Sunday, July 19, 2009

Christian Logic: Why I Don't Love My Boys...

Sometimes people wonder why I am so very fucking angry about theism and it's pervasive influence on our culture - and most other cultures for that matter... My very favorite neighbor to the north (you know, one of those Canuckistanians) recently got into a little tangle with someone who is a picture perfect example of where this anger comes from. After that aforementioned tangle with Jason, the cowardly fucking Christian decided to write an offensive piece of garbage about that encounter.

I had a thoughtful discussion with an atheist named Jason about real love. He deemed that it was “hateful” to claim that Atheist are not able to love their children.

Well Denny, that would be because it is a fucking hateful thing to claim. Hateful and strikingly ignorant. But Denny's ignorance doesn't stop there...

If God is love, then it is true that an atheist is incapable of loving their child. Atheist by definition reject God; therefore, an atheist is not capable of loving their children. God’s love never fails; however,an atheist love will fail based on the chemical make up of that person.

I don't reject any god, I also don't accept the conception of gods - Denny and I are operating on separate paradigms. But let's explore this logic for a moment, with the assumption that Denny's god is real and described accurately in the Christian bible...Denny's god demands - or at least used to, before Christ, that parents stone children who don't respect their parent's authority. While it can be argued that said god changed it's mind later on, there is no denying that the god Denny worships used to demand that parents kill their children for misbehaving. On the other hand, when you strike past Denny's stunning ignorance of neurobiology, you would find that there is highly unlikely that an atheist, or anyone else for that matter, is going to go through a neurochemical shift that would suddenly cause them to stop loving their children. It can happen, but when it happens, it happens at the result of a pathological imbalance - what we would call mental illness. And this is not something that Christians are immune to - such neuropathology can happen to anyone with a fucking brain.

Now you can go take a look at the rest, I am not going to keep going through this line, by line. But if you want to comment on it, don't bother doing so there - the comment likely won't get posted, no matter how reasoned and polite you might be. Indeed, I took Denny on his face and made a comment in good faith, which I will post in a moment - a comment that he chose to respond to in email, apparently thinking that posting it to his blog would be a bad idea.

Jason is far from the last line on love and atheists. Not all of us would agree with him, just as not all Christians would come close to agreeing with your assertions, here or there.

I am an atheist, after spending the vast majority of my life trying to reconcile my Faith with reason and reality. I understand very clearly, many different Christian premises about the nature of love. Now you may just decide that because I am now an atheist, I must never have been a real Christian, in which case this is probably a pointless exercise. But I am not going to assume that you are rather bigger than that.

When I was a Christian, I was very caught onto this notion of love and godly love. I have written very extensively over the years, on 1 Cor. 13 and that has been an absolute my entire life. I have believed absolutely in loving everyone, unconditionally. When I was a Christian, I absolutely believed that this was the least I could do – the least I could be, as a living testament to my god. The thing is, now that I am not a Christian, I not only continue to love like I did – I have found a much deeper and meaningful love than I have ever experienced.

Emotions are chemical based, because we are chemical based – everything we think, is based in chemical processes. The difference between you and who I am now, is that you somehow see this as making you less of a person – less miraculous than you actually are. Rather than arguing that this is somehow mundane and degrading, I would ask; Why do you think that this degrades us? We are truly marvelous and beautiful creatures – what makes us who and what we are, is awe inspiring. It is much like the notion of creation, versus evolution – I am far more inspired and awestruck, by the understanding of how we – these significantly flawed, yet wholly remarkable creatures came to be, than by the notion that we and the universe around us, were just magically “poofed” into existence. I am awestruck by the notion of the billions of years and virtually infinite space that spans out universe.

But the thing that I actually really have to disagree with Jason about – rather strenuously even, is this idea that our emotions are fleeting things – they assuredly are not. While some of our emotions are fleeting things, that which is most important to us does not evaporate, it usually just gets buried. We humans have a remarkable capacity for compartmentalizing and do so on an ongoing basis. Were we to stop, we would quickly be completely overwhelmed by the inability to process absolutely everything. So the vast majority of what we see, what is happening around us, goes into tidy little compartments – some of them much like the RECYCLE function of our computers. Certain types of information are harder to reach while they are still there and only stay until we have put so much more in, that it disappears.

But there are a great many things that never leave us – though we may get past the worst of the impact of those events, people and the feelings they inspire. And when we dwell on them, it is easy enough to recall and experience those emotions again – unless we’ve repressed it, which is something that men are especially good at.

I don’t believe in gods anymore, don’t believe in the supernatural at all. That doesn’t mean I have any less capacity for love and emotions than you do. Indeed, believing as I now do, that such beliefs are dangerous and overall bad for us, I not only love you, but much as I am sure you love me and wish that I would come back to God’s grace, I wish you would come to reason and out of the dangers of magical thinking.

And I too, love my children. Ever so very deeply and in a way that to you, a fellow parent, can totally relate to.

You can see how terribly offensive my comment was - no question why he wouldn't fucking let it post out of moderation. I will note here however, that I misunderstood Jason and he did clarify it here. Sorry Jason, your comment makes a whole lot of sense now. And for anyone going over to read that, please ignore my comment below - that was meant for Jason only and frankly, I'm concerned that if you read it, you may decide to kill me. But I digress, because while Denny the Cowardly fucking Christian chose not to let my comment post, he did respond. And out of respect for his notation on the bottom of his email, admonishing that it is indeed intended only for me, I will have to request that you not actually read the following quotes and just read my responses to them - I post them for Denny's reference, so he knows what exact points I am responding to...And if you like, you could take a break and go read Jason's response to Denny the Cowardly fucking Christian's blog-post, which he was blissfully unaware of, until I pointed it out to him....

A person can claim to love their children; however, it is impossible for chemicals to love chemicals. I don't doubt that chemicals can affect emotions; however, love is not an emotion. Your statement, "I love my children" while denying the existence of God informs me that your definition of love is based on chemicals and not truth.

Denny, we are not talking about neat little bottles of chemicals in your child's chemistry set. Nor are we talking about stuff that got mixed up in a laboratory. Please take a moment to learn a little bit about the human brain and how all this thinking and feeling stuff works...We'll wait for you...

If you gave up Christ for your emotions, then that explains why you are an atheist. Jason at least was honest about atheism.

I gave up nothing for my emotions - my emotions had nothing to do with my becoming an atheist, except in so far as they actively prevented me from becoming an atheist a great deal sooner. I am an atheist because I finally lost the battle of attrition, wherein my religious brainwashing was fighting to reconcile my Faith, with reason and reality. But I love the implication that I am somehow lying about who and what I am, and why...

In order for atheism to be true, it has to admit to the existence of truth. As soon as an atheist makes a claim on truth, they just established the existence of God. In other words, it is logically impossible for atheism to be true. When you make a claim on truth, you are admitting to an unchanging reality that exists beyond our own. Truth is unchanging; however, everything in our experience is changing. The only basis for truth or for reason is the existence of God.

You know, I love me some elementary, circular logic and this example is truly circular and very elementary. But worse, it's also predicated on the notion that atheism is based on any claim of truth.

First of all Denny, I reject the god paradigm that your abysmally fucking stupid statement was based on. Your premise fails on it's face right then and there. Secondly, I would like to point out that this is a logical fallacy. Even if we were to give that atheism is predicated on some claim of truth, it would not stand to reason that said truth implies anything unchanging, beyond our reality. The only way that this would stand, is if we accept as an absolute, the existence of a supernatural that there simply isn't any evidence for. And finally, I am not an atheist because I believe there isn't a god or any sort of supernatural. I am an atheist, because I have not seen evidence to indicate the existence of either. I don't <i>believe</i> anyfuckingthing...I accept that there may be a supernatural, I just don't see evidence to suggest it. I even accept that there may be a godlike higher power - again, I just don't see evidence for it. Still further, I accept that there may be a interventionist, godlike higher power - just not the evidence. Finally, I even accept the possibility, no matter how slim, that <i>your</i> version of god is real. The thing is, without evidence to suggest that any of these are true, I reject the premises. And in the order I listed them, I go from finding these premises exceedingly unlikely, to being about as likely as the premise that The FSM is coming to save us and guide us into a beautiful reality of peace and piracy.

Mass and Energy that has been informed by information establishes the fact that a mind does exist which is the source of that information. In other words, God does exist and it is undeniable if you hold to truth.

A fucking moron says what? Seriously Denny, you need some help - please do me a favor and spend a little time on elementary logic... You are doing a hell of a job of showing just how fucking bereft our educational system is...

And for the record, logic and this silly notion of <i>evidence</i> based reason are not tools of Satan, created to drive man from god. Least ways, I give that notion less credence, than I give the notion that your version of god is real. We'll skip over the next couple of paragraphs, because once you ground yourself in elementary logic, you will see that it is just more of the same fucking bullshit.

The fact you were trying to be a Christian and now an atheist tells me that you never found the Love of God that can be yours through Jesus Christ. If you would have found it, you would never have left.

Fuck you. Seriously you fucking shit eating little bastard - Fuck You!

Now I am almost inclined to just leave it at that and be done with your sorry fucking ass, but I want to clarify something you asked to clarify, because one, I am honest and two, it will provide you with a short lesson in logic. In your second email you asked...

You stated that your love is now deeper and more meaningful.

If your love is chemically based, everyone's experience should be the same since you are hitting the love chemical; however, it would seem to me that admitting that love is now deeper would imply that you activated a new chemical that is forcing you to believe that it is now deeper....

Do you think that love can really go deeper for an atheist?

For the question you asked, no. I don't think that faith or lack thereof has anyfuckingthing to do with one's capacity for love. I do not think that becoming an atheist made it possible for me to suddenly love that much more deeply. I would suspect that Faith was running some interference before, but the truth is, after becoming an atheist, I also got help for my neurological issues. I also became more focused on metacognition and better understanding myself. It also makes a huge difference, that I have now met a women whom I love quite passionately and with a depth I previously assumed was simply not possible for me to feel.

People, especially men, are perfectly capable of not recognizing. ignoring and even suppressing emotions. Humans have that capacity to compartmentalize that I talked about in my comment that you are afraid to post to your blog. Because of that capacity, we are perfectly capable of never even realizing how we really feel about things, people and ideas. We can repress memories and desires, without ever realizing what we've done. It is mostly just coincidence, that I have broken through some seriously damaging compartmentalization since becoming an atheist.

But I really want to hit on this fucking ridiculous notion you have about neurochemistry and love. It is not some singular chemical that we can just take "hits" of, to feel something more or less. It is a complex interaction of neurotransmitters and the "hardware" of our brains. We're all different, because our brains are all different. Our specific, individual brain chemistry is easily as unique and far more complicated than our fingerprints. This is what prevents us from being singular, automaton like creatures - one indistinguishable from another.

This is all relatively simple to understand, even if the mechanisms are complicated. No gods needed and unlike godbased, lazy fucking assumptions, there is a great deal of evidence to back up every assertion I have made here.


Anonymous said...

*Whistles* *Claps* *Cheers*
Now I have to run to the gym with my not-the-love-of-my-life-cause-I-don't-know-love fiancée. Then we'll be back.

D. C. said...

Of course, there is the little matter that you're trying to refute a tautology at the axiomatic level.

DtfcC: "God is love"
DWB: "Love is chemicals"
DtfcC: "Love can't be chemicals since God is Love and God is not chemicals."
DWB: (Insert legendary example of non-Xtian love, including the whole self-sacrifice schtick)
DtfcC: That's not love because they weren't Christians
DWB: (The Book of Ruth)
DtfcC: That's not love because they weren't Christians
DWB: cites differential rates of child abuse among fundies and nonreligious
DtfcC: those aren't real Christians, so you've just proven that non-Christians hate their children

It's Mission Impossible, because DtfcC has defined "love" as "what Real Christians do." No way around that one. If they piss in your cornflakes, rape your children, raze your city, murder every living thing for 100 miles, and sow the land with salt -- that's either "love" or they weren't "Real Christians."

By definition.

Juniper Shoemaker said...

Your sidebar advisory clearly states that you reserve the right to post emails sent to you by blog readers. You have been kinder to Denny than I would've been.

I don't reject any god, I also don't accept the conception of gods - Denny and I are operating on separate paradigms.

I don't know where to start with Denny's foolishness. "If God is love"-- well, guy has to not only logically demonstrate that his definition of "God" is valid but also prove that some phenomenon called "God" exists in the first place.

Moreover, atheism can be defined as the absence of a belief in any deity. That's it. You have made your position clear in this regard. Maybe it's just me, but it irritates me a little when theists purposefully cleave to loaded definitions of atheism out of the delusion that it somehow makes their belief in something magical more legitimate. People, even if atheism were the most horrible thing in the world by anyone's standards, you would STILL have to prove that there's a significantly high probability of your god of choice existing to make your beliefs logically valid.

(And, no. I don't buy the argument that because "God" isn't provable or disprovable, that necessarily means that belief in any particular magical being is valid. I don't buy it because it makes no logical sense. I have noticed several scientists making this argument in the blogosphere lately. But one of my professors always warned me that many successful scientists-- not to mention members of the general public-- have never studied logic. It shows.)

Juniper Shoemaker said...

Denny, we are not talking about neat little bottles of chemicals in your child's chemistry set. Nor are we talking about stuff that got mixed up in a laboratory. Please take a moment to learn a little bit about the human brain and how all this thinking and feeling stuff works

WORD. Geez, but this is FRUSTRATING! It's so frustrating to keep running into magical thinkers who insist to you that love must be a phenomenon "deeper"* than one that can be described entirely in terms of matter and energy and yet who are apparently incapable of ADMITTING THAT THEY HAVE NEVER SERIOUSLY STUDIED NEUROSCIENCE AND THEREFORE HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE HOW THE BRAIN WORKS. Where's that humility that so many religious people-- especially proselytizers like Denny-- are always going on about? Can't you just admit that you don't know something?!

Dude. Listen carefully. The sentence "all emotions are chemical" does not necessarily imply that every emotion is easily differentiable as an analytical unit of measure. It does not necessarily imply that every emotion is comprised of a cartoonishly simple chemical compound or reaction. It does not necessarily imply that every emotion is comprised of a simple chemical compound or reaction that renders the experience of that emotion "the same" for everyone.

(Whatever that means. Was Denny talking about the profundity with which anyone experiences a given emotion? Was he trying to argue that if love were really an neuroelectrochemical phenomenon, then DuWayne wouldn't be able to love one woman more intensely than he loved another? Seriously? What happened to the physiological complexity of the brain? What happened to the contexts of experiences? What happened to individuality? What the fuck?)

"Love chemical". "Activated a new chemical". "In order for atheism to be true, it has to admit [emphasis mine] . . ." What contemptibly stupid phrases. They are so contemptibly stupid that they are getting in the way of my cheerfully appreciating this post. Were I in a more cheerful mood, I would note at length what you have-- that the universe is no less spectacularly, beautifully, preciously weird and wonderful without the prospect of supernatural shenanigans. Our experiences have been very different, DuWayne. But I guess I'm kind of angry over this nonsense, too.

*Define "deeper", anyway. Just because you are incapable of conceiving of a person who both thinks of love as a phenomenon with no supernatural components but profoundly experiences and values love nonetheless doesn't mean that such a person cannot exist.

Incidentally, it is bloody fucking arrogant to assume that your limits are the limits of the universe. This is what religion encourages individuals to do.

Jason Thibeault said...

I haven't studied logic directly, outside of internet pissing contests like this one. I really ought to. I can usually spot when something is illogical though, or at least prima facie false.

Juniper and DuWayne, I'm glad the two of you are on this shit. And it's kind of sad that he's likely retreated on having such a sound drubbing, with nary an argument having penetrated his skull.

He does argue as though something being chemically based, means you can bottle that one chemical and shoot it into your veins. As though you could find the Happy Chemical, or the Angry Chemical, or the Willing to Listen to the Other Side of the Argument for Once in your God Damn Life Chemical. (I'd pay good money for that last one.) And all of this is neglecting that there are actual drugs that actually do alter your moods. Ecstasy makes you love everyone and everything. LSD can give you a sense of oneness with the universe. Pot can make you cool and relaxed and stress-free. Alcohol can make you bold and boisterous and rowdy and aggressive. Cocaine can make you amped to the nines, hyper and invincible-feeling. All of these come with emotional states, all of them affected by specific chemicals that have been introduced to the system. They might be false, inferior ways of achieving these moods, but they are chemical-based ways of achieving them, so that kind of proves that the moods derive from chemicals to fucking well begin with.


I've already talked myself dry on this.

sbh said...

What a vile piece of crap this guy is. I'm already sufficiently pissed off today that I wasn't going to look at his site, but my curiosity got the better of me and, well, wow. Not only does Denny apparently live in an alternate reality, he is so blinded by hate he doesn't even seem to see just how hateful the bile he spews is.

I mean, if we're going to talk crazy how about this? If Christians really devote all their love to their imaginary deity, then it is true that a Christian is incapable of loving his child. Christians according to the alleged words of their alleged founder love the Lord their God with all their heart, soul, and mind; therefore a Christian is not capable of loving his children. If all of his heart, soul, and mind is devoted to his deity then there is none left over for his unfortunate kids.

Yeah it's vile, and it's crap, but it makes more sense than that rancid turd Denny shat.

Oh, by the way, I've only discovered your blog relatively recently (a couple of months ago) through comments you've left elsewhere, and I'm really enjoying it. If this comment is too offensive, or too incoherent, or if I've plain missed the point, please put it down to my being in a bad mood at the end of an irritating day.

Jason Thibeault said...

SBH, perhaps you didn't notice the tag this post is filed under: "Fucking Shit-Eating Bastards". You probably just made him laugh with your "crap" this and "crap" that. :)

Far as I'm concerned, "filling yourself with the love of Jesus" does actually preclude having any place in your heart for anyone else. If he comes back around, I'll make sure to make that argument. Thanks for that!

D. C. said...

I don't know where to start with Denny's foolishness. "If God is love"-- well, guy has to not only logically demonstrate that his definition of "God" is valid but also prove that some phenomenon called "God" exists in the first place.

No, he doesn't. He starts from a set of axiomatic assumptions and "God is love" is one of them. You don't have to prove axioms -- that's their very nature.

I'm going to suggest that this whole business gets to be a lot more phun if you've had some exposure to basic philosophy. Strange as it sounds, philosophy classes were some of the more hootful electives I took on my way to a 160-some hour bachelor's degree.

If we ask Janet nicely, I suspect that Dr. Free-Ride will suggest some basic reading on rhetoric and epistemology. Epistemology is apparently one of her favorite topics, so we may just make her day, too.

However, if the opportunity arises I truly do advise anyone who can to take an intro philosophy class. Rhetoric and Home (pronouced "hume") are not to be missed.

DuWayne Brayton said...

Jodi -

What - you guys preparing for the fucking invasion??? Because it won't help you - WE WILL BE VICTORIOUS!!!!

D.C. -

Yeah, that's about the whole of it, though to be fair, I do know a lot of Christians who aren't that fucking vile - even fundies...

Hmmm, I love you Juniper. So very much...I wish I had language to express the depth and breadth of my feelings, but then language is so wholly inadequate that it doesn't matter.

And I promise, next time I tear into fundie loons like this one, I will be much less pleasant about it...

Jason -

The links I posted on logic, are actually pretty damned good and concise primers.

sbh -

Motherfucker, the only thing that pisses me off, is that you live in Portland, while I am stuck back here in the mid-fucking-west. But I'll be back there - hopefully before too fucking long...(Though preferably afer I finish my transfer degree)

And I don't think your comment is the least vile or crappy...I don't tend to disagree even, though given his propensity for illogic, I doubt Denny actually sees that. I am not saying I doubt he loves his kids - but I doubt he loves his god the way he actually claims he does and also doubt he sees the dissonance to claiming he does and claiming he loves his god that way...

Anonymous said...

Duwayne: Yea, I was totally preparing for your invasion but walking fast on a treadmill for half an hour and then doing some work on my triceps. I'll be able to out fast-walk you guys any day :P

I was going to actually reply to this but Juniper said everything I wanted to say and more. If she's also going to be invading Canada I would gladly make her Prime Minister AND Queen.

Anonymous said...

A person can compare DuWaynes post with my post at

You will notice that I don't curse people or call them names. I believe in a respectful debate. Since Christians participate in the nature of God, we love even our enemies.

DuWayne isn't really an enemy though, he is just reacting against Christianity in anger. I believe he may have gotten hurt in the past and blames God for it.

I would love to be friends with even a person like DuWayne.


D. C. said...

You will notice that I don't curse people or call them names.

Congratulations. I'm sure that this proves your superiority.

I believe in a respectful debate.

Apparently only as long as you get to define "respectful."

Some of us are more concerned with the substance of respect than with the superficial form.

Since Christians participate in the nature of God, we love even our enemies.

Ah, yes: the "no true Scottsman" arises. Perhaps we can call the ghosts of Languedoc for advice. More recently (if you don't speak medieval French) the people of Magdeburg could witness to the nature of Christian love. Closer to home, my mistress' family includes some of the survivors of the Nez Perce, who had firsthand experience of it.

But those were not true Scottsmen, eh?

DuWayne isn't really an enemy though, he is just reacting against Christianity in anger.

So much for "respect." At least as the rest of us understand the term, but I'm sure you've a different definition. Special pleading is such a wonderful tool.

I believe he may have gotten hurt in the past and blames God for it.

About as much as most people blame invisible pink unicorns.

I would love to be friends with even a person like DuWayne.

Now it's threats, eh?

DuWayne Brayton said...

No Denny, I am reacting to hateful fucking bullshit - not your faith. That you pretty your hateful fucking bullshit up, with flowery words, makes them no less hateful.

What is it the bible says about pretty words and beautiful people? Well, lets see what 2 Cor. 11:12-15 has to say...

Spare me your hateful fucking bile. You refute nothing and refuse to address anything that anyone has to say. You engage in repeated logical fallacies and ignore the evidence that would imply you are wrong.

You are, I suspect, someone who earnestly Believes he is right and that you really do believe you are walking in love. And that is sad to me, because you aren't. You are spewing nothing but hatred and bile, dressed up as though for a formal ball. The thing is, Denny, you can put the shit into the most beautiful box ever constructed - a box made of gold and rare woods, encrusted with jewels and finished like a mirror. That will still not make the shit, any less shit.

You are filled with hatred and deceit - the horror being, that you deceive yourself before everyone else.

I don't hate you Denny. I feel sorry for you. I am angry with you, for casting aspersions and fostering lies. I hate the lies you tell. But I don't hate you - indeed, I love you, because you are under everything else, human - flawed as the rest of us and unfortunately, painfully deluded. I know there is hope for you - you don't have to wallow in ignorance and confusion. Twisting the words of others and remaining willfully ignorant of the world. You can grow up, if only you are willing to actually educate yourself.

I have a challenge for you Denny...

I have spent years of my life studying and learning the things that you believe.

I would challenge you to look at the evidence that your Genesis creation myth is not true - I am not asking you to give up anything - just look at the evidence that supports evolution. And not from some twisted perception that your fellow Christians claim is evolution. Actually look at a few simple pieces of evidence supporting evolution.

And read those links I posted in the article this is attached to. Learn something about neurolobiology (it is a site intended for kids, so it is fairly easy going - I didn't post kids stuff to be insulting either - it is something we use in my psychology class), logic and logical fallacies.

Email me for some basic evidence for evolution - I need to think about what would be most appropriate. Then email me when you have actually looked at these thing and lets talk again.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone else think it's just weird how he responds the exact same way to things?

A person can compare DuWaynes post with my post at

You will notice that I don't curse people or call them names. I believe in a respectful debate. Since Christians participate in the nature of God, we love even our enemies.

DuWayne isn't really an enemy though, he is just reacting against Christianity in anger. I believe he may have gotten hurt in the past and blames God for it.

I would love to be friends with even a person like DuWayne.


That sounds exactly like what he said over at Jason's blog. It's a tad creepy, like he is a computer program or something that only responds with pre-programed responses...

D. C. said...

That sounds exactly like what he said over at Jason's blog. It's a tad creepy, like he is a computer program or something that only responds with pre-programed responses...

Remember last fall? Talking points?

If you can't trust people to think for themselves, you load them up with a script that has a canned response for anything. Sort of like a walking help desk -- the answers you get aren't really useful, but as long as they stick to the script they always have an answer.

Jason Thibeault said...

In fairness, Jodi wasn't watching the election with the same ferocity I was. I would play videos and such with her in the room, but often her attention was elsewhere. The fact that talking points can substitute for actual thinking is well taken, though. Once you have a script, you stick to it, no matter how far the conversation deviates. It is your lifeline, it is in fact your life blood. Deviating from the script is death for your argument, and death for your chances of winning hearts and minds.

Toaster Sunshine said...

And this is not something that Christians are immune to - such neuropathology can happen to anyone with a fucking brain.

Check your assumptions here, DuWayne. One of the defining characteristics of life is that it is able to respond to changes in its environment. Thus far your new friend has failed to adequately demonstrate this.

Juniper Shoemaker said...

Hmmm. I will return to this comment thread when I return home.

Comrade PhysioProf said...

Looks like Denny has rejected English grammar. AHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!

cuz I can? said...

your anger is likely the result of having your 'logical' construct intellectually challenged... and you being confronted by your inability to defend the logically indefensible.

atheism is logically self refuting

This does not mean you do not love your children; it does mean that you are either intellectually dishonest or willfully irrational.

Jason Thibeault said...

"cuz i can?" is a newbie troll whose blog has already won Zdenny's praise for saying atheism is "self-refuting" and "love isn't an emotion". I wonder if he's a sock-puppet, or perhaps one of Zdenny's children.

sbh said...

Newbie Troll:

Generally speaking, making bold counterfactual assertions won't win you any points for profundity; they just make you look like an ass. You may well have your own private definitions of "love" and "atheism" that make the one not an emotion and the other "logically self refuting"--or maybe it's "logic" that you've redefined. It doesn't matter. I don't care, and if I don't, it's unlikely anybody else will either. Move on.