Stephen Moore
13p4 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0
12 years ago @ All Facebook - NOT SPAM: Dad Posts Mu... · 0 replies · +2 points
The 'misery', as you call it, that Acar was feeling was simple contempt and hatred. Killing his daughter was revenge (even punishment) for D’Argent obtaining an Apprehended Violence Order (ie, restraining order) against him because of assault and threats of violence. Posting these updates on Facebook was simply a means of demonstrating his power over D’Argent; a continuation of his acts of abuse upon his former partner.
14 years ago @ Godless Girl - New Ways to Stalk Me · 0 replies · +1 points
I don't use use Twitter for anything. Haven't caught that particular bug yet.
14 years ago @ Sean the Blogonaut - …its only Natural · 1 reply · +1 points
The natural-nonnatural dichotomy is a false dichotomy. And it is a (false) dichotomy that is fundamentally misanthropic. Those that support 'natural' products may well try to deny that it is misanthropic - that they revere the ancient wisdom from a time when humans were more attuned to Nature - but I maintain that what they are revering is Nature, not humans.
The core of the belief is that human beings are outsdie of Nature and impinge on Nature: human bad, Nature good. Sure, some human ingenuity is good, just not too much.
The ingenuity that is at the appropriate level belongs to those humans beings once known as Noble Savages. Such a phrase is not in fashion because it seems rather racist (probably becasue it is racist). But whether they like it or not, that's what they're promoting: veneration of the Noble Savage.
14 years ago @ AnAtheist.Net - Three Bad Reasons for ... · 0 replies · +2 points
When I say there is no evidence to support a belief in God, I'm genmerally using "no evidence" as a shorter version of "no compelling evidence". As Tallis notes, "[supposed] Miracles, scriptures, the testimony of priests and prophets etc" may well be counted as contestable evidence for God, but to my mind it is no evidence at all, let alone compelling evidence. But I take his point that it is contested evidence, and think he does have a point in that we really ought to be specific and say "no compelling evidence". It is more precise, and therfore accurate, and it also has the advantage of not allowing Theists to dismiss arguments for atheism as naysaying nonsense; that atheists aren't willing to look at the evidence. We have, and we do, but find it uncompelling.
Also, having a basic understanding of the nature of the universe as explained through the scientific method makes God redundant. I wouldn't say that forms the basis of my atheism, but it certainly does heavliy inform it.