User:K61824

Bad Box, damn it! user This user is a user. This user's Political Compass coordinates are (-6.62,-5.08). This user's Moral Politics results are -5.5,2.5. This user is an agnostic; they don't know if there's a God. God? This user doesn't know WTF people meant by "God". ♩♪♫♬ This user prefers music in languages that he does not understand. ???!!! This user can be classified as an idiot. CCCP This user thinks that CCCP is a codec pack to watch movies This user does not know Kool-AidTM is offered at Conservapedia. GULP This user makes his own drinks. thank you very much. =3.0 This user wants to teach the real controversy. (1 Kings 7:23) moderate This user is stuck in the middle. E.G. This user likes to have examples to copy This user believes all religions are a form of psychosocial control and are therefore inherently bad for you. This user is concerned about the environment. "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Freedom of speech can be dangerous, but must be upheld by every one of us.

“”Belief marks the line at which our thinking stops, or perhaps better, the place where we confine our thinking to a carefully delineated region.

—James P. Carse, The Religious Case Against Belief

Stuff I am working on

• Project: fix the archived talk pages
• Castration
• God's lack of ability to deceit
• Transcendental argument for the existence of God
• Proof That God Exists: Analysis
• ICR tenets
• fun: legal classrom prayer

Thought experiment 1

Let's say some shit accident happens which may or may not involve death and/or personal injury. Deeply religious people will have the following responses ready at their disposal for most outcomes:

• If nobody is injured: "Thank <Insert name of deity> that everyone is fine."
• If someone died: "<Insert name of victim> is in <Insert name of Good Place for Afterlife> now." or "<Insert name of deity> likes <Insert name of victim> so much, now <Insert pronoun for the aforementioned deity> is summoning <Insert pronoun of victim> to <Insert name of Good Place for Afterlife> through this tragedy."
• If someone is heavily/permanently injured/disabled: "By the <Insert name/section of scripture with similarities>, our faith is being tested; we will have unbreakable faith no matter what happens; it's in <Insert name of deity>'s plan to make <Insert pronoun of victim> stronger than ever."

Thought experiment 2

Argument: We should be happy about the death of any individual who is with a religion which asserts a good place for the afterlife (Heaven in the derivation, other religion is a matter of substitution of names) Derivation:

1. Assumption: The religion that the victim was with asserts that going to heaven after death is a good thing
2. Assumption: The religion that the victim was with asserts that if one belongs to their religion, he/she goes to heaven after death
3. Observation: the person died (Assumption: we don't have sufficient information on causes of death, so we assume it is within the rules).
4. Conclusion from 2 and 3: The religion that the victim was with asserts that said person goes to heaven.
5. Conclusion from 1 and 4: Death of said person is implicitly a good thing (from his/her own perspective)
6. Inference: We should congratulate said person's family member(s) for [the belief that] said person is in heaven

What we observe people do is somehow different:

1. Observation: Somehow being happy about the death of an individual is treated as if it is a bad thing, which contradicts the previous derivation.
2. Suggested explanation: It is suggested that the mortals who still lives (family members) 'misses' those who are in heaven.
3. Inference from 2: we should suggest them to wait for their turn, also be aware of any hidden rules regarding front-running afterlifes.
4. Observation: 3 is still kind of disrespectful to the family members.

So the Dilemma is as follows:

• If we aren't happy when someone religious died, then it is disrespectful to their beliefs/religion (We are implicitly accusing that their religion is incoherent) or the individual themselves (that we implicitly accuse them breaking certain rules and not going to heaven)
• If we are happy about their death, then it is disrespectful to their family members

Some may say such things are valid, others say it is utterly ridiculous. Some even implying the general case is valid but not the specific cases.

I am confused.

Random Quote from CP?

Gentlemen! I will widen your precious bevel, enabling me to destroy Richard Dawkins on the internet. You should all be masturbating over Operation blimp, which will likely give Conservapedia a top result on a certain search engine starting with G. Anonymous User I have found the cp:atheists paradise! Behold: [1]. Perhaps if atheists drank more Slim Fast and less beer the could be as fit and attractive as Christians! And maybe they would not lack machismo! your replies to my comment are completely misplaced. As per atheism and foolishness, you censor that I am thinking of challenging PZ Myers to a debate. If I were to hold the debate on this island, do you think he might accept? Or do you suppose the extra weight of all the atheists coming to support their heavyweight champion would cause the island to sink into the ocean? In fact, by the latter part of next week, it is likely Liberals will have lost all vestiges of credibility. :) :) :) Rest assured, Operation Grassroots is gathering steam!!! Beware the Ides of March! Sincerely, A user of the Conservative account Footnotes