningly close to the same reasoning one would employ to "prove" that something cannot be both a wave and a particle.

Seriously, I slept through all my philosophy classes and yet I still retained enough to understand that the Aristotelian logic you're using is not the only internally consistent system of logic one can postulate.


Except one can use empirical evidence from the physical world to prove or disprove one argument, whereas one must simply postulate and bullshiat from a pulpit and hope to sway enough rubes as confirmation bias that they "proved" the other.
 
2012-10-24 07:44:49 PM  
I was once raped in the butt and 9 hours later I pushed a little turd out.
 
2012-10-24 07:45:07 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: LouDobbsAwaaaay: *better protip* Ignore all of it. The collective fantasy stories of an ancient society of goat-herders has no relevance to real life.

mediablitz: If you care about the facts, you should be ignoring the Bible completely.

Gosh darn it, you're just so cute. Yep, the rules Jesus laid out have no relevance for our lives..it's just so typical for farkers who hate the possibility that there's a god and he might want you to live in a way that you don't feel like living it. Just one universe, where the laws just happened to work out to have the ability to form complex life.. and it's entirely bullshiat that there was an intelligence behind it. Chances are, you don't know much about physics.. because the odds against this whole thing happening are beyond staggering.

Please feel free to trot out the "well if it wasn't perfect for forming life, then life wouldn't be there to realize it" derp, because it is only one single universe after all, and the odds are infinitely against you.


And don't forget that God raped Joseph's wife in order to give us the gift of Jesus. So, in that respect Mourdock is right, God loves rape babies.
 
2012-10-24 07:46:23 PM  
Here's how I would try to explain my position if I believed what Dick does (for the record, I am completely pro-choice): God says "Hey, the next time this woman has sex, she will get pregnant!" That way the rape is totally not God's fault or intention.
 
2012-10-24 07:46:27 PM  

mediablitz: a la carte Christians


ah, like it's an insult to point out that I've done research. Great comeback bro!
 
2012-10-24 07:47:23 PM  

MikeMc: And don't forget that God raped Joseph's wife in order to give us the gift of Jesus. So, in that respect Mourdock is right, God loves rape babies.


You may want to reread that chapter.. you've got pretty much everything wrong.
 
2012-10-24 07:48:22 PM  

Weaver95: did Mourdock really intend that press conference to succeed?


He's venturing out of the echo chamber for the first time.
 
2012-10-24 07:49:12 PM  

Tamater: The god-as-omnipotent/omniscient worldview is incoherent and corrupt. These people deserve neither respect nor tolerance.


I'm not going to speak to Hitchens' thought experiment (as I in part agree with it), but I will comment on one thing. The question of a God that is omnipotent and/i> omniscient is easily solved by supposing that God is not omnibenevolent.

Which is the Calvinist position, and as such renders any supposition about works of good, evil, or destination immediately and inherently suspect and relative. If God is not omnibenevolent, how can one assume God's plan as such is inherently good?
 
2012-10-24 07:49:51 PM  

coeyagi: Except one can use empirical evidence from the physical world to prove or disprove one argument, whereas one must simply postulate and bullshiat from a pulpit and hope to sway enough rubes as confirmation bias that they "proved" the other.


That's correct, but it doesn't alter the logic. Simply because the evidence is unavailable doesn't mean that the conclusion isn't true.

Again, remember that I don't believe this stuff, I'm just saying that there's a logically consistent way to understand the whole "rape baby/God's plan" thing provided that one begins with a belief in the existence of God. Smart people have grappled with these problems and there is a rich body of scholarly theology on the subject.
 
2012-10-24 07:50:50 PM  

Tamater: Mugato: Tamater: This proves that one cannot be both omniscient AND omnipotent at the same time.


There's nothing in the Bible that suggests that God is either. Quite the opposite actually.

And yet, these people will defend that idea with their lives.


You have to be omniscient and omnipotent if you want to be God these days.
If you're not then you end up looking like Zeus, or Odin, or Yahweh, or Amun-Ra.

In other words, just the biggest fish in the pond.
 
2012-10-24 07:51:39 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: MikeMc: And don't forget that God raped Joseph's wife in order to give us the gift of Jesus. So, in that respect Mourdock is right, God loves rape babies.

You may want to reread that chapter.. you've got pretty much everything wrong.


You're so cute. Really.
 
2012-10-24 07:52:10 PM  

Mugato: Tamater: This proves that one cannot be both omniscient AND omnipotent at the same time.


There's nothing in the Bible that suggests that God is either. Quite the opposite actually.




Jeremiah 1:5 ESV

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."

Psalm 139:4

Even before a word is on my tongue,
behold, O LORD, you know it altogether.



1 John 3:20 ESV

For whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.


Jeremiah 29:11 ESV

For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.
______________________________


Really? NONE? NOTHING?
 
2012-10-24 07:52:27 PM  
Is this the guy that Lugar got primaried for? The dude whose idea of bi-partisanship is "Democrats crossing over to the Republican side?"
 
2012-10-24 07:54:07 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Tamater: The god-as-omnipotent/omniscient worldview is incoherent and corrupt. These people deserve neither respect nor tolerance.

I'm not going to speak to Hitchens' thought experiment (as I in part agree with it), but I will comment on one thing. The question of a God that is omnipotent and/i> omniscient is easily solved by supposing that God is not omnibenevolent.

Which is the Calvinist position, and as such renders any supposition about works of good, evil, or destination immediately and inherently suspect and relative. If God is not omnibenevolent, how can one assume God's plan as such is inherently good?


Whether he is omnibenevolent or not (which I also don't think is possible), that doesn't invalidate or solve the thought experiment proposed.
 
2012-10-24 07:54:19 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Chances are, you don't know much about physics.. because the odds against this whole thing happening are beyond staggering.


LMAO. Saying that WHILE saying someone ELSE knows nothing about physics.

You sound angry, confused, and stupid. Yep, Christian indeed!
 
2012-10-24 07:54:55 PM  

Corvus: LouDobbsAwaaaay: That's one farked-up god you Christians worship.

You know who is a cool person? That Jesus Christ guy. He never spoke about abortion or hating gays. In fact he talked about helping the poor and loving EVERYONE. No wonder these guys never actually seem to give a shiat about what he said.


He didn't attach any political considerations to charity either.
 
2012-10-24 07:55:12 PM  

BMulligan: coeyagi: Except one can use empirical evidence from the physical world to prove or disprove one argument, whereas one must simply postulate and bullshiat from a pulpit and hope to sway enough rubes as confirmation bias that they "proved" the other.

That's correct, but it doesn't alter the logic. Simply because the evidence is unavailable doesn't mean that the conclusion isn't true.

Again, remember that I don't believe this stuff, I'm just saying that there's a logically consistent way to understand the whole "rape baby/God's plan" thing provided that one begins with a belief in the existence of God. Smart people have grappled with these problems and there is a rich body of scholarly theology on the subject.


The argument that coeyagi made is based on semantics, not empirical observations - i.e., what it means to be omniscient or omnipotent (and what that would imply in turn). If his logic is internally consistent, and if the meanings he's gone with are appropriate, then that's that. The only way he could be wrong is if we were to retroactively change the meanings of the words.
 
2012-10-24 07:55:44 PM  

Tamater: Whether he is omnibenevolent or not (which I also don't think is possible), that doesn't invalidate or solve the thought experiment proposed.


Like I said, I'm not responding to the thought experiment. Just using your comment as a springboard.
 
2012-10-24 07:56:25 PM  

Techhell: I'm thinking that by 2024, there won't be enough Americans capable of this sort of double-think to vote Republican. Now if the US can keep the Republicans from realizing this until 2025, there's a good chance that the USA might not eat itself.


In 1970, when I was attending a segregated High School in North Carolina, I was positive that in 40+ years that sort of racism would be eliminated.

Not only has it not happened, but the school system in Wake County is now being newly re-segregated, and I can see it only getting worse from here on out, especially if RomneyRyan win.
 
2012-10-24 07:57:33 PM  

mediablitz: Really? NONE? NOTHING?


Well no, because he was obviously lying in your quotes because he didn't know Eve would eat that apple, he wouldn't have to throw plagues on Egypt, there wouldn't have been a war in heaven, he wouldn't have to flood the planet and the list goes on and on.
 
2012-10-24 07:58:14 PM  

Biological Ali: BMulligan: coeyagi: Except one can use empirical evidence from the physical world to prove or disprove one argument, whereas one must simply postulate and bullshiat from a pulpit and hope to sway enough rubes as confirmation bias that they "proved" the other.

That's correct, but it doesn't alter the logic. Simply because the evidence is unavailable doesn't mean that the conclusion isn't true.

Again, remember that I don't believe this stuff, I'm just saying that there's a logically consistent way to understand the whole "rape baby/God's plan" thing provided that one begins with a belief in the existence of God. Smart people have grappled with these problems and there is a rich body of scholarly theology on the subject.

The argument that coeyagi made is based on semantics, not empirical observations - i.e., what it means to be omniscient or omnipotent (and what that would imply in turn). If his logic is internally consistent, and if the meanings he's gone with are appropriate, then that's that. The only way he could be wrong is if we were to retroactively change the meanings of the words.


I didn't make the argument about omniscient / omnipotent. Try again and don't edit the thread.
 
2012-10-24 07:58:37 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Tamater: Whether he is omnibenevolent or not (which I also don't think is possible), that doesn't invalidate or solve the thought experiment proposed.

Like I said, I'm not responding to the thought experiment. Just using your comment as a springboard.


Word
 
2012-10-24 08:01:07 PM  

coeyagi: Biological Ali: BMulligan: coeyagi: Except one can use empirical evidence from the physical world to prove or disprove one argument, whereas one must simply postulate and bullshiat from a pulpit and hope to sway enough rubes as confirmation bias that they "proved" the other.

That's correct, but it doesn't alter the logic. Simply because the evidence is unavailable doesn't mean that the conclusion isn't true.

Again, remember that I don't believe this stuff, I'm just saying that there's a logically consistent way to understand the whole "rape baby/God's plan" thing provided that one begins with a belief in the existence of God. Smart people have grappled with these problems and there is a rich body of scholarly theology on the subject.

The argument that coeyagi made is based on semantics, not empirical observations - i.e., what it means to be omniscient or omnipotent (and what that would imply in turn). If his logic is internally consistent, and if the meanings he's gone with are appropriate, then that's that. The only way he could be wrong is if we were to retroactively change the meanings of the words.

I didn't make the argument about omniscient / omnipotent. Try again and don't edit the thread.


My bad; got that mixed up in the long strings of comments. I meant Tamater.
 
2012-10-24 08:07:23 PM  

Tamater: BraveNewCheneyWorld: MikeMc: And don't forget that God raped Joseph's wife in order to give us the gift of Jesus. So, in that respect Mourdock is right, God loves rape babies.

You may want to reread that chapter.. you've got pretty much everything wrong.

You're so cute. Really.


I must have missed the part where god asked Mary for permission to knock her up (and more or less spiritually cuckold her husband).
 
2012-10-24 08:08:53 PM  
This kind of thing is not surprising. They would also say that their derp-god doesn't intend for men to have sex with men; he only intends for them to die horribly of AIDS afterward.

Bringing up the child of the man who raped you, dying of a horrific disease--these are the divine workings of the will of the derp-god. Give them a little more latitude and they'll bring back the old derp god wants black men who sleep with white women to dangle from trees thing too. Next stop: witches and heretics burn.

That's where you end up with people like Mourdock and Akin.
 
2012-10-24 08:10:10 PM  

intelligent comment below: Getting mad after you make a bad choice doesn't mean a God wouldn't let you make that choice


No, God is constantly getting pissed off at humans and punishing them. Getting all surprised and pissed off at your creations' behavior is not indicative of being omniscient or omnipotent.
 
myc
2012-10-24 08:12:12 PM  
api.ning.com

/Fark has been slacking off lately
 
2012-10-24 08:14:12 PM  

vpb: swaniefrmreddeer: So god intended for the rape victim to conceive, then he must have wanted her to be raped in the first place. Therefor god wants women to get rape-raped.

That's why it's legitimate.


So, if I commit rape and results in pregnancy, it was the will of God, so I shouldn't go to jail? Alright then, multiple raping without condoms, because I don't want to be in jail with those rapists that can't procreate!
 
2012-10-24 08:16:37 PM  
Blessed are the raped, for they will be given children by God.
 
2012-10-24 08:19:32 PM  

intelligent comment below: I don't see where he is constantly getting pissed off and punishing them but I guess if you believe it rains tomorrow because God's angry then you can blame everything on him


What do you call the Flood? The plagues of Egypt? Adam and Eve? That's all the Bible is, God being pissed and punishing people.
 
2012-10-24 08:19:34 PM  

Weaver95: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: I prefer to hang out with the heathens instead of the pagans.

Pagan community has too many drama llamas.

I haven't actually seen any issues among the pagans I know in my local area. they seem more laid back than the evangelical Christians.


Well that wouldn't be hard would it?
 
2012-10-24 08:23:22 PM  

mayIFark: Pope Larry II: On, a serious note. How do these people keep getting elected?

Never underestimate the power of bigoted idiocy.


It's because they only hear what they want to hear. Something like this:

Stupid politician: "Babies conceived in rape are the will of god! Aborting them is wrong! The mothers should consider them gifts! But I'm not saying rape is the will of god, just the babies!"

What they hear: "Babies [static] are the will of god! Abortion [static] is wrong! [static] the will of god [static] babies!"

You can pretty much do the same thing for any statement by any politician anywhere, any time. People just don't hear any words that they don't like, or anything at all by a politician they don't like. If Obama is talking they hear NOTHING but [static]. When these rape-happy politicians are speaking, they''re literally not hearing "rape", just soothing white noise. Their brains filter out all the bad, mean, or thought-provoking words, and leave only the happy, yup-yup words they understand.
 
2012-10-24 08:26:22 PM  

kg2095: Weaver95: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: I prefer to hang out with the heathens instead of the pagans.

Pagan community has too many drama llamas.

I haven't actually seen any issues among the pagans I know in my local area. they seem more laid back than the evangelical Christians.

Well that wouldn't be hard would it?


One of my best friends is a pagan. He's about as laid back and good of a human being as one can get.
 
2012-10-24 08:28:30 PM  

Mugato: intelligent comment below: I don't see where he is constantly getting pissed off and punishing them but I guess if you believe it rains tomorrow because God's angry then you can blame everything on him

What do you call the Flood? The plagues of Egypt? Adam and Eve? That's all the Bible is, God being pissed and punishing people.


Old Testament God was kind of a jerk.
 
2012-10-24 08:29:22 PM  
He works in mysterious ways
 
2012-10-24 08:30:30 PM  

ChaoticLimbs: The reason these people have such trouble is that this world contains such brutality that it must not contain any sentient all powerful benevolent beings. Not even 1, for all-powerful means it doesn't take two to do anything.

And yet, they persist in believing in the one thing that can be proven not to exist. You can't, for example, prove that there isn't a planet of unicorns somewhere in the universe. But all-powerful benevolent beings can be proven to not exist, because their existence would negate the existence of certain other things.

If a woman is raped in a small room, you can be certain that no powerful yet benevolent beings were in that small room with her, for the very definition of a benevolent powerful being is that they use that power to prevent such things from happening. Furthermore, if a man rapes his own child, you can say that the child definitely does not have a good biological father, for the child can only have one biological father, and the very definition of a good father precludes the idea of rape.

A benevolent god would not permit a million innocent children to shiat themselves to death from dysentery. That's just so awful that any all-powerful being who observes it must not be benevolent, and any benevolent being who sees it must not be all-powerful.

So, this man's entire worldview is incorrect, and if it seems at times logically inconsistent or incoherent, it's because it must be incoherent to include such brutality and the idea of a benevolent all-powerful, all-knowing deity.


This is something that Christians do not seem to understand. I think they are taught from a young age that it is a sin to question god and so they don't.
 
2012-10-24 08:31:36 PM  

Fart_Machine: Mugato: intelligent comment below: I don't see where he is constantly getting pissed off and punishing them but I guess if you believe it rains tomorrow because God's angry then you can blame everything on him

What do you call the Flood? The plagues of Egypt? Adam and Eve? That's all the Bible is, God being pissed and punishing people.

Old Testament God was kind of a jerk.


Sure but even in the new Testament he had a son and let him be tortured to death for some reason that still was never made clear to me.
 
2012-10-24 08:32:12 PM  
goodmenproject.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com
 
Displayed 50 of 388 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report